Computer programming in primary schools: Swedish Technology Teachers’ pedagogical strategies

Abstract

There is a recognized need for research on how to teach computer programming in primary schools in Sweden grades 4–6 (10–12-year-old pupils). Studies of teaching show the importance of teachers’ knowledge of content and pedagogy and how these two parts affect each other (i.e. pedagogical content knowledge [PCK]). Most teachers in Sweden have little or no formal education in computer programming, the revised Swedish curriculum requires them to teach it. The aim of this study is to explore the pedagogical strategies teachers use when they teach computer programming. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 participants, comprising 12 teachers and 2 teacher trainers. The data were analysed deductively with themes from previous research. The results show that teachers use eight pedagogical strategies, including three new strategies that have been constructed inductively: do-it-yourself, gamification and progression. These eight pedagogical strategies are mostly general, and teachers may be considered regressed experts, as they lack formal training in computer programming. They facilitate learning in a general sense, but, compared to other subjects, their PCK in computer programming is problematized. In-service teacher training is needed to increase content knowledge, thus enabling to develop PCK in computer programming. It would also be fruitful to deepen our knowledge regarding pedagogical strategies in the PCK domain of computer programming.

Primary school students' perceptions and developed artefacts and language from learning coding and computational thinking using the 3C model

“…However, generalist primary school teachers have been tasked with teaching coding and computational thinking skills without being provided a technology‐specific pedagogy; consequently, they resort to employing general pedagogical strategies (Bjursten et al, 2023; Woo & Falloon, 2023). What remains a gap in the literature is an age‐appropriate, specific activity sequencing model for guiding instruction which helps students break down problems into parts, defining abstract coding concepts and designing and implementing algorithms (Australian Catholic University, 2023; Bjursten et al, 2023; Woo & Falloon, 2023). Moreover, there is a lack of consensus on the best approach to teaching these abstract concepts and skills (Dag et al, 2023; Mason & Rich, 2019; Rich et al, 2022).…”

Design and Make—and Code?

“…When implemented in technology education programming has partly come to be carried out in pure coding tasks (e.g. Bjursten, Nilsson, & Gumaelius, 2022), at the same time as technology education is focused on the designing, making and using of artefacts and systems. This potential mismatch stems from uncertainty about exactly how programming and digital technology should be conceived of in technology education.…”

Metaphor in Mind : Programming Teachers' Knowledge and Beliefs in Action

“…For example, scholars such as Vinnervik (2022aVinnervik ( , 2022b, Otterborn et al (2020), and Raptopoulou (2021) have investigated the rationale for introducing programming in Swedish schools. Meanwhile, researchers such as Axell and Stolpe (2019), Cederqvist (2021), and Bjursten et al (2022) have investigated how programming activities and teaching strategies take form in the classroom. Furthermore, there have been studies on specific aspects of programming, such as computational thinking (Carlborg et al, 2019;Nouri et al, 2020;Pears et al, 2021;Zhang et al, 2020), students' perception of the functionality of programming languages (Anderhag et al, 2021), and programming activities in informal learning environments (Sparf et al, 2022).…”

“…Programmering var ett tämligen outforskat område i svensk utbildningsvetenskaplig forskning innan det infördes som en del av teknikämnet (Hallström, 2018). Alltsedan dess har en stor mängd av mina svenska forskarkollegor (se exemplevis Axell & Stolpe, 2019;Bjursten et al, 2022;Björklund & Nordlöf, 2021;Carlborg et al, 2019;Cederqvist, 2021;Otterborn et al, 2020;Pears et al, 2021;Sparf et al, 2022;Vinnervik, 2022a) bidragit med viktig kunskap om programmering i teknikunderundervisning.…”