Secondary Computer Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Needs


  • Olgun Sadik Indiana University
  • Anne Ottenbreit-Leftwich Indiana University
  • Thomas Brush Indiana University


computer science education, pedagogical needs, teaching CS, teacher education, teacher needs


The purpose of this study is to identify secondary computer science (CS) teachers’ pedagogical needs in the United States. Participants were selected from secondary teachers who were teaching CS courses or content in a school setting (public, private, or charter) or an after-school program during the time of data collection. This is a qualitative study using CS teachers’ discussions in Computer Science Teachers Association’s (CSTA) email listserv, responses to open-ended questions in a questionnaire, and discussions in follow-up interviews. Content analysis, thematic analysis and constant comparative method of qualitative data analysis were used to analyze the data. The most common pedagogical need expressed was learning student-centered strategies for teaching CS and guiding students’ understanding with the use of scaffolding and team-management strategies in CS classes. Furthermore, addressing students’ beliefs in CS and their preconceptions in math and reading were important factors influencing teaching CS effectively in secondary schools.


Download data is not yet available.


Ally, M., Darroch, F., & Toleman, M. (2005). A framework for understanding the factors influencing pair programming success. Paper presented at the International Conference on Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering, New York, NY. DOI:

Armoni, M., Meerbaum-Salant, O., & Ben-Ari, M. (2015). From scratch to “real” programming. Transactions on Computing Education, 14(4), 25. DOI:

Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Winters, F. I., Moos, D. C., & Greene, J. A. (2005). Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 33, 381-412. DOI:

Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: what is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? Inroads, 2(1), 48-54. DOI:

Belland, B. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 505-518): Springer. DOI:

Bergin, S., & Reilly, R. (2005). Programming: Factors that influence success. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(1), 411-415. DOI:

Bers, M. U., Ponte, I., Juelich, C., Viera, A., & Schenker, J. (2002). Teachers as designers: Integrating robotics in early childhood education. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2002(1), 123-145.

Billig, S. (2000). Research on K-12 school-based service-learning: The evidence builds. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(9), 658-664.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. DOI:

Brush, T. A., & Saye, J. W. (2002). A summary of research exploring hard and soft scaffolding for teachers and students using a multimedia supported learning environment. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1(2), 1-12.

Caspersen, M. E., & Bennedsen, J. (2007). Instructional design of a programming course: A learning theoretic approach. Paper presented at the the 3rd International Workshop on Computing Education Research, Atlanta, Georgia. DOI: (2019). State Tracking 9 Policies. Retrieved from Advocacy Coalitian. (2019). 2019 State of Computer Science Education. Retrieved from

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research: Sage Publications.

Davenport, D. (2000). Experience using a project-based approach in an introductory programming course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 43(4), 443-448. DOI:

DeLyser, L. A., & Preston, M. (2015). A public school model of cs education. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference on Frontiers in Education: Computer Science and Computer Engineering (FECS), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.

Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Washington, DC: Allyn & Bacon.

Esteves, M., Fonseca, B., Morgado, L., & Martins, P. (2011). Improving teaching and learning of computer programming through the use of the Second Life virtual world. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 624-637. DOI:

Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education, 63, 87-97. DOI:

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill

Franklin, D., Hill, C., Dwyer, H. A., Hansen, A. K., Iveland, A., & Harlow, D. B. (2016). Initialization in Scratch: Seeking knowledge transfer. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Memphis, Tennessee, USA. DOI:

Giannakos, M. N., Doukakis, S., Pappas, I. O., Adamopoulos, N., & Giannopoulou, P. (2015). Investigating teachers’ confidence on technological pedagogical and content knowledge: An initial validation of TPACK scales in K-12 computing education context. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(1), 43-59. DOI:

Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436-445. DOI:

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43. DOI:

Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2016). Factors influencing computer science learning in middle school. Paper presented at the the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education, Tennessee, USA. DOI:

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. In. New York, NY: Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Guzdial, M. (2003). A media computation course for non-majors. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(3), 104-108. DOI:

Guzdial, M. (2015). Learner-centered design of computing education: Research on computing for everyone. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 8(6), 1-165. DOI:

Hazzan, O., Lapidot, T., & Ragonis, N. (2015). Guide to teaching computer science: An activity-based approach. New York, NY: Springer. DOI:

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2003). Problem-based learning. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Education (Second ed., Vol. 4, pp. 1173-1175). New York: MacMillan Reference.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235-266. DOI:

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Bromme, R. (2007). Coding discussions and discussing coding: Research on collaborative learning in computer-supported environments. Learning and Instruction. DOI:

Kay, J., Barg, M., Fekete, A., Greening, T., Hollands, O., Kingston, J. H., & Crawford, K. (2000). Problem-based learning for foundation computer science courses. Computer Science Education, 10(2), 109-128.;1-C;FT109 DOI:;1-C;FT109

Kelleher, C., Pausch, R., Pausch, R., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Storytelling alice motivates middle school girls to learn computer programming. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. DOI:

Lang, K., Galanos, R., Goode, J., Seehorn, D., Trees, F., Phillips, P., & Stephenson, C. (2013). Bugs in the system: Computer science teacher certification in the US. Retrieved from

Mayer, R. E. (2003). Learning and instruction. New Jersey, NY: Pearson.

McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H., & Fernald, J. (2002). The effects of pair-programming on performance in an introductory programming course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(1), 38-42. DOI:

McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H. E., & Fernald, J. (2006). Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Communications of the ACM, 49(8), 90-95. DOI:

Menekse, M. (2015). Computer science teacher professional development in the United States: A review of studies published between 2004 and 2014. Computer Science Education, 25(4), 325-350. DOI:

Mills, J. E., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Engineering education—Is problem-based or project-based learning the answer. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 3(2), 2-16.

Nagappan, N., Williams, L., Ferzli, M., Wiebe, E., Yang, K., Miller, C., & Balik, S. (2003). Improving the CS1 experience with pair programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(1), 359-362. DOI:

Ni, L., & Guzdial, M. (2012). Who am I? Understanding high school computer science teachers' professional identity. Paper presented at the the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, North Carolina, USA.

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane?Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self?regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218. DOI:

Outlay, C. N., Platt, A. J., & Conroy, K. (2017). Getting IT together: A longitudinal look at linking girls' interest in IT careers to lessons taught in middle school camps. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 17(4), 20. DOI:

Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 1-12. DOI:

Qian, Y., Hambrusch, S., Yadav, A., & Gretter, S. (2018). Who needs what: Recommendations for designing effective online professional development for computer science teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50(2), 164-181. doi:10.1080/15391523.2018.1433565. DOI:

Sancho-Thomas, P., Fuentes-Fernández, R., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2009). Learning teamwork skills in university programming courses. Computers & Education, 53(2), 517-531. DOI:

Sanderson, P. (2003). Where's (the) computer science in service-learning? Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 19(1), 83-89.

Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77-96. DOI:

Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 351-380. DOI:

Shimazoe, J., & Aldrich, H. (2010). Group work can be gratifying: Understanding & overcoming resistance to cooperative learning. College Teaching, 58(2), 52-57. DOI:

Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142-158. DOI:

Smith, M. (2016). Computer science for all. Retrieved from

Tew, A. E., Fowler, C., & Guzdial, M. (2005). Tracking an innovation in introductory CS education from a research university to a two-year college. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(1), 416-420. DOI:

Tucker, M. S. (1996). Skills, Standards, Qualification systems, and the american workforce. In L. B.

Resnick & J. G. Wirt (Eds.), Linking school and work: Role for standards and assessment (pp. 23-51). San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.

Umapathy, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2017). A meta-analysis of pair-programming in computer programming courses: Implications for educational practice. ACM Transactions on Computing

Education, 17(4), 16. DOI:

Umbleja, K. (2016). Can K-12 students learn how to program with just two hours? Paper presented at the International Workshop on Learning Technology for Education Challenges, New York, NY. DOI:

Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. DOI:

Wilson, C. (2014). Hour of code: We can solve the diversity problem in computer science. Inroads, 5(4), 22.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. DOI:

Yadav, A., Gretter, S., Hambrusch, S., & Sands, P. (2016). Expanding computer science education in schools: Understanding teacher experiences and challenges. Computer Science Education, 26(4), 235-254. DOI:

Yadav, A., Subedi, D., Lundeberg, M. A., & Bunting, C. F. (2011). Problem?based learning: Influence on students' learning in an electrical engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 253-280. DOI:



How to Cite

Sadik, O., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & Brush, T. (2020). Secondary Computer Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Needs. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 4(1), 33–52.