The rationale for these research questions is illustrated further in the following literature review by documented elementary PST misconceptions of the meaning of CT, as well as elementary PSTs\u2019 lack of self-efficacy for teaching science and associated STEM fields. The motivation for redesigning science, mathematics, and instructional technology courses was to provide opportunities for PSTs to practice using disciplinary-specific CT skills, teach a mathematics, science, or STEM lesson that integrates CT skills, and reflect upon how these opportunities impacted their perceptions of TPACK and self-efficacy for these disciplines over the course of a semester.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
PSTs often uptake and implement practices in which they have personal experience; therefore, their experiences using technology and CT practices in education courses critically impacts their use as they transition to their own classrooms (Rodriguez et al., 2019; Yuan et al., 2019). The literature review also illustrates that developing PST pedagogical content knowledge for disciplinary-specific CT is a relatively emergent field of research and the need exists to contribute to this literature base.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Literature Review<\/h2>\n\n\n\nWhat Is Computational Thinking?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
CT is characterized by problem solving, modeling, data mining, networking, algorithmic reasoning, programming, designing solutions, communicating thoughts in a creative, organized way, and debugging (CSTA, 2016; Sneider et al., 2014). The K-12 CS Framework (CSTA, 2016) has outlined clear relationships between CS, science, engineering, and mathematical practices embedded within the Next Generation Science Standards<\/em> (NGSS; NRC, 2012) and Common Core State Math Standards<\/em> (CCSMS; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). Weintrop et al. (2016) developed a CT in mathematics and science practices taxonomy that includes four major categories, including Data Practices, Modeling and Simulation Practices, Computational Problem-Solving Practices, and Systems Thinking Practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While CS concepts and skills are outlined clearly in current standards, they are new to students, teachers, and other stakeholders who often incorrectly label basic computer literacy activities such as creating documents and searching the internet as CT skills (CSTA, 2016, International Society for Technology in Education, 2018). Sands et al. (2018) surveyed teachers and found that many lacked an understanding of the core components of CT and lacked awareness of how these skills can be implemented in classrooms. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Elementary teachers often lack knowledge and self-confidence in STEM fields as well as CS and CT (Kaya et al., 2018; Novak & Wisdom, 2018; van Aalderen-Smeets & Walma van der Molen, 2015). Surveys of PSTs indicate that they have misconceptions regarding the meaning of CT and often equate CT as using technology rather than as a problem-solving process (Cabrera, 2019; Yadav et al., 2011). Sands et al. (2018) claimed the need to prepare PSTs in CT practices regardless of their respective academic discipline. Yadav et al. (2017) claimed that teacher educators can help PSTs develop CT skills by redesigning educational technology courses to introduce the core ideas of CT and use methods courses to help develop PSTs\u2019 understanding of CT within the context of the discipline. Mouza et al. (2017) noted that PST graduates should be prepared to infuse CT skills into the curriculum from primary grades through secondary education given the importance of CT in the 21st century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mason and Rich (2019) conducted a literature review of current elementary, K-6, preservice, and in-service teacher research from 2008-2018 focused on attitudes, self-efficacy, or knowledge to teach computing, coding, or CT. They identified and analyzed 21 studies,12 with PSTs using elements of effective PST preparation based on recommendations from Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010). Recommendations for teacher preparation programs are to provide opportunities for candidates to observe, practice and reflect as a means to increase content, technological, and pedagogical knowledge and improve attitudes, self-efficacy, and beliefs. Findings included that this type of teacher training was emergent with the majority of these studies published from 2017-2018. The main focus has been to improve content knowledge and attitudes toward CS, with limited emphasis on developing pedagogical knowledge. Implications for teacher educators are that PST training should include modeling and opportunities to practice, teach, and reflect upon CS activities in authentic contexts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Several recent studies since the Mason and Rich (2019) literature review have looked at ways to influence elementary PST confidence and use of CS and CT and maker-centered learning. Kaya et al. (2019) described how a 3-week CT intervention focused on code.org (https:\/\/code.org\/<\/a>) curriculum, robotics, and gaming in an elementary PST course positively impacted self-efficacy, interest, and confidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n McGinnis et al. (2020) described a three-session CT module within a science methods course, including an introduction to CT and the NGSS, challenges through robotics, and CT integration through citizen science. The semester culminated with teaching a lesson integrating CT as part of PST internship placements. They found that although PSTs were receptive to using CT and found it beneficial to students, future research should support PSTs in comparing and contrasting educational technology, scientific inquiry, and CT. Major implications of their study included how PSTs could benefit from discussing how to integrate CT without technology and providing examples of lessons that integrate CT at the elementary level. Yuan et al. (2019) explored how elementary PSTs designed lesson plans integrating robotics after participation in a robotics module in an education course. Implications for teacher educators included providing PSTs opportunities for productive struggle within a robotics learning environment and content-specific training and modeling to help PSTs determine how to integrate robotics within and across disciplines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Based upon the need to develop PSTs\u2019 pedagogical knowledge within the context of disciplinary CT, often with the use of technological tools, the TPACK Framework and Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) models served as guiding technological frameworks for this project. Both the TPACK framework and the SAMR model were introduced to PSTs early within the semester of the interventions and referred to throughout the semester.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As described by Mishra and Koehler (2006) the TPACK framework explores how technology is integrated with teaching through the overlapping constructs of technology, content, and pedagogy. The TPACK framework builds on the work of Shulman (1986) and is based upon the need for teachers to build subject-specific pedagogical content knowledge. The proper use of TPACK emphasizes the context-specific nature of incorporating digital technology with expert knowledge of best practices within specific disciplines (Bull et al., 2019; Koehler et al., 2013).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The SAMR model is a framework used to assess and evaluate digital technology use in the classroom (Puentedura, 2010). The model includes four levels divided into two sections as a means to promote teacher reflection and technology integration. First, the Enhancement section consists of the Substitution (technology acts as a tool substitute) and Augmentation (adds a functional change) levels. Next, the Transformation section consists of the Modification (task redesign) and Redefinition (creation of new tasks) levels. The challenge is for teachers to develop tasks within the Transformation section that lead to different learning from students, which can include greater student engagement and, ultimately, increased student achievement and learning. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The population included two cohorts of elementary education PSTs from fall 2018 (n<\/em> = 9) and fall 2019 (n<\/em> = 12). All students were first semester juniors in a 4-year elementary education licensure program. Each cohort was enrolled in four courses with the primary investigator including science methods (3 credit hours), mathematics methods (3 credit hours), instructional technology (3 credit hours), and a 60-hour practicum placement that allowed an opportunity for meaningful STEM and CT integration as outlined in Figure 1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Figure 1<\/strong> Map of CT Curricular Interventions Fall 2018\/2019 Cohorts<\/p>\n\n\n\n PSTs were encouraged to develop a maker-mindset throughout the semester as they developed CT practices and worked through successes and failures, particularly with programming and 3D printing (Martin, 2015). As they actively designed and built digital or physical objects through trial and error and perseverance, they were asked to focus on developing a growth mindset (Dweck, 2008).<\/p>\n\n\n\n During the science methods course, PSTs developed investigations and modules that focused on three-dimensional instruction and assessment focused on real-world phenomena incorporating disciplinary core ideas, science and engineering practices, and crosscutting concepts. One of their first tasks was an engineering design challenge of creating and launching a bottle rocket as a team and collecting and analyzing data using a spreadsheet (amount of water added, air pressure added in PSI, time in air, and altitude of flight with an altimeter). This particular task provided an introduction to specific CT practices in the form of collecting, manipulating, analyzing and visualizing data and the use of systems thinking practices by understanding the relationships within a system (bottle rocket, launcher, and materials) and communicating information about the system (Weintrop et al., 2016). One module in the mathematics methods course was an introduction to growth and fixed mindset (Dweck, 2006), which PSTs were encouraged to apply throughout the entire semester as well as emphasize in their classroom practicum placements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The instructional technology course served as a platform to prepare the PSTs to develop and apply disciplinary-specific CT activities and lessons that addressed both three-dimensional science instruction and mathematical practices. They were introduced to the TPACK Framework and SAMR Model. The fall 2019 cohort was asked to apply an understanding of these models as part of the rationale for a culminating lesson that they team-taught to elementary students.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The primary investigator reached out to a local grades 5-8 middle school in which a number of the PSTs would be placed for their practicum in fifth-grade science or mathematics. This particular school also had an active makerspace in its library, and arrangements were made to have the fifth-grade students introduce the makerspace tools to the PSTs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We took one 3-hour class and used it for a field trip to the middle school, and three different fifth-grade classes (1-hour each) taught about the tools in stations. Each PST spent 10-15 minutes with a small group of expert fifth graders, in which they were taught some basics about the tool and wrote reflective notes. The stations included 3-D pens, Little Bits, Snap Circuits, MakeyMakey, Osmo, Green Screen, Stop Motion\/Lego Wall, Bloxels, Wonder Workshop\u2019s Dash, Make Do Construction, and Ozobots. A goal of this collaborative effort was to ask the PSTs to plan lessons that could be used within their practicum placements that integrated at least one of the makerspace tools along with incorporating disciplinary CT within science and mathematics. These lessons, in turn, could serve as models for in-service teachers as ways in which they could teach content and incorporate CT and makerspace tools within their classrooms. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The field trip to the makerspace was followed closely with an assigned reading from the March 2018 issue of the National Science Teacher Association\u2019s Science and Children<\/em> that had a central focus on the maker movement. Each PST read, \u201cMaking Sense of Makerspaces\u201d (Froschauer, 2018) and was assigned one of four articles: \u201cSchool Maker Faires\u201d (Harlow & Hansen, 2018), \u201c3D Print Stop Printing\u201d (Wright et al., 2018), \u201cMars Mission Specialist\u201d (Burton et al., 2018), or \u201cPlastic Pollution to Solution\u201d(Kitagawa et al., 2018). PSTs who read the same article contributed main ideas and reflections to a shared online concept map that was used to describe the article to the rest of the class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Students completed an hour of code using a drag-and-drop coding format with Code.org studio\u2019s Classic Maze featuring Angry Birds, https:\/\/studio.code.org\/hoc\/1<\/a>. This hour of code has 20 modules, or scenarios, with video segments that explain different CS and CT concepts (code, debugging, algorithm, repeat loops, repeat until, and if-else statements). In addition, they were asked to complete a brief internet search for ways teachers use coding effectively with elementary students.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After completing the basic hour of code they read \u201cExploring the Science Framework and the <\/em>NGSS: Computational Thinking in Elementary School Classrooms\u201d (Sneider et al., 2014). They explored a PHET simulation (https:\/\/phet.colorado.edu\/<\/a>) and one of the 11 Scratch Tutorials found at https:\/\/scratch.mit.edu\/tips<\/a>. The PSTs also read portions of \u201cDefining Computational Thinking for Mathematics and Science Classrooms\u201d(Weintrop et al., 2016), focused on describing the four CT practices in the article. We discussed as a class that, even though the taxonomy focuses on the use of computational tools, CT also addresses unplugged activities or modeling and thinking practices that do not include computers or technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The inquiry required the PSTs to work with two different tools, the majority of which were introduced briefly in stations with the local middle school. The ultimate goal was to take the PSTs beyond basic use of each tool for standalone programming toward integration of the tool with engineering design and the core ideas of mathematics or life, physical, or earth and space science at the K-5 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n PSTs either worked individually or with a small group to select one lesson plan using the tool with guidance from the primary investigator. They were asked to carry out the lesson plan and complete the steps as K-5 students would by documenting their work using written reflection, pictures, screenshots of programming, and annotated sketches. Finally, they reflected on how the tool could be used in the elementary classroom. See Appendix A<\/a> for sample student artifacts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The robotics inquiries used kits that featured a drag-and-drop programming interface allowing a focus on computational concepts instead of the syntax of a specific programming language (Ching et al., 2018; Nash, 2017). These kits made the process of learning abstract CT concepts more tangible, as PTSs were able to interact with, observe, and troubleshoot the robot in action. The online curriculum provided with Wonder Workshop\u2019s Dash & Dot (https:\/\/www.makewonder.com\/classroom\/curriculum-2\/<\/a>), Sphero (https:\/\/edu.sphero.com\/<\/a>), Lego Education WeDo 2.0 (https:\/\/education.lego.com\/en-us\/lessons<\/a>), and Ozobot Evo (https:\/\/ozobot.com\/educate\/lessons<\/a>) provided real-world applications to develop CT as part of STEM concepts including science and engineering practices based real-world applications. These inquiries incorporated both physical building such as using the Lego bricks or creating mazes and digital building through programming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our classroom included three DaVinci Jr. 1.0 Wireless 3D printers from XYZ printing, which are low-cost machines that are easy to set up, troubleshoot, and operate. Three-dimensional printing comes with specialized vocabulary and skills, so the PSTs needed to learn the basics, including the file type supported by the printer (STL), 3D printer hardware basics (X<\/em>, Y<\/em>, and Z<\/em> axes, extruder, print bed, how to load and unload filament, etc.) and when they should choose to add supports or a raft to their print. To begin their exposure to 3D printing, each student was asked to locate one object from Thingiverse (https:\/\/www.thingiverse.com\/<\/a>) to print.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The PSTs used a free online program called Tinkercad (https:\/\/www.tinkercad.com\/<\/a>) that allows the user to create designs for objects that can be downloaded as STL files and printed on a 3D printer (Autodesk Inc., 2019). They used Tinkercad as part of the City X project, which uses the design process for solving problems with 3D printing from Stanford d.school (https:\/\/dschool.stanford.edu\/<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n City X (http:\/\/www.cityxproject.com\/<\/a>) was developed for children 8-12 years old and challenges students to solve the problems of humans who have traveled to live on an alien planet. The PSTs worked in teams to solve social problems related to environment, food, safety, communication, health, energy, education and transportation as presented by citizens of City X. They used the design process to empathize, define, ideate, prototype, test, and share while using an inventor\u2019s workbook, sketching and annotating, designing with playdough, and calculating dimensions prior to designing their object using Tinkercad. Each PST was asked to design a part of the solution for their selected citizen to ensure that they each had a part in creating a prototype. The PSTs also spent time troubleshooting and reprinting their objects as needed to find the best fit for their collective design. See Appendix B<\/a> for an example project from each cohort.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Participating in the City X project and designing their prototype in Tinkercad allowed the PSTs to experience directly and develop CT practices, including decomposing a problem presented by a citizen of City X into manageable parts, using abstraction by reducing unnecessary details, and using algorithmic thinking by developing a written plan and design with playdough that provided a step-by-step guide for creating the model using Tinkercad. In addition, the use of Tinkercad to create the models allowed for investigating a complex system as a whole and understanding the relationships within a system (Weintrop et al., 2016). Each PST designed several iterations of a prototype through troubleshooting a portion of the solution for each selected citizen of City X.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Each PST was required to participate in two STEM nights held at local schools and were responsible for leading at least two stations as part of a team as seen in Figure 2. The in-service teachers at each school also hosted several of their own stations and invited community members to host stations as well. With the number of stations available for children to choose from, the time allotted to visit each station ranged between 5 to 15 minutes. The events offered at each STEM night progressed as PST knowledge of the tools grew throughout the semester.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Figure 2<\/strong> STEM Night Stations<\/p>\n\n\n\n The final activity for each cohort was to plan and team teach a lesson that addressed disciplinary CT in mathematics or science for grades 3-5 students in their practicum placements in early December. This activity provided an important extension beyond what was possible in the STEM nights, which only touched the surface of using CT for subject-specific instruction. Each team was able to teach the lesson to at least two groups of students.<\/p>\n\n\n\n PSTs used lessons adapted from those found online to incorporate literacy in the form of asking students to read informational texts and write about what they had learned. The fall 2018 lesson plan template and reflection template came from the UTeach Maker Lesson Planning Guide and summary (https:\/\/maker.uteach.utexas.edu\/uteach-maker-lesson-bank<\/a>). The fall 2019 lesson plan template mirrored the format the PSTs used for the rest of their courses, which included references to TPACK, SAMR, and mathematics and science CT practices as research and rationale to support the lesson (Weintrop et al., 2016). See Appendix C<\/a> for example lesson plans and reflections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In fall 2019 we scheduled a 1-day field trip to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Manufacturing Demonstration Facility (MDF) which is the \u201cnation\u2019s only large-scale open-access facility for rapidly demonstrating early-stage R&D manufacturing technologies and optimizing critical processes\u201d (ORNL, n.d.). The tour enabled the PSTs to see real-world applications and the problem-solving capabilities of engineers using robotics and additive manufacturing situated within their local community. We also had guided tours of the Building Technologies Research and Integration Center and the National Center for Computational Sciences to learn about supercomputers including Titan, Gaia, and Tiny Titan. We concluded our day with a Women in Computing roundtable, in which the PSTs were able to speak with three different women about their experiences working at ORNL. Top take-aways from this roundtable were that more women are needed in their fields and there are ways that teachers can begin working with students to develop CT skills, particularly data analysis skills with spreadsheets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Seven out of the nine fall 2018 cohort attended the Big Orange STEM Saturday conference. The students had a choice of attending two different sessions and a keynote speaker with lunch. The keynote speaker described the use of makerspaces in libraries, and sessions attended by the PSTs included ways to use 3D printers in the classroom, hands-on math focused on designing models and questioning strategies, and using phenomena in NGSS designed lessons and units. These sessions added to the PST awareness of ways tools and strategies emphasized in our methods classes are being used in the classroom. <\/p>\n\n\n\n All 12 PSTs of the fall 2019 cohort and two members of the fall 2018 cohort attended and presented a session at the joint conference of the Tennessee Mathematics and Science Teachers Associations in late November 2019. They received funding from the university to pay for their mileage, lodging, and conference registration fees. They shared lesson plans and activities they were planning to use in their practicum placements that showcased the use of robotics and 3D printers or pens within mathematics and science classes. They set up the equipment and shared hard copies of their lessons with in-service teachers as attendees rotated through the stations in the room.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This study was designed using a mixed methodology approach of collecting qualitative and quantitative data, because both types of data had equal value for understanding the research questions (as recommended by Buchholtz, 2019; Creswell & Clark, 2017). A convergent parallel design was used to collect both types of data concurrently (Creswell & Clark, 2017). Quantitative data were collected using the TPACK assessment (Schmidt et al., 2009), the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI) assessment (Riggs & Enochs, 1990), and a CT Self-Efficacy assessment compiled from several different sources (Rich et al., 2017; Yadav et al., 2011). Pre and post quantitative data were analyzed using paired sample t<\/em>-tests with the use of a Bonferroni correction to determine the statistical significance of changes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Narrative analysis was used to discover emergent themes within the qualitative data collected pre- and postparticipation (as advised in Patton, 1990). Participant responses to three open-ended prompts included on the CT Self-Efficacy assessment were analyzed to search for similarities and differences between participant ideas to identify the emergent themes. Select PST reflections for major assignments and the rationale for lesson plans also serve as examples of qualitative data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Time was provided in class for participants to complete assessments at the beginning of the semester and again at the end of the semester to determine the impact of course interventions upon participant beliefs. The PSTs signed informed consent forms, which stated that they would be expected to complete the pre- and postsurveys and required coursework and that they had the right to decide if the data from their individual surveys and completed coursework could be used for research purposes. All members of each participating cohort agreed to participate in the study. No incentives or compensation were associated with this project for participation. The PSTs did not receive grades for completing the surveys; however, their inquiries, lesson plans, and presentations were graded assignments. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The TPACK assessment included 46 Likert-scale items divided into categories taken from the Survey of Preservice Teachers\u2019 Knowledge of Teaching and Technology (Schmidt et al., 2009). As recommended by Schmidt et al., each item response was scored with a value of 1 for strongly disagree<\/em> to 5 for strongly agree<\/em>. The participants\u2019 responses were averaged over all 46 questions. Additionally, the participants\u2019 responses were averaged over each construct. For example, the six questions addressing technology knowledge (TK) were averaged to produce one score.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The STEBI was used to measure changes in PSTs\u2019 perceived efficacy in teaching science (Riggs & Enochs, 1990). The STEBI contains 13 positively written item statements and 10 negatively written item statements divided among two scales. The response alternatives for each item are in a Likert-style format, including strongly agree, agree, uncertain, disagree<\/em>, and strongly disagree<\/em>. The two scales include the Personal Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Scale (PE – self-efficacy dimension) and Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy Scale (OE -outcome expectancy dimension).<\/p>\n\n\n\nCT and Elementary Preservice Teachers<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
TPACK Framework and SAMR Model<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Cohort Design<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/v21i2science3Fig1-1024x872.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nCT Interventions\/Curricular Modules<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Collaboration With Local School<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Hour of Code and Reading<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Robotics and Makerspace Inquiries<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
3D Printing and City X<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
STEM Nights<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/v21i2science3Fig2-1024x861.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nLesson Plans During Practicum Placements <\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Connection to Industry<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Big Orange STEM Saturday Conference Attendance<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Tennessee Mathematics and Science Teachers Association Presentation<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Methods<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
TPACK Survey<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
STEBI<\/h3>\n\n\n\n