The Landscape of Computer Science Professional Development

101 Computer Science THE LANDSCAPE OF Professional Development IN SEPTEMBER 2012, THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO'S Center for Elementary Mathematics and Science Education (CEMSE) and the University of Chicago's Urban Education Institute (UEI) devel- oped a survey for high school computer science teacher professional development (PD) providers. The survey (n=76) sought to answer the following questions about high school computer science teacher PD: Who is providing the PD? Who is participating? Where, when, and how is the PD happening? What is the PD about? What instructional approaches do PD providers use? WHO IS PROVIDING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT? Most PD was provided by institutions of higher education. 20% Membership organizations, corporations, high schools and foundations Of the respondents from a college or university, 59% were college or university faculty. 80% College or University 3% IProviders designed and delivered Complete involvement their PD with little to no involvement from local schools and/or districts. 29% 44% Some Little involvement involvement 12% 7% Google and NSF 23% NSF and No involvement non-Google Google and the National Science Foundation (NSF) were the primary funders of computer science teacher PD. 22% NSF-only 25% Google-only funded PD 24% 11% Google and Other (state, local, and/or corporate/private) non-NSF WHO IS PARTICIPATING? More than half of computer science PD participants were not full-time in-service 49% 36% 11% computer science teachers. 5% In-service computer In-service science teachers Other* non-computer science teachers Pre-service teachers *Includes industry professionals, retired teachers, and informal education providers. The most common subject taught by full-time teachers who teach computer science part-time was mathematics. *15% "other" subjects not shown and 14% unknown 2% Social sciences 3% Drafting, graphic design 16% science 3% English/Humanities 18% Technology skills 28% Mathematics or another technical art. 00 Three-quarters of PD providers had some participants who were new to computer science. 1000 50% Most PD experiences served relatively small numbers of participants. 46% 40% - 73% of all PD experiences had 40 or fewer participants. 30% - 27% 20% - 14% 10% 7% 7% 0% 0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 *Total does not equal 100% due to rounding 100+ WHERE, WHEN, AND HOW IS THE PD HAPPENING? Local teacher networks were identified as the most common means of publicizing computer science teacher PD experiences. 83% 49% 33% Local Teacher Computer Science School District Networks Teachers Association Newsletters (CSTA) or Websites 45% of computer science PD experiences paid participants to attend. 3% Undergraduate 52% Continuing Education Credit 32% Credit 41% of computer science PD experiences offered credits for participation. Graduate Credit 13% Other 80% of computer science PD experiences offered participants material incentives, including classroom materials and technology such as textbooks, robotics kits, software and hardware. 89% of providers offered PD through summer workshops. Of those, 44% provided post-workshop follow up. WHAT IS THE PD ABOUT? 15% Just over half (54%) of PD experiences spent at least three-quarters of their PD time preparing teachers to teach a particular course. AP CS A 17% 15% Other ECS 17% AP CS Principles 36% Spend less than 75% of time on a particular course 46% Do not focus on a particular course The most commonly reported PD computer science content areas were: Reported Emphasis Programming concepts 65 30% Computational thinking & problem solving projects 60 25% Programming tools and languages 56 24% Connecting computing with other disciplines 28 16% Computing & society and/or social impacts of computing 44 13% Modeling & simulation concepts & tools 38 15% Using/manipulating big data 21 10% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 *PD experiences that did not include Number of PD Experiences Including the Content a given content area were excluded n = 76 from computing these averages. The primary goals of PD experiences most often chosen by respondents were: • Participants' understanding of particular computer science concepts. • Participants' abilities to increase student participation and engagement in computer science. 70% - • Participants' abilities to implement particular pedagogical approaches or strategies. 62% 60% - Respondents who identified pedagogical approaches 50% - as a top goal spent an average of 62% of the time devoted to pedagogy on "other pedagogical content." 40% 30% - 22% 21% 19% 18% 20% - 17% 16% 15% 15% 13% 13% 12% 10% - 10% 9% 8% 8% 5% 0% Materials and/or technology management Supporting stung over Questioning techniques autonomy and ownership Establishing classroom routines Arrangement of physical space Writing lessons Sequencing lessons Grouping students Facilitating discussion Classroom management Assessing student learning Providing student feedback *Other pedagogical content #1 *Other pedagogical content #2 Supporting student reflection Differentiation for special needs Creating a culture of respect and risk-taking Pedagogical Content *Write-in text responses WHAT INSIRUCTIONAL APPROACHES DO P D PROVIDERS USE? Whole-group lecture and/or presentation. The most frequently reported instructional approaches used in delivery of PD were: Self-directed and/or PD leader 2 guided individual or small group hands-on computer work. Whole group lecture/presentation 87% Self-directed/PD leader guided individual or small group hands-on computer work 87% Self-directed/PD leader guided individual or small group project/problem based learning activities that do not use a computer 61% Peer instruction/coaching (sharing "best practices" and strategies) 61% Large group discussion 58% Small group discussion 34% Small group lecture/presentation 34% Individual reflection (e.g. journals) 23% Other 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Percentage of PD experiences This is a start, but we need more: More CS teaching and more CS learning. How will we get there? Lend your voice and join the conversation here: http://tinyurl.com/CEMSECS Or visit this link for more information about this project and a look at the computer science professional development asset map. This infographic was developed by: E THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO CEMSE UEI URBAN EDUCATION INSTITUTE Under the direction of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), in partnership with the Computer Science Teachers Association, Google, Microsoft, the National Center for Woman and Information Technology, and the National Science Foundation. Funding provided by Google Delivery Format Average % of Time Reported Spent t c on Pedagogical Content ontent Area PD Experiences of Participants ● =1 participant Luluulwbl