Abstract
Many countries around the world have now introduced Digital Technology concepts and pedagogical practices to their primary school curricula to ensure students develop the understanding, competences and values that will enable them to contribute to and benefit from their future labour market and society. This study aimed to explore teachers’ experiences with these curricula in order to understand how teachers can be supported to raise their implementation efforts. An analysis of twenty-three studies across eleven countries was undertaken and found there was a lack of consensus of an appropriate age and approach to introducing Digital Technology concepts within primary schools. Teachers’ Digital Technology self-efficacy, Digital Technology self-esteem/ Digital Technology confidence was seen to greatly influence their implementation, and many challenges to implementation were discussed. Professional Learning and Development was raised as a solution to boost teachers’ confidence and overcome common implementation barriers.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Although Computer Science (CS) was first seen in schools in the 1980s, its popularity was short-lived due to the introduction of end-user software and a subsequent emphasis on digital literacy/eLearning/ICTs (Bresnihan et al., 2015; Brown et al., 2014). Fortunately, in the last decade we have seen many countries redeveloping curricula to include technology concepts and pedagogical practices designed to develop students’ “knowledge, skills, attitudes and values that [will] enable them to contribute to and benefit from an inclusive and sustainable future” (OECD, 2018a, p. 4) (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2019; Varoy et al., 2021).
While much of the demand for this resurgence is driven by predicted changes to the labour market caused by general technological advancements, we also face a range of complex global problems, e.g., climate change and ageing populations and find immense pressure is placed on solving these issues through innovative technical solutions (OECD, 2019). With education seen to be the most significant sector for achieving sustainable development goals (UNESCO, 2019), there is additional pressure placed on countries to redevelop and introduce these technology concepts and pedagogical practices to their curricula.
While a range of terms are used globally to describe this redeveloped learning area (e.g.: Computing, Informatics) the term Digital Technologies (DT) is used throughout this article in a general sense to describe the learning area. In the most simplistic terms, DT is learning ABOUT technology, whereas the eLearning/ICT capabilities focus is on learning WITH technology (Ministry of Education, 2018).
More than half of the OECD countries have now developed specific digital education strategies addressing DT goals and priorities, with additional countries prioritising these as part of a broader innovation strategy (van der Vlies, 2020). A range of different approaches to meet these goals have been adopted, with the most common trend to develop curricula which introduce basic DT concepts to primary school students and deliver specific DT courses to secondary school students (Heintz et al., 2016; Krause et al., 2017).
Three general approaches can be seen in a country’s approach to introducing DT content to their primary school curricula: (1) content is introduced as a separate learning area, (2) content is integrated throughout other curriculum learning areas, or (3) a separate learning area is created, but the content is taught through other curriculum areas. These approaches are outlined in Fig. 1 with reference to example countries that follow each practice.
Most DT curricula have an emphasis on twenty-first-century skill development such as critical thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, creativity, curiosity, life-long learning, and adaptability (Battelle for Kids, 2019). These are fundamental skills for students to develop alongside their DT knowledge, yet they benefit students across a range of learning areas and are critical components of preparing students for the high-skills information age and demanding labour market of their future (Benade, 2017; Relkin et al., 2021).
1.1 Benefits
The benefits of DT education span from an individual level to that of society as a whole. At the individual level, students are provided with increased opportunities to develop skills such as personal agency, problem solving, communication and executive functioning (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2019; Webb et al., 2017). They are given opportunities to apply their knowledge to design, create, test and produce digital solutions to issues that are meaningful to them (Barendsen et al., 2015; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2019; Reinsfield & Fox-Turnbull, 2020).
Schools are believed to deliver more coherent and relevant learning experiences (Reinsfield & Fox-Turnbull, 2020) which see classrooms improved though heightened student engagement, motivation, and attitudes (Mason & Rich, 2019). Society benefits from creating a labour force that can adapt to changes in the workplace (Barendsen et al., 2015; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2019) and from having citizens who can design, create, and produce solutions that address ethical, environmental and economic issues (OECD, 2019). Finally, economies are improved through increased economic opportunities bought about by an innovative workforce that can take advantage of trade opportunities (Heintz & Mannila, 2018; Webb et al., 2017).
1.2 Challenges
While computational thinking concepts were first taught in education in the 1960s (Rich et al., 2019), DT in its redeveloped form is a reasonably new learning area to both primary and secondary schools (Geldreich & Hubwieser, 2020; Heintz & Mannila, 2018) requiring teachers to develop new knowledge and understandings of technical concepts often with little prior knowledge to base this on (Vivian et al., 2020).
The foundation of DT requires teachers and students to be digitally competent prior to engaging with the DT curriculum content (Garneli et al., 2015), and whilst there has been an emphasis on teachers’ ICT capabilities within education systems for many years now (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2019) a lack of familiarity with ICTs for both teachers and students has been highlighted throughout the Coronavirus pandemic (van der Vlies, 2020).
Adding further to teachers’ challenges is the multifaceted aspect of DT (concepts, skills, principles, ICTs, hardware/software, etc.) and evolving nature of each, which requires teachers to continually upskill to ensure they stay aware of advancements (Johnson et al., 2017; Lindberg et al., 2017; Munasinghe et al., 2021).
Misconceptions surround this learning area due to the changing focus of DT from its vocational Technology beginnings (Funke et al., 2016; Reinsfield, 2018), lack of global agreement on basic concepts within this learning area (Falkner et al., 2019; Garvin et al., 2019), widely recognised male-oriented stereotype (Cheryan et al., 2015; Geldreich & Hubwieser, 2020) and disagreement around the most effective methods to deliver the content (McGarr & Johnston, 2020). Of particular concern is that educators, parents, and students have been seen to develop a range of inaccurate perceptions about the nature and purpose of DT, which affect their attitudes towards teaching and learning DT (Heintz et al., 2016; Hestness et al., 2018; Reinsfield & Fox-Turnbull, 2020; Munasinghe et al., 2021).
Developing the pedagogical approach required to effectively teach DT has also been seen to challenge some teachers set in typically traditional teaching methods (Geldreich & Hubwieser, 2020; Lindberg et al., 2017), and, as yet, there are very few initial teacher education programmes that explicitly teach these pedagogical practices (Cai & Gut, 2020).
Unsurprisingly these challenges have hindered and even ceased some teachers’ implementation of the DT curriculum as they attempt to overcome barriers to deliver the content as intended (Munasinghe et al., 2021; Larke, 2019).
This literature review provides a global insight into the state of DT education in primary school settings. It is anticipated the findings will be used to aid decision making around boosting teachers’ DT implementation, ultimately better preparing students for their future work, life and citizenship (OECD, 2018b).
2 Method
A systematic literature review process was undertaken following the transparent method set out by Tranfield et al. (2003). This method has been used by other educational technology researchers such as Sarker et al. (2019), Spiteri and Chang Rundgren (2020) and Mantilla and Edwards (2019) to identify any research gaps and link themes across relevant literature on their studied phenomenon. Designed to ensure decisions are informed by rigorous and unbiased evidence, the review process consists of three stages: (1) planning the review, (2) conducting the review, and (3) reporting and dissemination (Tranfield et al., 2003).
2.1 Research design
The iterative planning stage consisted of scoping the research area to define, clarify and refine the literature review based on the aim of the study to investigate primary school teachers’ experiences with digital technology curricula. The history of DT from its vocational Technology beginnings was uncovered, and a clear distinction was made between the studied DT phenomenon and the Technology/ICT/eLearning subject.
2.2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Initial inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed to limit the review to literature related to the teaching of DT (or equivalent) concepts at a primary school level. After initially scoping the research area, exclusion criteria 2 and 7 were added to ensure selected literature provided empirical evidence from teachers’ perspectives and that additional weighting wasn’t placed on findings from the same research. The final inclusion and exclusion criteria are shown in Table 1.
2.3 Search strategy
The review was conducted in June 2021 through the University of Auckland catalogue, Proquest and Science Direct databases. Each database was searched using the following terms (“Digital Technologies” OR “Information Technologies” OR “Digital Literacy” OR “Computing” OR “Computational thinking” OR “Computer Science” OR “Informatics” OR “Informatiks” OR “Computation” OR “ICT” OR “Information and Communications Technology” OR “Technology” OR “Computational Thinking” AND “school” OR “primary” OR “education” OR “curriculum” OR “teacher” OR “pedagogy”.Footnote 1 Further searches were undertaken adding the name of countries that were identified as having DT components within their curriculum to the search string.
After conducting the searches and removing any duplicate articles, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to examine the article title firstly, then the abstract and finally the entire article to uncover publications relevant to this review. This process enabled the quick removal of articles that did not meet the specific criteria developed in the planning stage yet was thorough enough to ensure that those that were relevant were not mistakenly dismissed. Many journals were quickly eliminated as the title and abstract suggested they related to eLearning rather than DT.
3 Results
Twenty-three articles across 11 countries were found to (1) be relevant to the scope of this literature review as outlined in the selection criteria, (2) have employed high-quality research methodologies and (3) have undergone a peer-review process. A summary is provided in Table 2.
4 Findings
The following five themes emerged from the thematic analysis.
4.1 Introduce DT concepts to primary school-aged students
Within the reviewed literature, the following countries were referenced as introducing DT curriculum at a primary school level (or younger); United Kingdom, Poland, Australia, Scotland, Ireland, USA and New Zealand (Duncan et al., 2017; Funke et al., 2016; Sentance & Csizmadia, 2017; Vivian et al., 2020).
Cited benefits of this approach included (1) students learn to be creative with technology (Funke et al., 2016), (2) students are able to develop a positive image of DT before stereotypes and a negative attitude towards DT generally (Bower & Falkner, 2015; Funke et al., 2016), (3) tapping into students’ interests by teaching DT skills across learning areas, and (4) increased learning outcomes, self-esteem and motivation (Geldreich & Hubwieser, 2020).
Critics of this approach believe that students at a primary school level do not have the required cognitive abilities (including mathematical and literacy skills) to understand abstract DT concepts (Ng, 2017; Sentance & Csizmadia, 2017). Emphasis was also placed on how primary aged students lacked the psychological skills, social skills, problem-solving skills and resilience to complete complicated DT skills and interact safely with ICTs (Sentance & Csizmadia, 2017; Larke, 2019; Ng, 2017). Furthermore, they suggest that many primary school teachers lack the foundational knowledge on which to build their understanding and teach DT effectively (Falkner et al., 2019; Vivian et al., 2020), which causes challenges for governments in ensuring both in-service and beginning primary school teachers are fully supported to implement the DT curriculum (Falkner et al., 2019).
4.2 Integrate DT concepts across learning areas
The literature review revealed 12 articles that discussed the approach of integrating DT across learning areas, as outlined in Fig. 1.
Advocates for this approach claim DT lends itself well to be integrated within other learning areas because (1) there are many connections with mathematics and problem-solving concepts (Duncan et al., 2017; Funke et al., 2016), (2) it enhances learning in other areas, (3) it aids students’ competency development, (4) it has a smaller impact on classroom time than the creation of a whole new subject area would (Bower et al., 2017; Duncan et al., 2017), (5) planning and integration is simple as students generally have the same primary teacher across learning areas (Duncan et al., 2017; Vivian & Falkner, 2019) and (6) this approach aids teachers’ understanding that DT skills are transferable beyond the DT learning area (Chang & Peterson, 2018; Duncan et al., 2017).
Alternatively, Bower and Falkner (2015) claim teachers require specific pedagogical skills to integrate DT within learning areas effectively, and Chang & Peterson (2018) suggest current teachers have not been given guidance to develop these skills and are not prepared to teach this way. Larke (2019) raised further concerns regarding teachers’ abilities to translate the curriculum into lesson plans that meet the learning objectives for both DT and the learning area DT is being integrated with.
Additional concerns were raised against this approach due to the (1) undervaluing of DT as a distinct discipline on par with Maths or English (Bower & Falkner, 2015; Larke, 2019), (2) belief it gives rise for teachers to develop misconceptions about what DT really is (Corradini et al., 2017) and (3) belief it can lead to aspects of DT becoming lost (Bower & Falkner, 2015). Finally, Pears et al. (2017) claim that developing curricula that integrate CT components requires long term systematic work to ensure its effective implementation.
4.3 Factors impacting DT implementation
The major factors described in the literature to influence teachers’ development of DT knowledge and DT implementation were found to fall into the following six themes: (1) support, (2) curriculum, (3) Professional Learning and Development, (4) teacher, (5) limited DT research and (6) resources. Like the work of education researchers Lamb and Branson (2015), Valsiner’s (1997) zone framework was used to analyse the factors and themes uncovered in this review.
Vygotsky’s (1987) Zone of Proximal Development theory is commonly used in education to recognise the learning that occurs when students master new skills and concepts (often with support) that have not previously been studied but are still within their reach. Valsiner’s (1997) zone theory builds on this by recognising that the quality of learners’ Zone of Proximal Development varies widely. Valsiner extended Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development theory to include the Zone of Free Movement (ZFM) and Zone of Promoted Action (ZPA), which consider, respectively, the goals and actions of the learner as well as their social setting (Goos, 2009). This theory assumes that learning takes place within the intersection of all three zones, as shown in Fig. 2.
Table 3 categorises the factors found in the literature review to impact teachers’ development of DT knowledge and DT implementation into Valsiner’s (1997) three zones. The teacher as learner definition of zones often applied in educational research to investigate teachers’ response to change was used within this analysis (Bennison & Goos, 2013).
Analysing the reviewed literature using Valsiner’s Zone lens provides an outline of the varying facets influencing teachers’ development of DT knowledge and their implementation efforts. It highlights the holistic support that teachers need to develop their DT knowledge and boost their implementation.
4.4 DT misconceptions
More than half the reviewed articles described DT misconceptions and gender/racial stereotypes held by teachers, students, caregivers, and the wider community. The underlying causes of confusion around the purpose and importance of DT were attributed to the evolution of technology from its vocational beginnings (Reinsfield & Fox-Turnbull, 2020) and the newness of the topics for many teachers (Duncan et al., 2017). Other misconceptions described throughout the reviewed literature related to beliefs that (1) DT is just programming (Duncan et al., 2017), (2) DT is simply teaching “with” technology (Bower et al., 2017; Falkner et al., 2019; Yadav et al., 2017), (3) computational thinking is only relevant to the CS learning area (Chang & Peterson, 2018), and (4) computational thinking is just problem solving (Yadav et al., 2017). Additionally, the jargon associated with this learning area was seen to contribute to teacher and student misconceptions and misunderstandings of technical aspects (Munasinghe et al., 2021).
Concerningly, the review revealed that teacher misconceptions often led them to interpret and introduce DT ideas incorrectly, miss picking up student misconceptions (Duncan et al., 2017) and, in some cases, not implement the DT curriculum at all (Munasinghe et al., 2021; Larke, 2019). Funke et al. (2016) described the long-term impact of these misconceptions on high schools and universities, who are required to counteract students’ misunderstandings and stereotypes towards CS in order to generate demand for this important learning area.
While the importance of addressing DT misconceptions was dominant throughout all the relevant literature, only four articles provided potential solutions. Bower et al. (2017) and Duncan et al. (2017) both believed teachers’ misconceptions were best addressed within DT Professional Learning and Development. Yadav et al. (2017) stated that connecting teachers to skills and resources was the most appropriate approach to dispel misconceptions and Funke et al. (2016) believed introducing DT concepts to students at an early age would help to foster a positive image of DT before misconceptions and stereotypes had a chance to develop.
4.5 Teachers’ DT self-efficacy/DT self-esteem/DT confidence
Within education, teachers DT self-efficacy, self-esteem and confidence have been shown to effect long term change due to the influence they have on teachers’ motivation (Mannila et al., 2018), behaviour (Bower et al., 2017; Mannila et al., 2018), commitment to teaching DT (Bower et al., 2017; Rich et al., 2020), and perseverance and resilience in the face of adversity (Mannila et al., 2018; Rich et al., 2021). Vital to this technical learning area, Vivian & Falkner (2019) found teachers with higher DT confidence used technical language and referenced learning objectives more than those with lower levels.
Throughout the articles within the literature review, many factors were seen to affect a teachers’ DT self-esteem/self-efficacy/confidence, including teachers’ background skills, knowledge, confidence, their beliefs around DT (Rich et al., 2020; Rich et al., 2021), experiences teaching DT (Bower et al., 2017), support from parents, students, school leadership teams, opportunities to observe other teachers (Bower et al., 2017; Vivian et al., 2020) and their self-evaluation of what is ‘good enough’ (Vivian et al., 2020).
Vivian and Falkner (2019) noted that females (comparative to males), primary teachers (comparative to secondary teachers), and teachers with no CS teaching experience (against those with CS teaching experience) had lower CS self-esteem than their counterparts with the differences attributed to the newness of CS to primary schools and teachers’ lack of experience with this learning area.
Manilla et al. (2018) discovered that teachers were seen to hold similar levels of self-efficacy across all digital competency areas, e.g., teachers with low DT self-efficacy had low competencies across all DT areas and vice versa. This led them to claim that teachers with different self-efficacy (low, medium, high) have very different learning needs that are not met by one-size-fits-all Professional Learning and Development. Conversely, Duncan et al. (2017) and Rich et al. (2021) found that teachers’ confidence did, in fact, relate to the specific DT concept investigated, with Rich et al. (2021) finding teachers were less confident in their knowledge of functions, conditions, variables, abstraction and decomposition.
Rich et al. (2021) found that, after undertaking a yearlong Professional Learning and Development course teachers experienced increased confidence for teaching CT and coding. Supporting this, teachers taking part in Bower et al.’s (2017) research initially reported that the biggest impact on their DT implementation was a lack of confidence teaching CT, whereas, after attending a one-day CT workshop, this had shifted, and they claimed insufficient resources was now their biggest challenge.
Teachers’ DT self-esteem has also been shown to increase alongside students’ success with DT learning, suggesting that (1) teachers should give implementation a go even if they lack confidence with this learning area and (2) Professional Learning and Development should be long-term and allow opportunities for teachers to concurrently teach DT with their students (Rich et al., 2021).
Collectively these studies outline the urgent need to raise teachers’ confidence to teach DT through the provision of Professional Learning and Development and resources in order to provide students with learning opportunities reflective of the twenty-first century (Bower et al., 2017; Rich et al., 2021).
5 Discussion and conclusion
DT education has the ability to develop students’ understanding, competencies and beliefs to ensure they can benefit from and contribute to the complex society and demanding labour market of their future. This literature review found numerous challenges unique to DT impacting teachers’ implementation and a lack of consensus on appropriate approaches to introducing these concepts to primary school curricula.
This review highlighted that DT learning increases primary school students’ creativity, confidence, attitudes, and interest in DT (Bower & Falkner, 2015; Funke et al., 2016; Geldreich & Hubwieser, 2020), although concerns around primary aged students’ ability to comprehend particular DT concepts (Larke, 2019; Ng, 2017; Sentance & Csizmadia, 2017) and fears primary school teachers lack the ability to effectively implement the new curriculum were raised (Falkner et al., 2019; Vivian et al., 2020).
While following a cross-curricula approach was believed to result in enhanced learning across multiple areas of students’ lives (Chang & Peterson, 2018; Duncan et al., 2017), it does requires specific skills for planning and teaching (Bower & Falkner, 2015; Corradini et al., 2017; Larke, 2019; Pears et al., 2017) to ensure DT concepts are not lost, underrepresented, or misinterpreted (Bower & Falkner, 2015; Larke, 2019). Concerningly, Chang and Peterson (2018) believe teachers are yet to be given the necessary support to develop this pedagogy.
This literature review found the majority of factors influencing teachers’ DT implementation come from a personal level rather than from within teachers’ social setting. Relating this discovery with the work of Bower et al. (2017) and Duncan et al. (2017) leads us to believe that the most efficient way to support teachers’ implementation is by addressing challenges and misconceptions through Professional Learning and Development. This literature review found very little research that analysed the type of Professional Learning and Development delivered, and no literature was found that compared different models of Professional Learning and Development or the long-term impact of the Professional Learning and Development on teachers’ implementation. Further studies are needed to understand the effect of different Professional Learning and Development models on teachers’ DT implementation to inform decision making around boosting teachers’ implementation.
This literature review provides a thorough examination of primary school teachers’ experiences with DT curricula across eleven countries and provides an understanding of the issues impacting teachers’ implementation. It recognises the role education and DT curricula, in particular, has in preparing students to be active and contributing participants in a sustainable future and highlights recommendations on how teachers’ implementation can be supported further.
Notes
Truncation was used on relevant keywords to broaden the results to include various word endings and different spellings.
References
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2015). Digital technologies. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/technologies/digital-technologies/. Accessed 20 May 2021.
Barendsen, E., Mannila, L., Demo, B., Grgurina, N., Izu, C., Mirolo, C., Sentence, S., Settle, A., & Stupuriene, G. (2015). Concepts in K-9 computer science education [Paper presentation]. ITiCSE-WGR ‘15: Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Vilnius, Lithuania. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858796.2858800.
Benade, L. (2017). Being a teacher in the 21st century: A critical New Zealand research study. Springer.
Bennison, A., & Goos, M. (2013). Exploring numeracy teacher identity: An adaptation of Valsiner’s zone theory [Paper presentation]. Australian Association for Research in Education 2013, Adelaide, Australia. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266044911. Accessed 12 June 2021.
Bower, M., & Falkner, K. (2015). Computational thinking, the notional machine, pre-service teachers, and research opportunities. Australasian Computing Education Conference, Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from https://crpit.scem.westernsydney.edu.au/abstracts/CRPITV160Bower.html. Accessed 12 June 2021.
Bower, M., Wood, L., Lai, J., Howe, C., Lister, R., Mason, R., Highfield, K., & and Veal, J. (2017). Improving the computational thinking pedagogical capabilities of school teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2017v42n3.4.
Bresnihan, N., Millwood, R., Oldham, E., Strong, G., & Wilson, D. (2015). A critique of the current trend to implement computing in schools. Pedagogika, 65, 292–300. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290993095. Accessed 12 June 2021.
Brown, N., Sentance, S., Crick, T., & Humphreys, S. (2014). Restart: The resurgence of computer science in UK schools. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 14(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/2602484
Cai, J., & Gut, D. (2020). Literacy and digital problem-solving skills in the 21st century: What PIAAC says about educators in the United States, Canada. Finland and Japan. Teaching Education, 31(2), 177–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2018.1516747
Chang, Y., & Peterson, L. (2018). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of computational thinking. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 26(3), 353–374. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/181433/. Accessed 12 June 2021.
Cheryan, S., Master, A., & Meltzoff, A. (2015). Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: Increasing girls’ interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00049
Corradini, I., Lodi, M., & Nardelli, E. (2017). Conceptions and misconceptions about computational thinking among Italian primary school teachers [Paper presentation]. ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, Washington, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3105726.3106194.
Department for Education (2013). National curriculum in England: Computing programmes of study. Retrieved from www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study. Accessed 20 May 2021.
Duncan, C., Bell, T., & Atlas, J. (2017). What do the teachers think? [Paper presentation]. ACE 17’ Proceedings of the Nineteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference, Geelong, Australia. https://doi.org/10.1145/3013499.3013506
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019). Digital education at school in Europe. Eurydice Report. Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/digital-education-school-europe_en. Accessed 20 May 2021.
Falkner, K., Sentance, S., Vivian, R., Barksdale, S., Busuttil, L., Cole, E., Liebe, C., & Quille, K. (2019). An international study piloting the MEasuring TeacheR Enacted Computing Curriculum (METRECC) Instrument [Paper presentation]. ITiCSE-WGR ‘19 Proceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Aberdeen, Scotland. https://doi.org/10.1145/3344429.3372505.
Finnish National Agency for Education (2016). National core curriculum for basic education. Finnish National Agency for Education. Retrieved from https://www.oph.fi/en/education-and-qualifications/national-core-curriculum-basic-education. Accessed 12 June 2021.
Funke, A., Geldreich, K., & Hubwieser, P. (2016, November 24–27). Primary school teachers’ opinions about early computer science education [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, Koli, Finland. https://doi.org/10.1145/2999541.2999547.
Garneli, V., Giannakos, M., & Chorianopoulod, K. (2015). Computing education in K-12 schools: A review of the literature [Paper presentation]. IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Tallinn, Estonia. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2015.7096023.
Garvin, M., Killen, H., Plane, J., & Weintrop, D. (2019). Primary school teachers’ conceptions of computational thinking [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287376.
Geldreich, K., & Hubwieser, P. (2020). Programming in primary schools: Teaching on the edge of formal and non-formal learning. In M. Giannakos (Ed.), Non-formal and informal science learning in the ICT era (pp. 99–116). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6747-6_6
Goos, M. (2009). Investigating the professional learning and development of mathematics teacher educators: A theoretical discussion and research agenda [Paper presentation]. MERGA 32- Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Palmerston North, NZ. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43526816. Accessed 20 June 2021.
Heintz, F., & Mannila, L. (2018). Computational thinking for all: An experience report on scaling up teaching computational thinking to all students in a major city in Sweden. [Paper presentation]. The 49th Association for Computing Machinery Technical Symposium, Maryland, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159586.
Heintz, F., Mannila, L., & Farnqvist, T. (2016). A review of models for introducing computational thinking, computer science and computing in K-12 education [Paper presentation]. IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Erie, USA. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2016.7757410.
Hestness, E., Jass Ketelhut, D., McGinnis, J.R., & Plane, J. (2018). Professional knowledge building within an elementary teacher professional development experience on computational thinking in science education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 26(3), 411–435. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/181431/. Accessed 12 June 2021.
HITSA: Information technology for education (2012). ProgeTiger Programme. Retrieved from https://www.hitsa.ee/it-education/educational-programmes/progetiger. Accessed 20 May 2021.
Johnson, M., Maguire, J., & Wood, A. (2017). Digital technologies in schools 2016–17. Research New Zealand. Retrieved from https://2020.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Digital-Technologies-in-Schools-2016-17-04-05-2017-FINAL.pdf. Accessed 26 June 2021.
Kong, S., Lai, M., & Sun, D. (2020). Teacher development in computational thinking: Design and learning outcomes of programming concepts, practices and pedagogy. Computers & Education, 151, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103872
Krause, M., Pietzner, V., Dori, Y., & Eilks, I. (2017). Differences and developments in attitudes and self-efficacy of prospective chemistry teachers concerning the use of ICT in education. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(8), 4405–4417. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00935a
Lamb, J., & Branson, C. M. (2015). Educational change leadership through a new zonal theory lens: Using mathematics curriculum change as the example. Policy Futures in Education, 13(8), 1010–1026. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210315588840
Larke, L. (2019). Agentic neglect: Teachers as gatekeepers of England’s national computing curriculum. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1137–1150. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12744
Lindberg, O., Olofsson, A., & Fransson, G. (2017). Same but different? An examination of Swedish upper secondary school teachers’ and students’ views and use of ICT in education. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(2), 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-09-2016-0043
Mannila, L., Norden, L., & Pears, A. (2018). Digital competence, Teacher self-efficacy and training needs [Paper presentation]. 2018 ACM Conference on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces, Tokyo, Japan. https://doi.org/10.1145/3230977.3230993.
Mantilla, A., & Edwards, S. (2019). Digital technology use by and with young children: A systematic review for the statement on young children and digital technologies. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 44(2), 182–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939119832744
Mason, S., & Rich, P. (2019). Preparing elementary school teachers to teach computing, coding, and computational thinking. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(4), 1–45.
McGarr & Johnston. (2020). Curricula responses to computer science provisions in schools: Current provision and alternative possibilities. The Curriculum Journal, 31(4), 745–756. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.40
Ministry of Education (2017). The New Zealand curriculum. Retrieved from https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum. Accessed 12 May 2021.
Ministry of Education (2018). eLearning/ICT capabilities vs digital technologies. New Zealand Ministry of Education. Retrieved from https://ngakiriahi.kiatakatu.ac.nz/pages/view/3624/differences-between-digital-technologies-and-e-learningict-capabilities-infographic. Accessed 12 May 2021.
Munasinghe, B., Bell, T., & Robins, A. (2021). Teachers’ understanding of technical terms in a computational thinking curriculum. Australasian Computing Education Conference, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3441636.3442311.
Ng, W. (2017). Coding education for kids: What to learn? How to prepare teachers? [Paper presentation]. The International Conference on Information Communication Technologies in Education 2017, Rhodes, Greece. https://repository.eduhk.hk/en/publications/coding-education-for-kids-what-to-learn-how-to-prepare-teachers
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2020). Søk i læreplaner. Retrieved from https://sokeresultat.udir.no/finn-lareplan.html?query=&spraakmaalform=Engelsk. Accessed 20 May 2021.
OECD (2018a). The future of education and skills education 2030. Retrieved from https://oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%25Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf. Accessed 12 May 2021.
OECD. (2018b). Trends shaping education spotlights 15: A brave new world. https://doi.org/10.1787/9b181d3c-en
OECD (2019). OECD employment outlook 2019: The future of work. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9ee00155-en.
Pargman, T., Tedre, M., Davidsson, M., & Milrad, M. (2020, June 19–23). Teaching computational thinking in K-9: Tensions at the intersection of technology and pedagogical knowledge [Paper presentation]. The 14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Nashville, Tennessee. https://doi.org/10.22318/icls2020.2409.
Partnership for 21st Century Learning. A Network of Battelle for Kids (2019). Framework for 21st-century learning definitions. Battelle for Kids. Retrieved from https://www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21/frameworks-resources. Accessed 20 May 2021.
Pears, A., Dagiene, V., & Jasute, E. (2017). Baltic and Nordic K-12 teacher perspectives on computational thinking and computing. 10th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2017), Helsinki, Finland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71483-7_12.
Reinsfield, E. (2018). Integrating digital technologies into the New Zealand curriculum: Future-focused and technological ways of thinking. Australasian. Journal of Technology Education, 5(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.15663/ajte.v5i0.64
Reinsfield, E., & Fox-Turnbull, W. (2020). A new approach to professional learning and development for technology teachers in New Zealand: Developing networks of expertise. Australasian Journal of Technology Education., 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.15663/ajte.v0i0.67
Relkin, E., de Ruiter, L. E., & Bers, M. U. (2021). Learning to code and the acquisition of computational thinking by young children. Computers & Education, 169(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104222
Rich, K., Yadav, A., & Schwarz, C. (2019). Computational thinking, mathematics, and science: Elementary teachers perspectives on integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 27(2), 165–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-005-0456-1
Rich, P., Larsen, R., & Mason, S. (2020). Measuring teacher beliefs about coding and computational thinking. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 53(3), 296–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1771232
Rich, P., Mason, S., & O'Leary, J. (2021). Measuring the effect of continuous professional development on elementary teachers’ self-efficacy to teach coding and computational thinking. Computers & Education, 168(3), 1–25. 104196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104196.
Sarker, N., Wu, M., Cao, Q., Alam, M., & Li, D. (2019). Leveraging digital technology for better learning and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 9(7), 453–461. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2019.9.7.1246
Sentance, S., & Csizmadia, A. (2017). Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher’s perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 469–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9482-0
Spiteri, M., & Chang Rundgren, S. (2020). Literature review on the factors affecting primary teachers’ use of digital technology. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(1), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9376-x.
The National Agency for Education (2012). Curriculum and syllabuses for primary school. Skolverket. Retrieved from https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/grundsarskolan/laroplan-och-kursplaner-for-grundsarskolan. Accessed 20 May 2021.
The Republic of Poland (2009). Ministry of National Education. Service of the Republic of Poland. Retrieved from https://www.gov.pl/web/edukacja. Accessed 20 May 2021.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) (2019). Framework for the implementation of education for sustainable development (ESD) beyond 2019. General Conference 40th Session, Paris, France. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000370215. Accessed 26 June 2021.
Valsiner, J. (1997). Culture and the development of children's action: A theory for human development (2nd ed.). Wiley. Retrieved from https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Culture+and+the+Development+of+Children%27s+Action%3A+A+Theory+of+Human+Development%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9780471135906. Accessed 12 June 2021.
van der Vlies, R. (2020). Digital strategies in education across OECD countries: Exploring education policies on digital technologies. (Working Paper 226). OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/eduaab/226-en.html. Accessed 12 June 2021.
Varoy, E., Lee, K., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Giacaman, N. (2021, June 26 – July 1). Comparing pre-tertiary curricula to investigate the timing of computing exposure [Paper presentation]. ITiCSE ’21: Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1. Virtual event, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1145/3430665.3456341
Vivian, R., & Falkner, K. (2019). Identifying teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge for computer science in the primary years [paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, Toronto, Canada. https://doi.org/10.1145/3291279.3339410
Vivian, R., Falkner, K., Bustuttil, L., Quille, K., Sentance, S., Cole, E., Maiorana, F., McGill, M., Barksdale, S., & Liebe, C. (2020, June, 15–19). An international pilot study of K-12 teachers’ computer science self-esteem [Paper presentation]. ITiCSE ‘20: Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Trondheim, Norway. https://doi.org/10.1145/3341525.3387418.
Vygotsky, L. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psychology. Plenum Press. (Original work published 1934.)
Webb, M., Bell, T., Davis, N., Katz, Y., Reynolds, N., Chambers, D., Syslo, M., Fluck, A., Cox, M., Angeli, C., Malyn-Smith, J., Voogt, J., Zagami, J., Micheuz, P., Chtouki, Y., & Mori, N. (2017). Computer Science in the School Curriculum: Issues and Challenges [Paper presentation]. WCCE: 11th IFIP World Conference on Computers in Education, Dublin, Ireland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74310-3_43.
Yadav, A., Gretter, S., Good, J., & McLean, T. (2017). Computational thinking in teacher education. In P. Rich & C. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 205–220). Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_13
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stringer, L.R., Lee, K.M., Sturm, S. et al. A systematic review of primary school teachers’ experiences with digital technologies curricula. Educ Inf Technol 27, 12585–12607 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11127-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11127-z