A Review of
Models for
Teacher Preparation Programs for Precollege Computer Science
Education
Fadi P. Deek and Howard Kimmel
New Jersey Institute of Technology
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that the nation will
add more
than one million new computing and information technology jobs between
1996
and 2006, a jump of more than 100%. This fact is both exciting and
alarming,
considering that computer science remains a fragmented and
misunderstood subject
at the precollege level: students are erratically prepared, and often
underprepared,
for college-level course work and preservice programs for teachers are
very
limited (Deek & Kimmel, 1999). For example, in the curriculum
area, as of
yet there is no agreed upon and well-disseminated national standards
in computer
science from which to build a foundation on in our schools even though
professional
organizations have called for infusing computer science education at
the precollege
level (Tucker, 1996, 2000; Stephenson, 1997; Deek & Kimmel, 1998,
1999).
In A Nation at Risk, The National Commission on Excellence in
Education
(NCEE, 1983) recommended:
that the state and local high school graduation requirements
be strengthened
and that, at a minimum, all students seeking a diploma be required to
lay the
foundations in the Five New Basics by taking the following curriculum
during
their four years of high school; (a) 4 years of English; (b) 3 years
of mathematics;
(c) 3 years of science; (d) 3 years of social studies; and (e)
one-half year
of computer science. (p. 8)
According to the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM Task Force
of the
Precollege Committee, 1993) Model High School Computer Science
Curriculum, "The
need for computer science education is similar to the need for
education in
the natural sciences" (p. 1). The proposed ACM curriculum takes the
form of
a recommended comprehensive one-year computer science course for
secondary schools.
It identifies the essential concepts in computer science that every
high school
student should understand. The intention is that this course be
similar in its
scope, depth, breadth, and methodology to typical high school science
courses.
It should serve all students in the same way that introductory
biology, chemistry,
and physics courses do. The International Society for Technology in
Education
(ISTE, 1997a, 1997b, 2002) has also suggested recommendations for
curriculum
and teacher preparation in the ISTE National Educational Technology
Standards
for Teachers (NETS•T). The NETS•T distinguish between
computer science
as a discipline and educational technology as a tool. As for
preservice programs
that prepare teachers to teach computer science, such college programs
are still
very limited and teacher certification mechanisms for computer science
are still
a long way from being implemented in most states where computer
science teachers
still come from the ranks of other disciplines. Deek and Kimmel (1998,
1999)
have addressed curriculum and standards issues and presented a
teacher-formulated
model that is currently being implemented in the state of New Jersey.
This article focuses on the issues of teacher preparation programs
and the
requirements needed to teach computer science, given these models and
recommendations
for computer science education at the precollege level. A snapshot of
the current
status of teacher preparation programs for computer science in the
high schools
is reported. Requirements of selected states are compared with ACM
recommendations.
Models of Teacher
Preparation
Programs in Computer Science
Recently, there have been increased efforts in the development of
national
and state content standards. The curriculum standards, both national
and state,
focus mostly on the content taught in each discipline and are meant to
define
the skills and knowledge of the discipline to be acquired by every
student.
For this to happen, school curricula must be aligned with these
standards. For
the students to gain the skills and knowledge, teachers must acquire a
body
of knowledge that encompasses what is defined by content standards
plus the
pedagogical skills that will allow teachers to guide their students in
the acquisition
of the discipline's skills and knowledge. It is understood that there
must be
a match between the skills and knowledge defined for the students and
the acquired
skills and knowledge of the teachers. At the same time, it is
recognized that
teachers must have a greater depth of knowledge than required in the
curriculum
they are teaching. Deciding which subject matter and in what depth is
a substantial
challenge for educators. For educators in computer science, the
situation is
even worse, because the discipline at the precollege level is still
ill defined,
and the distinction needs to be made between programs that prepare
teachers
to teach computer science and those that prepare teachers to use
computers as
instructional tools in other disciplines.
Deek and Kimmel (1999) have reviewed the current status of secondary
computer
science education in New Jersey and have discussed curriculum
guidelines formulated
by classroom teachers. This effort was intended to serve as the
stepping stone
toward establishing and promoting computer science as a recognized
discipline
in New Jersey's secondary schools. Computer science is a widely
acknowledged
discipline in the post-secondary education community and as a
profession in
our society (Deek, Kimmel, & McHugh, 1998; Tucker, 1996), but the
same has
not happed at the precollege level yet.
The lack of recognition of computer science as a high school
discipline by
state departments of education may be reflected in:
- the exclusion of the discipline of computer science in the
implementation
of content standards;
- limited teacher certification mechanisms for computer science (and
the few
that do exist are not well defined); and
- limited college teacher-preparation programs for secondary school
computer
science.
As a result, virtually all precollege computer science teachers are
certified
in other disciplines. For example, the lack of teacher preparation
programs
in New Jersey has led to teachers of computer science with
certifications in
diverse areas, including mathematics (60% of those teaching computer
science),
science, business, and English (Deek & Kimmel, 1999). This
situation is
common to many states, and as seen in this article, still encouraged
by many
states.
Information and data were found on state requirements regarding
authorization
for the teaching of computer science in high schools. For states with
certification
or endorsement for the teaching of the subject further information was
sought
as to specific programs or competencies required to achieve
authorization to
teach computer science. This was accomplished by either contacting the
state
departments of education directly, contacting universities with
teacher education
programs in those states, and/or accessing these universities’
Web sites.
(We assumed that the adoption of criteria for the teaching of a
discipline by
a state department of education would lead to programs of study
offered by schools
of education at universities in that state.) Finally, if a university
is offering
a program for prospective teachers of computer science, we have
assumed that
they are authorized (or at least acknowledged) by their state to offer
such
a program, and that such a state does provide a certification or
endorsement
for teaching in the field. In conducting the search, certifications
and programs
in educational technology were identified and eliminated from further
consideration.
We recognize that this type of search is neither comprehensive nor
necessarily
complete. Hence, the results may not be totally representative of the
situation
across the country. However, we believe that the results of the study
provide
snapshots of the current status of teacher education in computer
science, and
serve to define future directions.
There have been two directions taken in the development of guidelines
for the
preparation of teachers of computer science: a recommended curriculum
of courses
and the identification of core competencies needed to teach computer
science.
Both approaches have been part of recommendations by national
organizations,
and both approaches have been adopted within different states. The
first major
documents to focus on the preparation of teachers of computer science
was released
by ACM/IEEE task forces, which were concerned with secondary school
curriculum
and teacher certification in computer science (ACM Task Force on
Curriculum
for Secondary School Computer Science, 1985; ACM Task Force in Teacher
Certification
in Computer Science, 1985). The task forces made recommendations
regarding computer
science in the secondary schools and the preparation of high school
computer
science teachers. Although the taskforce recognized at that time that
many teachers
are expected to continue to come from within the inservice ranks, with
little
training in computer science, they called on colleges and universities
to begin
the preparation to offer preservice teacher certification. In
recognition that
the current cohort of teachers would have to be the primary source of
instructors
in computer science until college and universities would be able to
implement
teacher preparation programs, another ACM task force defined a program
of study
for retraining of teachers (Poirot, Taylor, & Norris, 1988). Chen
(1989)
reported on the use of the Delphi approach to develop guidelines for
establishing
a model curriculum for secondary school computer science teachers. The
study
sought to establish consensus guidelines for the key courses for a
computer
science teacher certification program.
Table 1 provides a comparison of recommendations for teacher
preparation by
the ACM task force (1985b), a Delphi approach (Chen, 1989), and ISTE
(2000).
For comparison, the recommendation by ACM (Taylor & Norris, 1988)
for retraining
of teachers is included. In addition, it should be noted that these
recommendations
are in good alignment with guidelines developed for a high school
curriculum
in computer science (Deek & Kimmel, 1999). Thus teacher
preparation programs
and retraining programs aligned with ACM and ISTE recommendations
should prepare
teachers for high school computer science programs. For purposes of
this article,
the focus will be on the content-based courses, as seen in Table 1. It
is assumed
that all teacher preparation programs will include the professional
education
courses. The concern reflects the number and nature of content-based
courses
included in any certification standards.
Within the context of this article, certification is interpreted as
the authorization
to teach a subject and to be in the classroom with students. An
endorsement
allows the teaching of additional subject matter beyond the initial
certification.
Thus, states have two pathways for increase the pool of teachers for
computer
science. Certification can be created for new teachers who have
completed a
course of study for a bachelor's degree that includes appropriate
course work
in the discipline (e.g., 30 credits in computer science) and
appropriate course
work in professional education. This process can take a very long
time. Thus
in order to meet the more immediate demand for teachers, retraining
programs
can provide the course work needed to receive an endorsement for
teachers in
other disciplines to teach computer science.
Table 1 shows very good agreement in content between the ACM
recommendations
and the ISTE (1997a) recommendations for certification requirements to
teach
computer science. It should be noted that these recommendations were
adopted
by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education
(NCATE),
a U.S. agency authorized to accredit professional teacher preparation
programs
(Taylor, Thomas, & Knezek, 1992). In terms of required courses,
the recommendations
for a retraining program comes very close to the recommendations for
certification
programs. The importance of these two relationships lies in the
development
of certifications and/or endorsements by states for teachers of
computer science.
The ACM recommendations are given in terms of course content while
the ISTE
(1997a) recommendations are given in terms of desired competencies.
The almost
complete agreement between the ACM and the ISTE (1997a)
recommendations provides
states with the option of using course work or specified competencies
in defining
the requirements for certification in computer science. The relatively
good
agreement between requirements for certification and retraining
programs means
that such retraining programs will allow for endorsements that have
the same
discipline specifications as the certification. Because it is assumed
that teachers
seeking endorsements in computer science will have already completed
the professional
education courses in their teacher preparation program, these teachers
will
have similar skills and knowledge in computer science as those
completing a
teacher preparation program in computer science.
An examination of degree requirements for different disciplines in
different
states (Blank & Langesen, 1999) shows a range of 18 to 45 credits
required
for teaching science and mathematics in the secondary schools. The
30-credit
requirement appears to be the most common. It seemed that programs
requiring
fewer than 30 credits referred to a minor in the subject, and that a
minimum
of 30 credits would constitute a major. In fact, eight states required
majors
in the field without specifying the number of credits, and one state
specified
a "competency-based program" without stating the number of credits.
None of
these states' requirements listed computer science as a discipline, an
indication
that the recognition of computer science as a high school discipline
is still
not widely accepted. This listing indicates that the recommendations
of the
ACM/IEEE task force and the Delphi approach would be consistent with a
minor
in computer science.
A combination of Web searches (including use of the Council of Chief
State
School Officers, n.d., links page) and personal communications
indicated that
eight states delineated certification standards, indicating some
fundamental
training for teachers of computer science in the secondary schools.
Thirty-one
states listed some kind of endorsement, of which four states show both
certification
standards and endorsements. In the 31 states, 10 of the endorsements
appear
to have an instructional technology/computer applications focus. The
results
of this search indicate that many states still do not require a
computer science
degree or a computer science certification. The nature and
requirements for
the endorsement are quite varied. On the one hand, two states require
a specific
number of semester hours (18 hours in North Carolina and 12 hours in
Louisiana),
while on the other hand, the computer science endorsement science
requirement
for six states is placed in business education. (Note that the
certification
requirement for computer science for Rhode Island and Oklahoma lies
within business
education.) One state required knowledge of programming, and another
required
competency in both programming and data structures. Seven states label
the endorsement
as instructional technology/computer applications, or computer
education. Others
provided no specific information on the endorsement. In this search,
it was
necessary to distinguish between requirements and standards that
prepared teachers
to teach the subject of computer science versus those that prepared
teachers
in the use of instructional technology in the classroom. In some
states, these
situations appear to be interchangeable. It was decided to disregard
any listing
that appeared to focus on the application of technology in the
classrooms rather
than on the teaching of computer science as a discipline. Below, we
provide
some specific examples.
Reports have described teacher preparation initiatives in states such
as Delaware
(Taylor & Norris, 1988), Texas, Missouri, and Florida (Thomas et
al., 1993).
Of those four states, we find that Delaware shows both certification
standards
and an endorsement in computer science. Florida lists certification
requirements
through the University of Florida, and Texas provides an endorsement
in computer
science. Missouri appears be using the ISTE (1997a) recommendations in
their
preservice program only for the use of instructional technology in the
classroom.
Variations in certification requirements were evident for the eight
states
identified in the study. As indicated earlier, certification
requirements in
Rhode Island and Oklahoma fell under business education. Until
recently, the
Oklahoma Department of Education description of certification had
provided a
listing of courses to be taught in Oklahoma high schools (grades
9-12), which
included Advanced Programming, Computer Programming I & II, AP
Computer
Science, and Introduction to Computers. Currently, Oklahoma has
adopted a different
approach by changing from course-based criteria for certification to a
competency-based
system (Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation, 2002). This
approach is
consistent with the concept of competency-based recommendations
proposed by
ISTE (1997a). It should also be noted that the certification
requirements remain
within the specifications for business education.
Certification in Florida is further developed. They provide two
options to
meet specialization requirements for certification in computer science
for Grades
K–12 as follows:
- an undergraduate or graduate major in computer science or computer
science
education which includes credit in computer applications and
computer programming,
or
- an undergraduate degree with 30 semester hours in computer science
or computer
science education to include:
- 3 semester hours in computer literacy,
- 6 semester hours in survey of computer applications,
- 12 semester hours in computer programming (including 6 credits
in Pascal
and data structures).
These requirements show that computer programming is the most
prominent subject
of computer science, though this is not quite supported in the
recommendations
shown in Table 1. This is consistent with the arguable idea that
programming
is the only important subject in teaching computer science at
precollege level.
However, these requirements provide a starting point for addressing
the discipline
of computer science as it should be taught at the high school level.
This model
also implies that a K–12 certification covers the needs of all
student
populations, elementary, middle, and high school grades.
Three states come closest to the concept of a curriculum requirement
for certification
of teachers of computer science—Delaware, Maryland, and Michigan.
They
are also reflected in the programs offered by universities in these
states.
Each of them requires, as a minimum, 18–24 credit hours of
courses in computer
science, closely paralleling the recommendations of the ACM task
force. The
comparison is shown in Table 2. Delaware and Maryland appear to be the
closest
to the recommendations of the ACM task force. Delaware requires either
a major
in computer science or a teacher education major with an 18-credit
concentration
in computer science. Maryland requires a 24-credit program in computer
science.
Both the 18 and 24 credit hour programs would constitute a minor. The
Delaware
requirement includes 12 hours of required courses and 6 credits of
electives.
The Michigan requirements are reflected in the teacher preparation
programs
of the University of Michigan and Michigan State University. They
include courses
in programming (as reflected in the first introductory computer
science course),
assembly language, data structures, and one or two elective courses (a
variation
between the two Michigan universities).
Several states appear to require some kind of computer science
content for
an endorsement, although that might be as little as some competency in
structured
programming and a basic understanding of data structures (e.g., Utah).
As stated
earlier, North Carolina and Louisiana require 18 hours and 12 hours,
respectively,
for an endorsement. Louisiana actually has a "12-hour rule," which
permits a
teacher with 12 credit hours in computer science to teach two classes
a day
in the subject. Kansas lists a set of competencies as standards that
teachers
must meet to receive an endorsement. The competencies include problem
solving
in a logical manner with a computer, computer systems, high-level
programming
language, and development of program design.
Conclusions
State boards of education across the country are recommending a
diversity of
ways of gaining computer skills (having a computer science degree,
taking classes
or completing training program) for teachers. However, there is a need
to have
teachers develop a common level of knowledge about the subject of
computer science.
In particular, teachers should be competent in problem solving and
programming,
data structure, operating systems, and software applications, as well
as the
Internet. Other skills would also be required to teach advanced
courses. Courses
in these subjects would provide teachers with the ability to infuse
information
technology into the classroom. Unfortunately, it appears that most
current computer
science endorsements cover a small part of the discipline.
This baseline study appears to indicate very slow progress toward the
establishment
of teacher certification standards and teacher preparation programs in
computer
science for high school teachers. Only a handful of states have
requirements
that could be aligned with the national standards recommended by ACM
or ISTE.
Not much progress has been made in the 17 years since the issuance of
ACM curriculum
recommendations. Perhaps the fact that certification standards and
approval
of programs are usually covered by regulations or administrative code
that must
pass through a complex and sometimes bureaucratic process before
adoptions can
take place is partly to blame. But collaboration among professional
organizations
in education and computing, colleges and universities, state education
departments
and teachers can help move this issue forward. There remains another
obstacle
to overcome: Both industry and academia have encountered difficulty
recruiting
a sufficient number of practicing professionals, research scientists,
and instructors.
K–12 schools are encountering the same difficulty.
References
Association for Computing Machinery Task Force on Curriculum for
Secondary
School Computer Science. (1985). Computer science for secondary
schools: Course
content. Communications of the ACM, 28(3), 270–274.
Association for Computing Machinery Task Force of the Precollege
Committee.
(1993). ACM model high school computer science curriculum. New
York:
Author.
Association for Computing Machinery Task Force on Teacher
Certification in
Computer Science. (1985). Proposed curriculum for programs leading to
teacher
certification in computer science. Communications of the ACM,
28(3),
275–279.
Blank, R. K., & Langesen, D. (1999). State indicators of
science and
mathematics education. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State
School Officers.
Chen, J. W. (1989). Toward an ideal competency-based computer science
teacher
certification program: The Delphi approach. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin,
21(1),
257–261.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (n.d.). Links to state
education
agencies [Online document]. Washington, DC: Author. Available: www.ccsso.org/seamenu.html.
Deek, F. P. (1999). The software process: A parallel approach through
problem
solving and program development. Journal of Computer Science
Education, 9(1),
43–70.
Deek, F. P., & Kimmel, H. (Eds.). (1998). Computer science
education
in the secondary schools: Curriculum guidelines, content and
professional development.
Proceedings of the 1995, 1996 and 1997 conferences. Newark: New
Jersey
Institute of Technology.
Deek, F. P, & Kimmel, H. (1999). Status of computer science
education in
the secondary schools: One state's perspective, Journal of Computer
Science
Education, 9(2), 89–113.
Deek, F. P., Kimmel, H., & McHugh, J. A. (1998). Pedagogical
changes in
the delivery of the first course in computer science: problem solving
then programming.
Journal of Engineering Education, 87(3), 313–320.
International Society for Technology in Education Accreditation
Committee.
(1997a). Curriculum Guidelines for Preparation in Secondary
Computer Science
Education: Initial Degree Program. Eugene, OR: Author. Available:
www.iste.org/standards/ncate/.
International Society for Technology in Education Accreditation and
Standards
Committee. (1997b). National Standards for Technology in Teacher
Preparation.
Eugene, OR: Author.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2002).
National Educational
Technology Standards for Teachers—Preparing teachers to use
technology.
Eugene, OR: Author.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation
at risk:
The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing
Office.
Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation. (2002). Teacher
education program
accreditation [Online document]. Oklahoma City, OK: Author.
Available: www.octp.org/accreditation.html.
Poirot, J. L., Taylor, H. G., & Norris, C. A. (1988). A framework
for developing
precollege science retraining programs. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin,
20(3), 23–31.
Stephenson, C. (1997). Revitalizing high school computer science:
Finding common
ground? In NECC 97 Proceedings (p. 432). Eugene, OR:
International Society
for Technology in Education.
Taylor, H. G., & Norris, C. A. (1988). Retraining precollege
teachers:
A survey of state computing coordinators. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin,
20(1),
215–218.
Taylor, H. G., Thomas, L. G., & Knezek, D. G. (1993). The
development and
validation of NCATE-approved standards for computer science teacher
preparation
programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 1(4),
319–335.
Thomas, L. G., Taylor, H. G., & Knezek, D. G. (1993). National
accreditation
standards impact teacher preparation. T.H.E. Journal, 20(11),
62–64.
Tucker, A. (1996). Strategic directions in computer science
education. ACM
Computing Surveys, 28(4), 836–845.
Tucker, A. (2000, June). Computer science core concepts for a
K–12
curriculum. Presentation at the Computer Science and Information
Technology
Symposium 2000. Available: www.iste.org/sigcs/community/jcseonline/2001/10/cs_symposium_core.pdf.
Contributors
Fadi Deek is associate dean of the College of Computing Sciences and
an associate
professor of information systems. His current research includes
learning technologies,
software engineering, programming environments, and computer science
education.
Prof. Deek is the recipient of numerous New Jersey Institute of
Technology teaching
excellence awards and the university's prestigious Board of Overseer's
Public
and Institute Service Award.
Howard Kimmel is a professor of chemical engineering and executive
director
of the Center for Precollege Programs at the New Jersey Institute of
Technology.
He has spent the past 25 years designing and implementing professional
development
programs and curricula for K–12 teachers in science and
technology.
Contact
Fadi Deek
Computer and Information Science Department
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Newark, NJ 07102
deek@njit.edu
Howard Kimmel
Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering and Center for
Precollege Programs
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Newark, NJ 07102
Copyright ©
2002, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). All
rights reserved.
|
