Ensuring Exemplary. Teaching in an Essential Discipline:

Transcription

1 Ensuring Exemplary NOTES Teaching in an Essential Discipline: Addressing the Crisis in Computer Science Teacher Certification

2 Ensuring Exemplary Teaching in an Essential Discipline: Addressing the Crisis in Computer Science Teacher Certification By the CSTA Teacher Certification Task Force

3 Ensuring Exemplary Teaching in an Essential Discipline: Addressing the Crisis in Computer Science Teacher Certification Final Report of the CSTA Teacher Certification Task Force September 2008 Task Force Chair Barbara Ericson Georgia Tech Committee Members Michal Armoni Weizmann Institute of Science Judith Gal-Ezer Open University of Israel Deborah Seehorn North Carolina Dept. of Public Instruction Chris Stephenson CSTA Executive Director Fran Trees Drew University

4 Computer Science Teachers Association Association for Computing Machinery 2 Penn Plaza, Suite 701 New York, New York csta.acm.org Copyright 2008 by the Association for Computing Machinery, Inc (ACM)/ Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA). Permission to make digital or hard copies of portions of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requiresprior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permission to republish from:publications Dept. ACM, Inc. Fax or [email protected] other copying of articles that carry a code at the bottom of the first or last page, copying is permitted provided that the per-copy fee indicated in the code is paid through the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA ACM ISBN: # ACM Order Number: # Additional copies may be ordered prepaid from: ACM Order Department Phone: P.O. Box (U.S.A. and Canada) Church Street Station New York, NY (All other countries) Fax: [email protected]

5 Acknowledgments The CSTA Certification Task Force would like to thank the following organizations and individuals. First, we would like to thank the National Science Foundation for their support of CSTA as an organization and for their commitment to improving computer science education. We would also like to thank our CSTA corporate sponsors (Google, Microsoft, and Sun Microsystems) for their ongoing support. We are especially grateful to all of the individuals who took the time to read and review this document, especially Steve Cooper, Robert Cutler, Joanna Goode, Michelle Hutton, and Alfred Thompson. And to Mark Stehlik and Jacqueline Martin who contributed important information with regard to teacher certification. Thanks are due to our wonderful designer Bob Vizzini and to our exacting copy editor Kate Conley. To CSTA President Michelle Hutton and Advisory Council Chair Dr. Debra Richardson and to all of the members of the CSTA Board of Directors and Advisory Council. Finally to all of the staff and volunteer leadership of ACM, who brought CSTA into being and continue to support us every day.

6 c o n t e n t s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GUIDE TO THE ORGANIZATION OF THIS PAPER CHAPTER 1: Setting Computer Science Teacher Certification in Context Defining Computer Science The Importance of Computer Science Education Computer Science Is Important to Industry Computer Science Leads to Multiple Career Paths Computer Science Is Important Intellectually Computer Science Teaches Problem Solving Computer Science Supports and Links to Other Sciences A Brief Overview of Issues Relating to Teacher Certification Confusion About Teacher Certification Requirements Where There Are No Requirements or Requirements Are Highly Problematic Conclusion References CHAPTER 2: Computer Science Secondary Teacher Preparation and Certification: A Review of Relevant Research Introduction Setting the Research in the Pedagogical Context Preparing Teachers What Teachers Must Know Theory and Practice in Teacher Preparation Programs The Methods Course The Preparation and Certification Debates Computer Science Teacher Preparation and the Nature of the Discipline Computer Science Teacher Certification Conclusion References

7 CHAPTER 3: Selected Current Models of Computer Science Teacher Certification Introduction Pennsylvania State Certification Covered Courses Endorsement or Certificate Requirements Alternative Teacher Requirements Professional Pathway Pre-service Requirements In-service Requirements Professional Development Requirements Problems Georgia State Certification Covered Courses Endorsement or Certificate Requirements Alternative Teacher Requirements Professional Pathway Pre-service Requirements In-service Requirements Professional Development Requirements Problems Texas State Certification Covered Courses Endorsement or Certificate Requirements Alternative Teacher Requirements Professional Pathway Pre-service Requirements In-service Requirements Professional Development Requirements Problems Scotland Teacher Certification Covered Courses Endorsement or Certificate Requirements

8 3.4.3 Alternative Teacher Requirements Professional Pathway Pre-service Requirements In-service Requirements Professional Development Requirements Problems Israel Teacher Certification Covered Courses Endorsement or Certificate Requirements Alternative Teacher Requirements Professional Pathway Pre-service Requirements In-service Requirements Professional Development Requirements Problems References CHAPTER 4: Recommended Models for Teacher Preparation and Certification in Computer Science Developing a Multi-faceted Model The Current Challenges of Computer Science Certification Standards for all Computer Science Teachers A More Detailed Discussion of the Methods Course Preparing New Teachers to Teach Computer Science Certification of Veteran Teachers with a Certification in Another Area Teachers With No Computer Science Experience Teachers With Computer Science Experience Certification of Individuals Coming from Business with a Computer Science Background The Need for Continued Professional Development Conclusion References CHAPTER 5: Bibliography

9 Ensuring Exemplary Teaching in an Essential Discipline: Addressing the Crisis in Computer Science Teacher Certification Final Report of the CSTA Teacher Certification Task Force September 2008 Executive Summary COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION IS CRITICAL Although it is often perceived, especially in secondary schools, as simply programming, computer science is far more than this. Every child in every classroom, every teacher in every school, and every person in every community is affected by technology, and the roots of technology were founded upon the work of innovative computer scientists. Computer science education is strongly based upon the higher tiers of Bloom s cognitive taxonomy, as it involves design, creativity, problem solving, analyzing a variety of possible solutions to a problem, collaboration, and presentation skills. These skills allow students to express their ideas in ways that will prepare them for the competitive world in which they live. A fundamental understanding of computer science enables students to be not just educated users of technology, but the innovators capable of using computers to improve the quality of life for everyone. There is also a critical link between computer science education and the economic issues that an increasing number of countries are facing in light of the new global economy. The U.S. economy, for example, is expected to add 1.5 million computerand information-related jobs by The U.S. education system, however, is not producing enough highly skilled people to fill these critical positions. Current projections indicate that the United States will have only half that many qualified graduates. Countries that do not address these deficits immediately and vigorously will face long-term skills shortages that will cripple both academic computing and their high tech industries. They will be seriously compromised in their ability to maintain or improve their positions in computing, communications, information science, and engineering. In addition, they will be unable to capitalize on current and future innovations that are already providing untapped economic and social opportunities. THE CERTIFICATION SYSTEM IS BROKEN Within most educational systems internationally, the task of ensuring that teachers are adequately and appropriately prepared to teach a given discipline at a specified educational level rests with the bodies responsible for teacher certification. These bodies must determine not only what a teacher needs to know in order to be a certified educational professional, but how that knowledge should be measured. For computer science teachers, however, the challenge of becoming and remaining exemplary educators is exacerbated by systems of pre-service education and teacher certification that are profoundly disconnected from the discipline of computer science and the needs of teachers and students. The current crisis in computer science teacher certification can be attributed to two key factors: a lack of clarity, understanding, and consistency with regard to current certification requirements 11

10 where certification or endorsement requirements do exist, they often have no connection to computer science content. Research has shown that, in the United States at least, teachers are profoundly confused about the certification requirements in their own states. Because many of those responsible for creating, implementing, and enforcing policies relating to teacher certification do not understand the discipline and its theoretical, practical, and pedagogical underpinnings, they also tend to confuse computer science with other subject areas such as technology education/educational technology (TE/ET), industrial or instructional technology (IT), management information systems (MIS), or even the use of computers to support learning in other subject areas. As a result, the certification requirements are often poorly understood, poorly applied, and in some cases so poorly designed as to be incomprehensible even to those responsible for maintaining them. The deficiencies relating to computer science teacher certification begin as early as the teacher preparation program. Because so few countries or states/provinces require or allow for teachers to be certified specifically as computer science teachers, very few teacher preparation institutions provide programs with rigorous and relevant computer science training. In the absence of clear and specific requirements for computer science, these institutions have little or no incentive to address the needs of computer science teachers. Because they cannot be certified as computer science teachers, new teachers find that they must first meet the certification requirements in some other discipline, requiring them to develop and prove teaching proficiency in a field in which they do not actually wish to teach. In some cases, where teachers can actually receive an additional endorsement to teach computer science, the content they are required to master may have no more than a tangential relationship to what is needed to teach in a computer science classroom. In many cases, teachers who clearly have the requisite knowledge and skills (for example, those with both current teaching credentials and postsecondary degrees in computer science) are unable to be certified in computer science, while those with vocational or business certification but no computer science background are. In addition, while there needs to be a reasonable process for individuals who wish to transition from careers in the high tech industry to teaching, it is equally essential to ensure that they possess strong teaching skills as well as technical skills. Where there is no system of computer science certification or endorsement in place, teachers with little or no computer science training are also frequently assigned to teach computer science courses. Without these teachers, many students would have no opportunity to learn computer science. But the continual struggle to stay one step ahead of the students in a constantly changing discipline takes an enormous toll on even the most dedicated educators. A MULTI-LEVEL MODEL TO MEET DIVERSE NEEDS It is absolutely essential that all computer science teachers, new and veteran, have adequate preparation to teach computer science successfully. It is equally important that we do not drive good dedicated teachers who are already teaching computer science away from the discipline or even the classroom. The challenge for any model of teacher certification, therefore, is to find a way to deal fairly and respectfully with our existing teaching community, while at the same time ensuring that they are prepared to be the best computer science teachers they can be. Although the populations from which we draw our computer science teachers are diverse (creating a wide continuum of expertise and experience) we believe that any preparation program for computer science teachers must include the following four major components. 12

11 1. Academic requirements in the field of computer science 2. Academic requirements in the field of education 3. Methodology (a methods course) and field experience 4. Assessment to document proficiency in general pedagogy, for example the Praxis II Principles of Learning and Teaching Test In the present educational structure, the majority of K 12 computer science teachers are drawn from one of the following constituencies: new teachers: presently college or university students working towards their first teacher certification, veteran teachers with a certification in another area who have never taught computer science, veteran teachers with a certification in another area who have experience teaching computer science, and individuals coming from business with a computer science background and no teaching experience. The CSTA Certification Task Force therefore recommends the educational bodies institute the following multi-level model that we believe provides the requisite knowledge (both technical and pedagogical) for computer science teachers. New Teachers Degree Bachelor s degree or higher in computer science or a minor in computer science Academic and Field Experience A seminar-type course that includes the history of computer science, the nature of the field and its relationship with other disciplines, the various computer science curricula at both high school and college/university levels Writing a research paper in the field of computer science education Academic requirements in education Curriculum design and development Educational Psychology Technology in the classroom Methodology and field experience Methods course Class observations and a minimum of 10 weeks of practice teaching Praxis exam Praxis II: Principles of Learning and Teaching Exam or equivalent satisfactory performance on a similar assessment to document proficiency in general pedagogy Veteran Teachers with NO Computer Science Teaching Experience Degree Bachelor s degree or higher in a field other than computer science Certification Certification in an academic discipline other than computer science Academic and Field Experience (to be completed within 3 years) Academic requirements in the field of computer science include advanced coursework in the following areas programming object-oriented design data structures and algorithms computer hardware and organization Methodology requirements can be documented by the completion of at least one of the following: Methods Course Observing a complete K 12 computer science course 13

12 Veteran Teachers WITH Computer Science Teaching Experience Creating a portfolio that documents pedagogy in the computer science classroom Degree Bachelor s degree or higher in a field other than computer science Individuals Coming From Business WITH A Computer Science Background Certification Certification in an academic discipline other than computer science Computer Science Teaching Experience Teaching an Advanced Placement Computer Science course (or the equivalent) for at least two years, and/or Teaching International Baccalaureate HL Computer Science (or the equivalent) for at least two years, and/or Teaching a rigorous introductory computer science course (equivalent to the Level II course described in the ACM Model Curriculum for K 12 Computer Science) for at least two years Academic Work and Field Experience (to be completed within 3 years) Academic requirements in the field of computer science can be documented by completing one of the following: Completion of a minimum of 40 hours of professional development workshops designed for teachers of computer science. Advanced coursework in the following areas: programming object-oriented design data structures and algorithms computer hardware and organization Methodology requirements can be documented by the completion of at least one of the following: Completion of a minimum of 40 hours of professional development workshops designed for teachers of computer science. Methods Course Auditing of one complete K 12 computer science course Degree Bachelor s Degree or higher in Computer Science Bachelor's Degree or higher in a related field including: Bioinformatics Computer Information Systems Computer Programming Computer Systems Engineering Database Systems Electrical Engineering Information Science Information Systems Design Information Technology Mathematics Networking Robotics Software Engineering Undergraduate minimum 2.5 GPA on a scale of 4.0 Undergraduate minimum 3.0 GPA in major field on a scale of 4.0 Work Experience A minimum of two years of related work experience within past five years Academic Work (a total of 18 college/university credits) and field experience (to be completed within 3 years) Academic requirements in the field of computer science include advanced coursework in the following areas (minimum of 3 credits) programming object-oriented design data structures and algorithms computer hardware and organization Academic requirements in the field of education (minimum of 9 credits) 14

13 The number and depth of other required education courses should be the same as those required for teaching certification in other disciplines Methodology and field experience Methods course (3 credits) Class observations and a minimum of 10 weeks of practice teaching Praxis Exam Praxis II: Principles of Learning and Teaching Exam or equivalent satisfactory performance on a similar assessment to document proficiency in general pedagogy CONCLUSION There is a significant lack of consistency in computer science teacher certification standards in the United States and other countries worldwide. The standards for computer science licensure, a computer science teaching endorsement, and alternate licensure in computer science that are presented in this paper are designed to assist the state licensing departments responsible for issuing licenses to qualified education professionals within their respective states. The ultimate goal of this effort is to ensure that the standards for computer science teachers are clear, consistent, and are uniformly implemented in the United States as well as in other countries. It is critical that these standards be universally accepted and applied to the licensing of high school computer science teachers. 15

14 Guide to the Organization of this Paper This white paper has been designed to address a number of different aspects of the current crisis in high school computer science teacher certification. The intent of the authors is to provide: a comprehensive description of the issues relating to certification, a review of the relevant literature, a selection of examples of current teacher certification models, and a set of recommendations for a multi-level model of computer science teacher certification that will ensure that all computer science teachers have the opportunity to demonstrate that they are exemplary teachers of this important academic discipline. Chapter One (Setting Computer Science Teacher Certification in Context) provides an overview of the importance of high school computer science education and the importance of teacher certification policies. This chapter highlights the ways in which computer science education contributes to intellectual development of students, the innovation potential of all scientific disciplines, and the economic well being of countries. It also highlights the ways in which current common deficiencies in teacher certification policies are hampering efforts to ensure that teachers are well and appropriately prepared for the rigors of today s computer science classrooms. Chapter Two (Computer Science Secondary Teacher Preparation and Certification: A Review of Relevant Research) provides an extensive review of international research literature relating to teacher preparation and teacher certification. This chapter highlights the different kinds of knowledge and skills required for exemplary teaching. It also highlights the intimate connection between pre-service teacher education and teacher certification. Chapter Three (Selected Current Models of Computer Science Teacher Certification) examines a series of different models of computer science teacher certification. The chapter examines the certification policies and requirements in the U.S. states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Texas as well as the national teacher certification policies in Scotland and Israel. For each of these models, the chapter provides a review of covered courses, endorsement and certification requirements, alternative teacher certification requirements, in-service provisions, and professional development requirements. Finally, Chapter Four (Recommended Models for Teacher Preparation and Certification in Computer Science) proposes a set of practical, achievable strategies and recommendations that could profoundly improve the teacher certification process in many states and countries. This chapter proposes a comprehensive set of requirements for the following groups of teachers: New teachers entering from teacher preparation programs, Veteran teachers with a certification in an area other than computer science who have no computer science experience Veteran teachers with a certification in an area other than computer science who do have computer science experience, and Individuals coming from business with a computer science background. 16

15 CHAPTER ONE SETTING COMPUTER SCIENCE TEACHER CERTIFICATION IN CONTEXT 1.0 DEFINING COMPUTER SCIENCE Teacher certification is an essential part of the educational landscape. It is clearly in the best interests of students to ensure that our teachers have both the requisite subject knowledge and pedagogical skills before they enter the classroom. Talking about computer science teacher certification, however, creates great trepidation for some teachers. Because computer science is a relatively young discipline, curriculum varies widely nationally, statewide, and sometimes even within a district and many teachers have no formal background in the field. Is it any wonder that teachers are worried about being evaluated in this context? In this white paper, The Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) provides a comprehensive examination of the issues surrounding teacher certification in K 12 computer science. We use a research-based approach to examine the public policy arguments and take into account the realities of the current state of computer science education. We conclude by proposing a pragmatic system of certification and professional development linked to the ACM Model Curriculum for K 12 Computer Science (Tucker, 2006), which embraces both current and future computer science teachers. The goal, after all, is to give students the best possible computer science education. One of the challenges we face when discussing computer science education is that the field of computer science seems to progress so quickly that it is difficult even for computer scientists to clearly define its contents and proscribe its boundaries. As Shackelford (2005) noted in his presentation Why can t smart people figure out what to do about computing education?, the landscape of computing continues to evolve and trying to figure out what students need to learn is like trying to hit a moving target. While we do know that computing now provides the infrastructure for how we work and communicate and that it has redefined science, engineering, medicine, and business, it is still poorly understood by those outside the field. Both the boundaries and the content of computer science are constantly being reshaped. New thinking and new technologies continue to expand our understanding of what computer scientists can and need to know. This has resulted in considerable debate about a single definition of computer science. The ACM Model Curriculum for K 12 Computer Science (Tucker, 2006), however, provides a highly useful definition of computer science for high school educators. Computer science, it argues, is neither programming nor computer literacy. Rather, it is the study of computers and algorithmic processes including their principles, their hardware and software design, their applications, and their impact on society (pg. 2). Computer science therefore includes: programming, hardware design, networks, graphics, databases and information retrieval, computer security, software design, programming languages, logic, programming paradigms, translation between levels of abstraction, artificial intelligence, the limits of computations (what computers can t do), applications in information technology and information systems, and 17

16 social issues (Internet security, privacy, intellectual property, etc.). As Shackelford indicated, prior to 1990, the discipline was defined as Computer Science if taught as part of the traditional Arts and Science curriculum and as Information Systems if taught as part of the Business curriculum. Since that time, however, it has burgeoned into a number of additional distinct areas, each of which involves its own approach to both theory and application. These areas include Computer Engineering, Software Engineering, and Information Technology. In terms of university degree programs, the post-1990s are typified by intersecting subdisciplines including: Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Software Engineering, Computer Science, Information Technology, and Information Systems. While there has been progress in defining computing curriculum at the college level, there continues to be much confusion about computer science in K 12 education. Among those not familiar with the discipline, there is a tendency to confuse the study of computer science as a scientific discipline with other uses of computing technology within education, particularly computing literacy (the mastery of basic software applications), keyboarding, or educational technology (the use of computing to support learning across other curriculum areas). As a result, many policy-makers and administrators are failing to provide students with access to the key academic discipline of computer science, despite the fact that it is intimately linked with current concerns regarding national competitiveness and the ability of students to thrive in an increasingly globalized economy. Two other terms that often appear in discussions of computing education are Information Technology Literacy and Information Technology Fluency (National Research Council, 1999). As Tucker, Deek, Jones, McCowan, Stephenson, and Verno (2006) indicate: Whereas IT literacy is the capability to use today s technology in one s own field, the notion of IT fluency adds the capability to independently learn and use new technology as it evolves throughout one s professional lifetime. Moreover, IT fluency also includes the active use of algorithmic thinking (including programming) to solve problems, whereas IT literacy is more limited in scope (p. 6). Educational Technology can be defined as using computers across the curriculum, or more specifically, using computer technology (hardware and software) to learn other disciplines. For example, the science teacher may use a computer-based simulation program to provide students with a better understanding of specific physics principles, or an English teacher may use word-processing software to help students improve their editing and revision skills. Tucker et al. (2003) defined Information Technology as the proper use of technologies by which people manipulate and share information in its various forms (p. 6). While Information Technology involves learning about computers, it emphasizes the technology itself. As Shackelford (2005) noted, Information Technology specialists assume responsibility for selecting appropriate hardware and software products, integrating those products with organizational needs and infrastructure, and installing, customizing and maintaining those resources (p. 22). Information Technology courses, therefore, focus on: installing and administering computer networks, installing, maintaining, and customizing software, managing systems, designing web pages, and developing multimedia resources and other digital media, and databases. Computer Science, on the other hand, spans a wide range of computing endeavors, from theoretical foundations to robotics, computer vision, intelligent 18

17 systems, and bioinformatics. According to Shackelford, for example, the work of computer scientists is concentrated in three areas: developing effective ways to solve computing problems, designing and implementing software, and devising new ways to use computers. Citing the conclusion of the National Research Council (1999) that a basic understanding of all these topics is now an essential ingredient to preparing high school graduates for life in the 21st century, Tucker et al. (2003) further argued that the goals of a K 12 computer science curriculum are to: introduce the fundamental concepts of computer science to all students, beginning at the elementary school level, present computer science at the secondary school level in a way that would be both accessible and worthy of a curriculum credit (e.g., mathematics or science), offer additional secondary-level computer science courses that will allow interested students to study it in depth and prepare them for entry into college, and increase the knowledge of computer science for all students, especially those who are members of underrepresented groups. 1.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION At present, all evidence points to a crisis in computer science education at the high school level. This crisis is most clearly manifested in the decreasing number of computer science courses being offered to students and the resulting drop in enrollments in computer science programs. Course enrollments are dropping at both the secondary and post-secondary levels (Taulbee, ), and the number of young women and minority students studying computing is at an all-time low (The College Board, 2007). The Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA, 2005a) has identified a number of factors that contribute to this situation, including: the lack of a national mandated high school curriculum for computer science education, the chronic under-funding of computer science programs in high schools, the absence of standards for certification of computer science teachers, a shortage of professional development opportunities that would allow teachers to develop and keep their technical and pedagogical skills current, the inability of school districts to attract or maintain highly qualified teachers in the face of salary and benefit competition from industry, and the lack of understanding on the part of students, parents, guidance counselors, administrators and teachers about computer science in general, how it differs from other areas of computer study, and its newly developing career opportunities. While to some, these issues may just seem to be the result of the natural ebb and flow of student interest in specific disciplines and career areas, the reality is that these challenges have the potential to affect far more than the current generation of students. In fact, the present lack of emphasis on computer science education in K 12 has the potential to devastate not just the high tech industries, but every industry relying on computing to facilitate aspects of its operations. It also has the potential to seriously inhibit national and international efforts to maintain innovation in all areas of technology and science Computer Science Is Important to Industry Our lives depend upon computer systems and the people who maintain them. These systems keep us safe on the road and in air, help physicians diagnose 19

18 and treat health problems, and play a critical role in the design of new drug therapies. A fundamental understanding of computer science enables students to be not just educated users of technology, but the innovators capable of using computers to improve the quality of life for everyone. Although an increasing number of labor and economic specialists are beginning to express concern about the direct and pressing link between technology and innovation and national and international economic survival, very few school administrators and educational policy leaders understand the profound need for computer science education at the high school level. Despite the need for students to incorporate the foundational computer science skills that foster an understanding of the essential technologies found in almost every industry today, in most high schools in the United States, there is little recognition of computer science as a scientific discipline distinct from mathematics or from technology training (National Research Council, 1999; Tucker, 2006). In today s scientific and economic global communities, computer science is helping to push the boundaries of what we know and what we can do. In areas such as nanotechnology and bioinformatics, computer scientists are addressing key questions such as: Why do people become ill? How can we do better at feeding the people of the world? How can we ensure our own national security and the safety of our people? What is intelligence? As a result of these kinds of scientific breakthroughs, the U.S. economy, for example, is expected to add 1.5 million computer- and information-related jobs by The problem, however, is that the U.S. education system is not producing enough highly skilled people to fill these critical positions. Current projections indicate that the United States will have only half that many qualified graduates. Many other countries are facing similar labor issues and if they do not address these issues immediately and vigorously at the national level, they will face longterm skills shortages that will cripple both academic computing and their high tech industries (International Technology Association of America, 2002; Sargent, 2004). They will be seriously compromised in their ability to maintain or improve their positions in computing, communications, information science, and engineering. In addition, they will be unable to capitalize on current and future innovations that are already providing untapped economic and social opportunities Computer Science Leads to Multiple Career Paths The vast majority of careers in the 21st century will require an understanding of computer science. In 10 to 20 years, today s students will be working in jobs not yet invented. Professionals in every discipline from art and entertainment, to communications and health care, to factory workers, small business owners, and retail store staff need to understand computing to be globally competitive in their fields. Thomas Friedman, in his best-selling book The World is Flat (2007), argues that our economy most needs Versatilists, people who have expertise in some domain and in technology. Computer science is the glue that makes it possible for these Versatilists to work together. There is an unmistakable link between success, innovation, and computer science. Progress on understanding the genetics of disease or of creating an AIDS vaccine requires professionals to think in terms of computer science because the problems are unsolvable without the power of computing. Those who understand the technology can make the new movies and invent the new techniques, and they are the professionals who will go beyond simply using what others have invented. Studying computer science can prepare someone to become a professional software developer or designer, but those aren t the only career possibilities. Despite the depressing reports in the media, the reality is that the software engineers have never been 20

19 more in demand in the United States than they are today. Network managers need computer science expertise to install new kinds of routers. So do database designers who help people represent their data in a form that the computer can manipulate. The oil and gas industry is using computer science to map potential oil fields as well as develop the control systems for tapping those fields. Professional computer scientists rarely spend their day writing program code. More often they are working with experts in many fields, designing and building computer systems for every aspect of our society Computer Science Is Important Intellectually The invention of the computer in the 20th century is a once in a millennium event, comparable in importance to the development of writing or the printing press. Computers are fundamentally different from other technological inventions in the past in that they directly augment human thought, rather than, say, the functions of our muscles or our senses. Computers have already had enormous impact on the way we live, think, and act. It is hard to overestimate their importance in the future. In fact, many believe that the true computer revolution will not happen until everyone can understand the technology well enough to use it in truly innovative ways. We live in a digitized, computerized, programmable world, and to make sense of it, we need computer science. An engineer using a computer to design a bridge must understand how the maximum capacity estimates were computed and how reliable they are. An educated citizen making an online purchase, using a voting machine, or bidding in an ebay auction should have a basic understanding of the underlying algorithms of such conveniences, as well as the security and privacy issues that arise when information is transmitted and stored digitally. Computer science students learn logical reasoning, algorithmic thinking, creative problemsolving techniques all concepts and skills that are valuable well beyond the computer science classroom. Students gain awareness of the resources required to implement and deploy a solution and how to deal with real-world constraints. These skills are applicable in many contexts, from science and engineering to the humanities and business, and have already led to deeper understanding in many areas. Computer simulations are essential to the discovery and understanding of the fundamental rules that govern a wide variety of systems from how ants gather food to how stock markets behave. Computer science is also one of the leading disciplines helping us understand how the human mind works, one of the great intellectual questions of all time Computer Science Teaches Problem-Solving Artists, philosophers, designers, and scientists in all disciplines are united in the intensely creative activity of problem solving. Every painting by Picasso is an attempt to solve the problem of capturing an active, three-dimensional world on a flat canvas. Every TV commercial during the Super Bowl is an attempt to solve the problem of how to entice people to want, and then purchase, a product. And every welldesigned scientific experiment provides data to support or refute a theory. Computer science teaches students to think about the problem solving process itself. In computer science, the first step in solving a problem is always to state the requirements of the problem clearly and unambiguously. Often a computer scientist works closely with business people, scientists, and other experts to understand the issues, and to define the problem so explicitly that it can be represented in a computer. This cooperative process requires people with different expertise and perspectives to work together to clarify the problems while considering each other s priorities and constraints. A computer expert helping to design a new computer system for a medical office, for example, has to take into account the workflow, patient privacy concerns, training 21

20 needs for new staff, current and upcoming technology, and of course, the budget. Once the problem is well defined, a solution must be created. Computer hardware and peripheral devices must be selected or built. Algorithms must be designed, and the computer programs that implement them must be written and tested. Existing software systems and packages may be modified and integrated into the final system. In all phases, the computer scientist thinks about resources of computer time and space. Building a system is a creative process that makes our lives better! The process also requires scientific thinking. With each fix of a bug or addition of a new feature, there s a hypothesis that the problem has been solved. Data are collected, results are analyzed, and if the hypothesis turns out to be false, the cycle repeats. A computer scientist is concerned with the robustness, the user-friendliness, the maintainability, and, above all, the correctness of computer solutions to business, scientific, and engineering problems. These issues often require intense analysis and creativity. How will the system respond if the power goes out, or two nurses try to access the same patient record simultaneously, or the insurance company s system is changed, or someone enters unexpected data into the system? Cooperation is again the key. The users and clients have to think about how the system will be used in day-to-day life and anticipate use in the future. Computer specialists draw on their training and experience to avoid problems and to create the best possible solutions. The power of computing is being harnessed for significant developments in the humanities as well. For example, new methods of information storage and access are facilitating the study of rare texts that were previously available only to a few scholars. Computing is also playing a major role in preserving traditional languages that are for the first time, being collected and preserved in a non-oral format. There can be no doubt that computer science is enabling a new world of discovery and progress across all of the sciences and a growing number of humanities fields. As the 2020 Science Report (Emmott, 2006) notes: We believe that computer science concepts and tools in science form a third, and vital component of enabling a golden triangle to be formed with novel mathematical and statistical techniques in science, and scientific computing platforms and application integrated into experimental and theoretical science. (p.8) However, what this report uncovers, for the first time, is a fundamentally important shift from computers supporting scientists to 'do' traditional science to computer science becoming embedded into the very fabric of science and how science is done, creating what we are prepared to go so far as to call 'new kinds' of science Indeed, we believe computer science is poised to become as fundamental to biology as mathematics has become to physics. (p. 10) As the report also indicates, however, achieving this vision also requires fundamental changes to education to ensure that students are both inspired and prepared to thrive in this increasingly technological future Computer Science Supports and Links to Other Sciences Many people would be surprised to learn that most computer scientists do not work for high tech companies, in fact many work in other disciplines, especially other fields of science. Progress in science has always been linked with progress in technology and vice versa. We will need people with diverse skills, abilities, and perspectives to solve the big scientific problems of the 21st century such as grappling with new diseases and climate change. These endeavors especially require people who can integrate computing knowledge with other discipline-specific knowledge. The use of modeling and simulation, visualization and management of massive data sets, for example, has really created an entirely new field computational science. This field integrates many aspects of computer science, such as the design of algorithms and graphics. In science classes, students use sophisticated simulation 22

21 software to make molecules and geological processes come to life. Writing computer programs that model behavior allows scientists to generate results and test theories that are impossible in the physical world. Advances in weather prediction, for example, are largely due to better computer modeling and simulation. Computational methods have also transformed fields such as statistics and mathematics. Scientists who can understand and contribute to technological innovation have a huge advantage. Good training for future scientists must therefore include a solid basis in computer science. And although it may seem surprising, computer science can also help us learn what it really means to be human. The sequencing of the human genome in 2001, for example, was a landmark achievement of molecular biology, which would not have been possible without computer science. After short DNA fragments of the genome were sequenced in biology labs, computers were used to figure out how to piece the fragments together. This knowledge is paving the way for better computational methods of detecting and curing diseases, such as cancer, because we understand the genetic mutations involved. These changes point to the growing need for computer science to be included as part of the canon of knowledge that every citizen must have in order to be an educated person in this century. If students are to be ready for the world that awaits them, they need to do more than use computers as tools, they need to know at least the fundamentals of how they work and how to design and build the tools that the world will need. And if students are to have the opportunity to know and experience these things, then there must be teachers who are willing and able to teach them. professional educators. Students, parents, policymakers, and legislators are highly motivated to ensure that teachers are teaching and students are learning to the best of their abilities. Within most educational systems internationally, the task of ensuring that teachers are adequately and appropriately prepared to teach a given discipline at a specified education level rests with the bodies responsible for teacher certification. It is the responsibility of these bodies to determine not only what a teacher needs to know in order to be a certified education professional, but how that knowledge should be measured. In other words, the requirements for teacher certification must specify the knowledge and skills teachers require and what kinds of proof of this knowledge and these skills must be provided before one begins teaching and quite possibly, throughout one s career. For computer science teachers, however, the challenge of becoming and remaining exemplary educators is exacerbated by a national system of preservice education and teacher certification that is, in general, so disconnected from the discipline of computer science and the needs of computer science teachers and computer science students that it is harmful to students, schools, and our economy. Many states, for example, make it so difficult to become a computer science teacher that it actually discourages highly qualified individuals from applying in the first place. This in turn, exacerbates the current shortage of teachers in a key STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) area Confusion About Teacher Certification Requirements 1.2 A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF ISSUES RELATING TO TEACHER CERTIFICATION Much of the recent discussion concerning pre-college education relates to the need to ensure that all students are provided with the opportunity to learn and grow in an educational environment staffed by exemplary In 2004 the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) launched a national survey of 14,000 teachers who identified themselves as computer science, computer programming, or Advanced Placement Computer Science teachers. As part of this survey, teachers were asked to indicate whether or not they were required by their state to have either a computer science certification (identifying computer science as 23

22 their major teachable subject) or an endorsement (a secondary certification in a related discipline) in order to teach computer science at the high school level. Upon first look, the data returned by the survey participants seemed to make sense. Half the teachers indicated that their state required either a major certification or an endorsement in computer science and the other half indicated that they did not. Researchers only realized that there was a problem with the data when they began examining the responses on a state-by-state basis and realized that half the teachers in each state were saying Yes and half were saying No. In their report on the 2005 survey results, Eric Roberts of Stanford University and Greg Halopoff (2005) of the Clarke County School District reported these results as follows. Nationally, the results tend to cluster in the middle, with about the same number of negative and positive responses to each of the yes/no questions. One s intuition would be that this sort of balance masks much more significant diversity at the state level. For example, if half of the states required certification and half did not, the overall numbers would tend to hover around 50 percent without providing any interesting insights. That situation, however, is not supported by the stateby-state breakdowns The responses within most states show a surprisingly inconsistent perception. Nine states, including some with reasonable numbers of respondents like Colorado, split perfectly down the middle on this question, with exactly 50 percent saying that their state considered computer science to be certifiable and the other half taking the opposite view. The only conclusion that seems to jump out of these data is that the teachers themselves often have a poor understanding about rules and administrative structures within their own state, at least insofar as computer science certification is concerned. (p. 2) Fearing that they had not provided sufficient explanation of the terms certification and endorsement, CSTA revised the question (providing the missing explanatory text) and included it again in its 2007 national survey. Despite these revisions, the results were the same. Clearly, at least 50% of the teachers in each state had no idea what the certification requirements in their states actually were. Immediately following the first national survey, CSTA decided that the only way to gather reliable information on computer science teacher certification was to survey the person in each state directly responsible for overseeing compliance with the state s teacher certification regulations. This research took more than two years and uncovered an entirely unexpected series of difficulties. First, in many states it was exceedingly difficult to identify and contact the person of responsibility. Even once these people had been identified and contacted, the researchers were appalled to learn that many of these people had no idea what computer science was. In her report on this study, Ghada Khoury (2007) reported the following: Many states did not seem to have a clear definition or understanding of the field Computer Science and exhibited a tendency to confuse Computer Science with other subject areas such as: Technology Education/Educational Technology (TE/ET), Industrial or Instructional Technology (IT), Management Information Systems (MIS), or even the use of computers to support learning in other subject areas. In addition, this study revealed that computer science teacher certification not only varied markedly from state to state, but that even within a given state, the reporting of requirements by the states was inconsistent. For example, some states indicated that they do require teachers to have either computer science certification or endorsement to teach a computer science course but then indicated not applicable when asked to indicate the levels at which this certification or endorsement was required (elementary, middle, or high school). As demonstrated by this study, the profound lack of clarity regarding the current teacher certification requirements is not limited to teachers but is systemic at all levels of the education system, including at the levels where policy is made and enforced. 24

23 1.2.2 Where There Are No Requirements or Requirements Are Highly Problematic The current computer science teacher certification policies (or in many cases lack there of) have created a number of systemic problems for computer science education in K 12 and are, as a result, decidedly counterproductive with regard to new national technological imperatives. These policies deter highly skilled individuals from seeking employment as computer science teachers and thus fail to ensure an adequate supply of teachers, depriving students of access to rigorous computer science courses in K 12. Where there are no requirements for computer science certification or endorsement, teachers with little or no computer science training are frequently assigned to teach computer science courses, much to the detriment of the students, the discipline, and the teachers themselves. In the United States, for example, the Georgia Department of Education and the Georgia Institute of Technology, under the auspices of the Institute for Computing Education (ICE), conducted a study of Advanced Placement Computer Science (AP CS) teachers. The study found that teachers who are required to attend summer workshops for computer science teachers but who, themselves, have no computer science background, experience extreme frustration and usually quit teaching computer science. The study also showed that while teachers with a computer science background were able to understand the computer science content and learn new pedagogical techniques from the workshops, teachers with no previous computer science experience were not able to modify their teaching to match the needs of their students. As one teacher noted: What I m finding is that half the kids in that class, all they re interested in are the gaming aspects of programming. They don t want to learn the fundamentals. They want to learn how to use it to do with it what they want to do with it. That s not a bad thing. I m not an expert at Java programming, so I m not to the place yet where I can gear it to something they are interested in. Maybe if I d been teaching it for five years, I d be a lot better at doing that. But I can t, so I ve lost some of those kids in the mix, I guess. (p.4) In addition, in many states, teachers who clearly have the requisite knowledge and skills (for example those with both current teaching credentials and postsecondary degrees in computer science) are unable to be certified in computer science, while those with vocational or business certification but no computer science background are able to obtain certification (Computer Science Teachers Association, 2005). It should be noted that the certification conundrum becomes even more complicated with the consideration of individuals who wish to transition from careers in the high tech industry to teaching. Teaching, like any profession, requires a set of requisite skills and knowledge. Computer science teachers, of course, need to understand the basic concepts of computing and how to put those into practice, but they also need to understand how to be good teachers: how to engage all students, how to present concepts using a variety of teaching strategies that ensure success for students with diverse learning styles, how to diagnose and correct student misunderstandings or misconceptions, and how to measure and assess student learning. Constructing a workable model of computer science teacher certification that attracts the best possible teacher candidates therefore requires careful consideration of both traditional models of teacher preparation and certification and alternative models for those transitioning from other careers. Good models for teacher certification requirements must therefore be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure that all teachers possess both the technological and teaching knowledge and skills required of exemplary teachers regardless of their pathway to the classroom. Even when there are a variety of pathways into computer science teaching, the required teacher preparation programs often do not provide teacher candidates with computer science methods courses. A methods course is a particularly important course because it prepares teachers to teach in a specific 25

24 discipline, helping them to identify learning problems specific to that discipline and to identify and apply teaching and assessment strategies that are effective in that discipline. The lack of computer science methods courses within teacher preparation programs, or even access to comprehensive and rigorous online computer science methods courses means that computer science teachers are often less prepared for the challenges of the classroom than teachers in other disciplines. In the United States, the inadequacies with regard to computer science teacher certification have been exacerbated by current legislation such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) that requires teachers to be certified as highly qualified. Unfortunately, NCLB only allows for such accreditation in so called core academic subjects (English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history and geography) and therefore specifically prevents computer science teachers from being designated highly qualified regardless of their level of competency or years of teaching experience. This means that in many states, schools are actively discouraged from hiring computer science teachers, and in other states, computer science teachers may be ineligible for salary incentives provided to teachers in other disciplines who may be less skilled. The certification issue is further complicated in states such as California where, in the absence of specific computer science certification, many computer science teachers are certified in mathematics or science. CSTA has received numerous reports of such teachers being pulled from their computer science classrooms to teach remedial courses in their primary certification areas, while less experienced and less knowledgeable teachers are assigned to teach the computer science courses or the computer science courses are cancelled altogether. In the United States, there are states in which the requirements, as they exist, simply cannot be met. In Florida for example, the current teacher certification policies require computer science teachers to meet a considerable list of educational and experiential requirements. One of these requirements, however, involves teaching a K 8 computer science course that does not actually exist in any school in the state. It is therefore entirely possible for a teacher to spend a number of years and a considerable amount of money to systematically meet all of the specified requirements, only to find that this final requirement is completely impossible to achieve. As the examples above demonstrate, both federal and state/provincial level policies can have unintended negative impacts on how and whether teachers are prepared to teach computer science. In countries such as the United States and Canada, where education policies and their implementation are the responsibility of regional, rather than national governments, these challenges become even more difficult as each region is left to determine what teachers must know, how that knowledge must be demonstrated, and who can teach which discipline. What is clear, however, is that the challenge of ensuring that teachers teach well and students learn what they need to learn is shared by all nations. 1.3 CONCLUSION The responsibility for ensuring that all high school computer science teachers are knowledgeable, well prepared, and continually engage in improving student learning must be shared at all levels of the education system. It requires a profound commitment, a coordinated set of policies, and the allocation of appropriate and adequate resources. If countries are to maintain innovation and technological competitiveness in the global economy, the K 12 education system must: Increase the number of students studying computer science at the high school level. Mathematics and science courses or the use of computers in other curriculum areas will not provide students with the computing skills they need. Provide students with a rigorous and engaging computer science curriculum taught by knowledgeable and well-trained teaching professionals. 26

25 Ensuring that teachers are highly qualified requires an immediate and profound commitment to replacing insufficient, inadequate, or irrelevant computer science teacher certification requirements with requirements that ensure that all computer science teachers possess and can demonstrate the highest level of technical and pedagogical knowledge; it further requires comprehensive, sensible, and costeffective teacher training programs that provide teachers with the education they require (both preservice and on-going) and valid mechanisms to measure the knowledge and skills that are truly relevant to the discipline of computer science. REFERENCES Emmott, S. (2006). Towards 2020 science. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from com/towards2020science. Friedman, T. (2006) The world is flat. New York, NY: Picador. ITAA. (2002). Bouncing back: Job skills and the continuing demand for IT workers. Arlington, VA: Information Technology Association of America. National Research Council on Information Technology Literacy. (1999). Being fluent with information technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Sargent, J. (2004). An overview of past and projected employment changes in the professional IT occupations. Computing Research News, 16(3), Shackelford, R. (2005). Why can t smart people figure out what to do about computing education? CS & IT Symposium, February 26, 2005: St. Louis, MO. The College Board. (2007). Advanced placement report to the nation. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from news_info/ap/2007/2007_ap-report-nation.pd. Tucker, A., McCowan, D., Deek, F., Stephenson, C., Jones, J., & Verno, A. (2006) A model curriculum for K 12 computer science: Report of the ACM K 12 Task Force Computer Science Curriculum Committee, 2nd. Ed. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Khoury, G. (2007), Computer science state certification requirements. CSTA Certification Committee Report. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from Certification/sub/CertificationStudyReport.html. McKlin, T. (2008). GaComputes! CS teacher interviewer report: Teacher Learning. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA. Roberts, E. and Halopoff, G. (2005). Results of the 2005 CSTA National Secondary Computer Science Survey: 2005 survey analysis. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from CSTAResearch.html. 27

26 CHAPTER TWO COMPUTER SCIENCE SECONDARY TEACHER PREPARATION AND CERTIFICATION: A REVIEW OF RELEVANT RESEARCH 2.0 INTRODUCTION Computer science is a relatively young discipline within the K 12 educational canon and this relative newness presents unique challenges for anyone attempting to gain an understanding of the issues surrounding the certification of computer science teachers. The body of published knowledge on computer science teacher education, preparation, and certification consists primarily of descriptive papers, including recommendations for specific programs or courses. For this reason, we have to look beyond computer science to other similar disciplines. It is also important to note that teacher preparation and teacher certification are so intertwined that it is virtually impossible to consider them in isolation. This chapter explores a sampling of the fundamental research on teacher preparation and certification in general. It focuses on pre-service secondary teachers and does not deal with research on elementary or junior-high teachers (with very few exceptions), or on teacher educators. In some cases, when there is particular relevance, we do cite research from other disciplines, particularly science and mathematics. This chapter is organized as follows. Section 2.1 attempts to set the research on teacher preparation and certification in its pedagogical context, particularly the growing influence of reform-based teaching and learning. Section 2.2 explores the research relating to teacher preparation, looking specifically at research relating to what teachers need to know, the relationship between educational theory and practice in teacher education programs, and methods courses. Section 2.3 discusses areas of conflict relating to teacher preparation and certification while Section 2.4 examines computer science teacher preparation in relation to the nature of the discipline. Section 2.5 looks at the research relating specifically to computer science, and Section 2.6 provides some conclusions drawn from the previous sections. While it may seem that the earlier sections wander somewhat from our specific concern with computer science teacher certification, it is important to keep in mind that education is an exceedingly complex process. The issues relating to what teachers need to know, how we prepare them to know these things, and how we measure what they in fact do know are inextricably intertwined and cannot and should not be looked at in isolation. If we are going to find useful strategies that will ensure that all of our computer science teachers are highly qualified, we have to be prepared to face this complexity. 2.1 SETTING THE RESEARCH IN THE PEDAGOGICAL CONTEXT It is important to understand that education in any academic discipline takes place in a specific context of conceptions about teaching and learning in general. In the last twenty years or so, ideas about reform-based teaching and learning (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989, 1991) have had a significant impact on research relating to teacher preparation and certification. Reform-based instruction in many disciplines including computer science (von Glasersfeld, 1995; Ben-Ari, 2001) is rooted in the constructivist view that students do not 28

27 learn simply by absorbing knowledge, but rather, they learn through integration of new experiences into existing knowledge structures. Thus the teacher is no longer seen as a knowledge transmitter, but rather as a mediator, assisting students in constructing their own knowledge. Teaching in this context is student-centered rather than teachercentered, and the teacher considers students previous knowledge and possible ways of perceiving taught concepts. Reform-based teaching also aims to introduce the nature of the discipline taught. For example, in the case of computer science (like mathematics), students are encouraged to experience computing as a live, always-developing discipline, and not as a set of truths, rules, and procedures that they must acquire. Rather than offer students a single answer or solution, teachers encourage students to propose multiple solutions. This strategy is believed to emphasize multiple representations, help students make connections between various computing topics, and emphasize general concepts and habits of mind as well as engender topic-specific discussion. According to Cooney (cited in Lin, 2000), incorporating these kinds of reformed-based teaching methods into teacher preparation programs encourages reflection and highlights attention to context. 2.2 PREPARING TEACHERS There is an enormous body of research relating to the design and delivery of teacher preparation programs, much of which may be related to, but is not specific to K 12 computer science education. This section reports on a selection of research studies that the authors found particularly relevant given the purpose and scope of this report. These studies focus on the challenges of designing and delivering teacher education programs so that teachers not only enter their first classroom with a balance of theory and practice that will enable them to transmit the required content to students in a thorough, engaging, and effective way, but that teachers continue to develop their knowledge, skills, and craft throughout their professional teaching careers. Shulman (1986, 1990) describes how teacher preparation has evolved, from technical-professional training that follows an apprentice model and takes place in schools, to university-based academic programs. Shulman argues that this move to the academic environment is justified by the fact that current programs do not focus on training pre-service teachers how to teach specific topics in class, but on integrating educational theories rooted in psychology, sociology, and other disciplines, to give student teachers a wider context for their practice. Thus, current programs are a combination of theory and practice, following Dewey s model of a laboratory (Dewey, 1896, 1904), connected to the practical world, but where intellectual methods are learned What Teachers Must Know The most pressing questions when considering teacher preparation and certification concern what knowledge teachers must have in order to teach effectively and how and when they should acquire that knowledge. In a series of frequently cited papers, Shulman (Shulman, 1986; Wilson, Shulman & Richert, 1987), for example, identifies several types of knowledge that teachers must have, including: Content knowledge, Knowledge of other content (how computer science is used in other disciplines), Knowledge of learners, and Knowledge of educational aims and general pedagogical knowledge. In contrast with traditional programs that used to emphasize pedagogical knowledge, Shulman (1986) argues that teacher preparation and certification programs should focus on teachers content knowledge. For Shulman, content knowledge is much more than a set of rules, truths, and procedures. Rather, it concentrates on three critical domains: 29

28 Subject matter knowledge, Pedagogical content knowledge, and Curricular knowledge. Subject matter knowledge consists both of the substantive structures (the relations between the facts of the discipline) and the syntactic structures (the rules that determine truth or falsehood within the discipline). Pedagogical content knowledge refers to what the teacher has to know in order to teach a certain subject matter, such as how to make it understandable, difficulties students might encounter (students preconceptions and misconceptions), and strategies for coping with them. Curricular knowledge relates to the tools that can be used for teaching (textbooks, software, and so on). In each of these domains, one can look at propositional knowledge (facts or principles that derive from empirical research, maxims learned by experience, and norms and values), case knowledge (examples through which one can teach general rules, prototypes to exemplify theoretical principles, precedents that convey maxims, and parables that convey norms), and strategic knowledge (judging and analyzing). Shulman (1986) also argues that teacher preparation and certification programs should be research-based and deal with both process and content. Like Shulman (1986), Zeidler (2002) contends that a focus on one aspect alone, whether pedagogical knowledge alone or subject matter alone, is insufficient for preparing teachers and that subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge must all be part of any teacher preparation program. Zeider provides substantial evidence that, even if it is rich and multiple-structured, subject matter knowledge is not enough to induce effective teaching. These findings support earlier research by Collins, Bercaw, Palmeri, Altman, Singer-Gabella, and Gary (1999) who argue for the integration of all types of knowledge in the delivery of teacher preparation courses for science teachers. Specific examples of programs intended to provide this integrated learning experience can be found in Bolte (1999), Dhindsa and Anderson (2004), and Peterson and Treagust (2001). In a study of pre-service mathematics teachers, Kahan, Cooper, and Bethea (2003) also found a correlation between pre-service teachers pedagogical content knowledge and their ability to deliver comprehensive lessons. They found that teachers with less pedagogical content knowledge were less likely to make connections across their discipline (in this case, mathematics) during lessons, and less likely to take advantage of unanticipated events that teachers with greater pedagogical content knowledge could utilize as teachable moments or as bridges to other concepts. Zohar (2004) also found that deficiencies in pedagogical knowledge, specifically regarding teaching as knowledge transmission rather than from a constructivist point of view, also negatively affect teachers abilities to engender higher order thinking skills in their students. Zohar therefore argues that active knowledge construction must be an important component of teacher knowledge. Despite the considerable body of research supporting the idea that teacher preparation programs should include pedagogical knowledge or pedagogical content knowledge, it is important to note that there are few findings on this issue. For example, in 2003, the Education Commission of the States issued a report, entitled Eight Questions on Teacher Preparation: What Does the Research Say (ECS, 2003). This report examined the body of research on teacher preparation in order to answer major questions regarding teacher preparation, including questions relating to the kinds of knowledge that teachers must possess to operate effectively in the classroom. The findings of this report indicate moderate support for the importance of solid subject matter knowledge but provide limited support for the importance of pedagogical knowledge or pedagogical content knowledge in teacher preparation. Educational research also suggests the value of teacher knowledge in working with economically, ethnically, and linguistically diverse students. Banks (2003, 2008), referring to this knowledge as equity pedagogy, argues that teachers need to be prepared to employ methods and materials that support the academic achievement of students from diverse groups. However, building equity pedagogy is not necessarily as 30

29 simple as enrolling in a single diversity or multicultural education course. Rather, teachers must examine how culture shapes all aspects of teaching and learning including considerations of curriculum, assessment, learning materials, instructional strategies, classroom management, school conditions, and even one s understanding of the subject-matter itself. In fact, research in science methods classes show teacher education candidates construction of subject-matter knowledge may interfere with their openness to an equity pedagogy (Hollins & Guzman, 2005). This study suggests that teachers unable to view their knowledge construction as a cultural artifact that reflects privileged ideas and experiences are unlikely to develop equity pedagogy. Thus, prospective teachers should have the opportunity to discuss the history of a particular discipline through a cultural framework in the program s subject-matter and methods courses. Likewise, it is important for prospective teachers to have ongoing and explicit conversations about supporting the academic achievement of diverse students in required general education courses. Several teacher education programs have followed this embedded-diversity model and documented great success in producing teachers with a strong commitment to equity (Cochran-Smith, 2005). Further, since working with linguistically diverse students within a particular subject matter requires an additional specialized skill set, many teachers must also take stand-alone language development courses to gain this knowledge. Questions about what teachers need to know represent a small but important part of the current research on teacher preparation and certification but they are particularly important in the case of computer science education because teachers in this discipline must cope, not only with expanding content and pedagogical knowledge, but also with the constant changes to the technology itself. Unfortunately, research has yet to reveal a definitive set of answers regarding the body of knowledge and tools for future professional development needed in teacher preparation programs. Nor has it provided definitive answers about how these components should be integrated into a complete, effective teacher preparation program. Fortunately, however, the research is beginning to reveal some key characteristics of such a program Theory and Practice in Teacher Preparation Programs Many teacher preparation programs today include foundation courses that cover topics in psychology, sociology, and other disciplines relevant to education. Other courses, usually taught at a later time in the preparation program, are more practice-oriented. Usually called methods courses, these courses address how specific topics in the school curriculum should be taught. Shulman (1990) argues that teacher preparation program foundation courses should be taught in a way that is bound up with the content of instruction (p. 309). They should be taught all along the way, providing solid scaffolding for learning and a bridge between pedagogy and content. These foundation courses, according to Shulman, should always be connected to real teaching practice, as an integral part of the connective tissue that gives shape and meaning to the education of teachers as the framework for connecting and integrating the knowledge acquired in the liberal arts and sciences with the practice of pedagogy (p. 304). Pietig (1997) contends that social and psychological foundations should be taught as theoretical foundations, not as a part of the methods course, since pre-service teachers should know these in a wider context then their own classrooms and their own discipline. Teaching these foundations in a profound manner is part of what makes teacher preparation programs belong in universities, and be more than technical training programs. Pietig also argues, though, that foundations courses should not necessarily be taught as separate disconnected courses, but can be thematically connected with one another and tied to other components of the teacher education curriculum. Adler (2000) posits that teacher learning is usefully understood as a process of increasing participation in the practice of teaching, and through 31

30 this participation, a process of becoming knowledgeable in and about teaching (p. 37). Adler, like other researchers (Hiebert, Morris, & Glass, 2003), argues that the body of teaching knowledge is simply too vast for pre-service teachers to acquire in a relatively short period of training. Thus, teacher preparation programs should aim at giving pre-service teachers the tools that would enable them to continue their professional development as in-service teachers. Jaworski and Gellert (2003) also examine the intersection of educational theory and practice in teacher education programs. Specifically, they explore the relationship between theory and practice in four possible models for initial teacher education. These include: 1. No specific teacher preparation. 2. Teacher preparation in which theory and practice are treated separately. Usually, preparation starts with a theory phase in a university, followed by a practice phase, in a school (referred to by Meyer, 1975, as end on training). 3. Teacher preparation in which there is some integration of theory and practice (Meyer calls this concurrent training ). 4. Teacher preparation in which theory and practice are fully integrated. Looking at these four models, Jaworski and Gellert conclude that theory and practice can be effectively interwoven into pre-service teacher experiences and that integrating more practice into the teacher preparation process need not necessarily cause a decrease in exposure to theoretical aspects. Rather, they note that theory can be used as a lens to reflect on practice, and practice can develop from theoretical reflections (p. 833). Echoing an earlier publication by Jaworski (1999), Jaworski and Gellert also relate what they describe as the controversial debate over the extent to which practicing teachers of mathematics should be involved in the preparation of future teachers of mathematics (p. 833). Jaworski and Gellert contend that the increased involvement of current classroom teachers in teacher preparation programs would be highly beneficial in terms of helping pre-service teachers see the connections between educational theories and their applications. There is also considerable concern and not a great deal of consensus in the educational community about the best way to ensure that pre-service teachers have the opportunity to learn how to teach effectively before they become responsible for classrooms of their own. There is, for example, a sizeable body of educational research relating to how student teacher field experience (observation and practice teaching) can best be structured to allow for a more cohesive integration of theory and practice. Although the Education Commission of the States report, Eight Questions on Teacher Preparation: What Does the Research Say (ECS, 2003) concludes that the findings with regard to characteristics of highly-effective field experience are inconclusive, several researchers contend that pre-service teachers should be given more opportunities to combine theory and practice in an actual classroom with actual students. Schoon and Sandoval (1997), for example, point to the especially problematic nature of field experience in science teacher preparation programs. In such programs, the pre-service teachers take university courses in foundations, subject matter, and methods courses, and after that practice teaching at schools that are disconnected from the university. The supervising teachers in these schools are not always familiar with the strategies or theories taught in the methods course, while the university teacher educators are often not involved with school practice. Success at student teaching is determined by the school supervising teachers, and the criteria for success do not always correspond to the theories taught in university courses. To overcome these difficulties, Schoon and Sandoval recommend a field experience model more like that used by teaching hospitals. In this seamless model, the teacher preparation program is linked to a specific school where student teachers observe classes being taught by experienced teachers, visit during their methods course, and in which they do their practice teaching. In this model, the field experience is mentored, not by a remote teacher mentor, but by an instructional team combining school and university staff. Several other researchers, 32

31 including Eick, Ware and Jones (2004), Vithal (2003), and Weld and French (2001) also describe nontraditional experiences, which they argue should be added to the student practicum in order to cope with the limited resources of tutoring schools. Clearly, researchers and the teaching community are becoming increasingly concerned about putting teachers in the classroom who have a great deal of theoretical information but are experientially unprepared for the challenge that is modern education. The question that remains, then, is how do we make sure that teacher preparation programs include all of the elements necessary to ensure that computer science teachers have the right combination of theoretical knowledge, discipline-based content, and experiential knowledge to survive in the classroom? The Methods Course Most teacher preparation programs include at least one methods course. Methods courses focus on the objectives, curricula, special methods, materials, and evaluation appropriate for teaching in a given academic or subject area. These courses are therefore seen as a forum for integrating subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge. The research on methods courses is particularly relevant to teacher certification because these courses are intended to encompass the particular knowledge a teacher needs to teach in a specific academic discipline or subject. In this way, methods courses are in themselves statements about what qualified teachers should know in order to function effectively in the classroom. Methods courses are especially important for high school teachers (who tend to be subject specialists rather than generalists) because they are intended to require pre-service teachers to apply everything they are learning about teaching in general to their specific discipline or subject area. According to Ebby (2000) the goals of a methods course should include developing and nurturing particular habits of mind that help pre-service teachers learn from their own teaching (p. 69). In some cases, methods courses also include a practice-based component that involves actual classroom teaching time. Israel is perhaps unique among nations in that the government s long-time support of a national computer science curriculum for K 12 has led to an impressive body of research on computer science education in general and a number of excellent papers on computer science methods courses. Lapidot and Hazzan (2003), for example, note that computer science methods courses in most countries are rarely available to high school pre-service teachers, and when they are, these courses tend to focus on programming, computer literacy, and the integration of computers in general rather than on computer science as a discipline. Moreover, few of these courses align with the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) standards, which recommend that in addition to attaining a level of knowledge of computer science commensurate with undergraduate programs in computer science, teachers should also be qualified to design and deliver lessons, develop assessment strategies, and develop a personal plan for evaluating their own teaching practice. To meet these goals, Lapidot and Hazzan propose four possible frameworks for methods courses: A framework based upon the NCATE standards that requires teachers to learn how to plan lessons/modules related to programming processes and concepts, develop appropriate assessment strategies, and address student population characteristics. A framework based on an amalgam of computer science and pedagogy that requires teachers to address more creative uses of the computer and includes pedagogical topics such as learning in groups, learning through inquiry, planning constructivist activities, analyzing teaching difficulties, and adjusting learning materials for students with different needs. A framework based upon Shulman s (1987) model consisting of content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, curriculum knowledge, 33

32 pedagogical content knowledge, knowledge of learners and their characteristics, knowledge of educational context, and knowledge of educational ends. A framework grounded in the educational research on student misconceptions and difficulties with relation to core computer science concepts. As an alternative to these four possible frameworks, Lapidot and Hazzan also suggest two other possible activities-based curricula implementations of a methods course, one of which focuses on evaluation (test preparation and grading) and the other on software development methods. In a more recent paper, Hazzan & Lapidot (2006) expand their discussion of methods courses to include the incorporation of social issues into the computer science pre-service teacher curriculum framework. Noting that the attention to social issues is becoming increasingly prevalent in other scientific domains, they argue for the inclusion of topics such as ethics, diversity, and the history of computer science. As is the case with their earlier research on computer science methods courses, this paper recommends an active learning-based approach to these new curriculum content areas. In some cases, groups of pre-service teachers may be presented with a hypothetical situation that a computer science teacher might have to face and asked to determine the nature of the dilemma and possible solutions. In other situations, they may be asked to construct a lesson that includes a presentation. Ragonis and Hazzan (in press) also describe a tutoring model for computer science prospective teachers,which can be integrated into a computer science methods course. In this model, each teacher in the methods course tutors a student enrolled in an undergraduate introductory computer science course, focusing on problem solving processes. This model is similar to the model proposed by Eick, Ware, and Jones (2004) in that both of these models involve the inclusion of a practicum component, in which pre-service teachers practice teaching to undergraduate students. According to Ragonis and Hazzan, through their tutoring of actual computer science students, the pre-service teachers changed their perspective with respect to teaching processes, focused their teaching on learners difficulties, increased their awareness of problem-solving processes, increased their awareness of the need for adapting different approaches for different learners, developed as reflective practitioners, and gained confidence with respect to their teaching processes. This research on the integration of different types of knowledge in a computer science methods course is further supported by research on pre-service teacher education in other scientific disciplines. Bodzin and Cates (2003), for example, argue that a science methods course should be expanded to include web-based scientific inquiry, while Moyer and Milewicz (2002) contend that a mathematics methods course should also cover various ways of asking questions. Manouchehri (1997) claims that a methods course should also deal with prospective teachers beliefs, since their beliefs (acquired mostly in their school years) affect their practice (Swafford, 1995). Kinach (2002) also provides a powerful argument for expanding the curriculum of mathematics methods courses to include the integration of content and pedagogy under the theme of teaching for understanding. Anderson (1997) also notes the important role of the methods course in prospective science teachers preparation. According to Anderson, science methods courses should focus on teaching people how to be teachers and should be conceptualized as a foundation for a career-long process of teacher learning. In order to do this, Anderson argues that methods courses for pre-service science teachers should: operate on the principle that students must take responsibility for directing their own learning; cause students to reflect upon and reassess the values and beliefs they hold with respect to science learning and teaching; have a considerable amount of student work that is done in the context of school science classes; have a large amount of student work that is done in collaboration with other students; give the students a major role in organizing and 34

33 directing their own work; and provide students work to do that is connected to science classroom events, challenges their values and beliefs, and involves collaboration with others. Anderson s perceptions of the purpose, focus, and content of pre-service methods courses are consistent with Ebby s (2000), who argues that methods courses in the sciences should emphasize learning from teaching, learning from the class (reflection), and making sense of student understandings, and Dewey s (1896, 1904) who posited that methods courses should explicitly connect theory and practice. As the studies discussed above demonstrate, the research relating to methods courses in the scientific disciplines is typified by continually expanding ideas of what teachers need to understand and be able to do. Not only must they possess a solid understanding of the content of their discipline, they must know how to teach it. And this idea of how to teach it is, in and of itself, an exceedingly complex undertaking, requiring teachers to understand their own and other s learning styles, the misconceptions that students might bring to a given subject or concept, the difficulties students might encounter in mastering these concepts, and the wide variety of solutions that might be needed to overcome any and all of these challenges. Teachers must also know how to reflect on their own beliefs, values, and practices. It is clear that teaching is a complex activity and that creating courses that adequately and appropriately prepare teachers is an equally complex undertaking. It should not be surprising then that finding a way for teachers to demonstrate all of these abilities (which is the ultimate goal of teacher certification) is also a complex and challenging task THE PREPARATION AND CERTIFICATION DEBATES As the previous sections show, although our understanding of what it takes to teach teachers how to be teachers is improving, there is no clear researchbased consensus on how to prepare teachers for the rigors of the classroom and for their particular academic disciplines. At its basis, solving the dilemma of teacher certification requires a clear stipulation of the requirements that should be fulfilled by candidates before they are permitted to teach in schools and a clear plan for reliably measuring the required knowledge and skills. Unfortunately, however, complex educational issues such as teacher certification requirements must now be resolved in an increasingly fractious context, where control over classroom content and instructional strategies are often seen as issues for political, rather than professional, decision-making. As a result, the research on teacher certification must be viewed with an awareness of the potential political aims driving a study or report. Broadly speaking, there are three kinds of publications dealing with teacher certification: Publications that focus on traditional certification channels such as college or university undergraduate teacher preparation programs and compare them to alternative certification routes. Publications that focus on whether or not teaching practitioners should be certified and examine the general effectiveness of teacher preparation. Studies that look at the effects and characteristics of specific certification tests. Most of the work on certification is general rather than discipline-specific and does not distinguish among levels (elementary, junior-high, high school). The research also focuses primarily on the efficacy of traditional teacher certification (involving enrollment in an undergraduate teacher education program or a one-to-two year postbaccalaureate program) versus no certification or alternative methods of teacher certification (usually shorter programs that may allow participants to teach while they earn their certification and vary widely in terms of their prerequisites and rigor). The research dealing specifically with whether or not teacher certification improves student performance 35

34 is fraught with contention and contrary results, some of which exemplify the dangers of politically motivated conclusions supported by poorly conducted studies or inaccurately reported results. In 2001, for example, the Abell Foundation (Walsh, 2001) issued the report titled Teacher Certification Reconsidered dealing with teacher certification requirements in the state of Maryland. This report, which was described as a meta-study (a review of relevant research), was in fact a position piece specifically intended to argue against Maryland legislation requiring that individuals must complete a pre-scribed body of coursework before teaching in a public school (p. iii). The Abell Foundation s report claimed that uncertified teachers are as effective as certified teachers and that teacher education makes no difference to teacher effectiveness. In a detailed response to this report, Darling-Hammond (2002) soundly refuted the Abell Foundation s claims that teacher preparation is ineffective. Citing significant inaccuracies and deficiencies, Darling-Hammond showed how the report, claiming to be based on an extensive literature survey, drew almost exclusively on outdated research from journals that were not peer-reviewed (considered an important hallmark of research validity) and selective references from studies that involved very small numbers of research participants and questionable research and analysis procedures. It is also important to note that improperly conducted or inaccurately cited research can have long-term negative effects even in cases that are not so clearly politically motivated. In 2000, Goldhaber and Brewer, released the results of a study comparing the achievements of 12 th grade students of teachers who had met the Maryland s standard certification in their subject area with the achievements of students of teachers with probationary certification, emergency certification, private school certification, or no certification in their subject area. The authors reported that In mathematics students of teachers who are either not certified in their subject or hold a private school certification do less well than students whose teachers hold a standard, probationary, or emergency certification in math (p. 139). The authors emphasized the surprising finding regarding teachers with emergency certification and gave one (speculative, in their words) explanation for this phenomenon, arguing that teachers with emergency credentials had been more carefully screened. They also reported that having a degree in education has no impact on student science test scores and, in mathematics, having a BA in education actually has a statistically significant negative impact on mathematics scores of students (p , emphasis in the original). The authors suggested that this finding could be explained by the teacher s education major serving as a proxy for teacher ability, since most college students selecting education majors tend to be drawn from the lower part of the ability distribution (p. 139). Despite the fact that the authors were cautious in their discussion, stating that they could draw no definitive recommendations from their research, their work was cited by a number of later researchers including Good, McCaslin, Tsang, Zhang, Wiley, Bozack, and Hester (2006) as indicating that certification had little impact on student test scores. In 2005, the Education Commission of the States took up the issue of teacher preparation and certification, looking specifically at questions relating to teacher licensure and certification across all disciplines and all levels. The commission pointed out serious problems with the conclusion drawn by Goldhaber and Brewer (2000), noting that there is strong evidence that students taught by fully certified teachers achieve better than those taught by out-offield certified teachers or teachers with emergency certification. The Education Commission also reported that Praxis tests are valid and reliable and that there is limited evidence that state licensure examinations lack relevance, utility, and reliability. The research literature on alternative certification versus standard certification is similarly inconclusive. Miller, McKenna, and McKenna (1998) compared traditional certification program graduates with what they described as individuals completing a carefully constructed AC [alternative certification] program. This carefully constructed post-baccalaureate program, intended for middle-grade teachers, 36

35 included condensed coursework and a mentoring component. The results of this three-phase study indicated that, after three years of experience and mentoring, there were no major differences between teachers who had completed traditional certification programs and teachers who had completed alternative certification programs. Good, McCaslin, Tsang, Zhang, Wiley, Bozack, and Hester (2006) also compared teachers graduating from an undergraduate program in education (general or specific, such as mathematics education) with graduates of a master s degree in education or a postbaccalaureate program leading to certification (considered a nontraditional certification process). The researchers compared the teaching practice (assessment, classroom management, and implementation of instruction) of the participating teachers and concluded that beginning teachers from both types of preparation programs could teach at desired normative levels (p. 422). They also found, however, that traditional preparation better served teachers at the elementary and middle-school levels than did nontraditional preparation (p. 421) and nontraditional preparation appeared a better fit with high school teaching (p. 421). In 2002, the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy (Wilson, Floden, and Ferrini-Mundy, 2001; 2002) also released the results of its research on alternative certification. This report concluded that alternative routes that have high entry requirements and include pedagogical training, mentoring, and substantial evaluation (all the hallmarks of a traditional certification program) tend to be successful in their production of qualified teachers. Several other studies and reports (Zeichner & Schulte, 2001; Education Commission of the States, 2005) have categorized the research on the differences in performance between teachers prepared via traditional versus alternative certification methods as inconclusive. It is interesting to note, however, that both the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy and Zeichner and Schulte found that alternative accreditation programs are more likely to recruit a more diverse pool of teachers. There is also a small body of research that examines the effectiveness of teacher certification exams conducted by external bodies but these studies produced inconclusive results. Bond, Smith, Baker, and Hattie s (2000) study of teachers certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) concluded that these certified teachers were more effective classroom teachers. The report of the Education Commission of the States (2005), however, concluded that the body of research on NBPTS certification tests was unreliable because there were an insufficient number of studies in this category. In, 2007, the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence (2007) also set out to examine the effectiveness of their ABCTE certification exams. This study, however, was severely flawed in that it looked at the exams for secondary high school mathematics teachers while their actual test population consisted of middle school mathematics teachers (most of whom did not pass the exam s content knowledge section). It is therefore impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions from this report. 2.4 COMPUTER SCIENCE TEACHER PREPARATION AND THE NATURE OF THE DISCIPLINE Compared to the body of research on the preparation of teachers in other scientific disciplines, the research on the preparation of computer science teachers is spotty at best and is limited to descriptions or reviews of individual programs addressing either pre-service or in-service teacher education programs. In addition, much of this research and the programs being described fail to distinguish between computer science and the use of computing across the curriculum and also fail to address more than purely subject matter content. From the mid 1970s until the mid 1980s, much of the discussion with regard to computer science education centered on the question of what kinds of computing educators were required to effectively 37

36 integrate computers into the schools, specifically whether there was a need for computer professionals or computer science professionals. In many ways, these discussions echo the larger debate about the nature of computer science itself. In 1989 a committee of the ACM chaired by Denning (Denning, Comer, Gries, Mulder, Tucker, Turner, & Young, 1989), published a report entitled Computing as a Discipline that attempted to define the scope and content of computer science as an academic discipline. Since that publication, however, computer science has continued to evolve, and various subfields (such as software engineering and informatics) have arisen. These emerging subfields have resulted in a further fragmentation of the discipline and make it difficult to situate the education of computing teachers within computer science as a discipline and a professional practice. Early publications on teaching computer science in K 12 typically focused on programs for teacher training. The authors typically argued that computer use was an important element of education and that teacher preparation programs for computer science teachers should focus on content knowledge, or more specifically on computer programming. For example, Frederick (1975) suggested that students training to be secondary computer science teachers should combine a minor in computer science with an appropriate teaching major, and that the pre-service education program should include computer science content (programming) and an understanding of computer use in education, but no content relating to how to actually teach computer science. Bauer and Meinke (1975) also described a Master of Science for Teachers program that would provide in-service training for experienced teachers who wanted to teach computer science in high schools. This program consisted of four courses in educational psychology, five standard computer science courses, and a fivehour project. In addition to its emphasis on programming and computer use in education, this program also demonstrated what Deek and Kimmel, (1999) identified as the unfortunate and persistent practice of allowing teachers from other disciplines with no adequate retraining to teach computer science in high school. Mocciola (1978) also demonstrated the prevailing emphasis on programming and on computer use in education. In a paper describing computer science education courses given at a western Australian university, Mocciola provided the following list of courses: Computer-assisted Learning, Computer-based Instruction, and Program Design and Construction. Hwang, Kulm, and Wheatley (1981) described a program for in-service secondary school teachers, based on a cooperative effort between computer scientists and educators. Their program includes the familiar components of programming and computer use in education, as well as a component of curricular knowledge. Kushan (1994) described a small empirical study looking at the issue of effectiveness of teaching strategies, focusing only on programming. She analyzed the programming concepts, problemsolving strategies, and teaching strategies emphasized and used by four in-service programming teachers who are considered effective teachers. Although Kushan does not specify any criteria for their effectiveness, she argues that these strategies and concepts should be incorporated into teacher preparation programs. Her final list consisted of eight programming concepts, five problem-solving strategies, and four teaching strategies (some were general and some CS-related), such as hands-on practice and process testing). In 1988, An ACM/IEEE task force, chaired by Poirot (Poirot, Taylor & Norris, 1988) also issued a report dealing with retraining secondary school teachers to teach computer science. The report, titled Retraining Teachers to Teach High School Computer Science argued that teachers moving into computer science from another discipline should complete the required and elective subject matter courses as well as a course on computers in education or computer literacy prior to being admitted to a retraining 38

37 program. The report, however, made no mention of a computer science methods course. Although it does not deal specifically with issues relating to computer science teacher preparation programs, it is also important to mention a report issued in 2005 by the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) examining many of the issues that surround the position of computer science within the K 12 curriculum and its teaching. The New Educational Imperative: Improving High School Computer Science Education (CSTA Curriculum Improvement Task Force, 2005) posits that the United States is sitting quietly on the sidelines while other countries make improvements to ensure their high school graduates will be ready to meet the demands of tomorrow s high tech society (p. 13). This report provides a definition of computer science that distinguishes it from both computer literacy and programming, and argues that Lack of leadership on high school computer science education at the highest legislative and policy levels has resulted in insufficient funding for classroom instruction, resources, and professional development for computer science teachers (p. 14). CSTA s report also includes an extensive review of issues relating to teacher preparation and identifies the following factors, which it says are key to ensuring that high school computer science teachers have the requisite knowledge of the discipline and the ability to actively engage students in their own learning: High school computer science teachers must have a thorough formal background in computer science. Pre-service teacher education must prepare teachers to better employ general pedagogical principles as well as teaching methods in the context of computer science education. To be best qualified, computer science high school teachers should be certified and offered courses in computer science education in addition to regular computer science courses. Classroom teachers require on-going access to appropriate and relevant professional development opportunities that allow them to master new technologies, implement new curricula, and constantly improve their teaching. Teachers should become part of a collaborative computer science teachers' community of practice by joining local and national associations that provide useful resources and support their ongoing learning and leadership development. The CSTA report also includes specific suggestions for improving the ways in which teacher preparation programs prepare their teacher candidates for the classroom. These include: Ensuring that schools and faculties of education are adequately preparing pre-service teachers to teach computer science, and Providing programs for individuals transitioning from the information technology industry to education that offer the opportunity to acquire the educational knowledge and training needed to become exemplary teachers. 2.5 COMPUTER SCIENCE TEACHER CERTIFICATION Like the research on computer science teacher preparation programs, the research on computer science teacher certification is quite limited and demonstrates a similar confusion about the nature of the discipline and the skills and knowledge required to teach it effectively in K 12. In a 1975 research report, Statz and Miller (1975) recommended that the certification requirements for computer science teachers (much like teacher preparation programs) should consist of core requirements in computer science, a course on computer use in education, and a methods course that focused on developing curriculum units and teaching computer concepts. That same year, Poirot and Early (1975) also published a research report in which they argued that computer science teacher certification is a necessity. In 1984, Taylor and Poirot (1984) expanded the investigation into computer 39

38 science teacher certification requirements with a survey of computer science college professors that asked participants what courses they believed were required to prepare computer science teachers for certification. Their reported list of courses included both computer science subject matter courses and a non-detailed methods course. In 1985 an ACM Task Force on Teacher Certification in Computer Science, chaired by Poirot (Poirot, Luehrmann, Norris, Taylor, and Taylor, 1985), proposed a significantly expanded curriculum for programs leading to teacher certification in computer science. The curriculum included: Five subject matter courses, One computer science methods course, Two subject matter electives A computers in education course, and A course in computer-assisted instruction. The goals of the methods course were defined as follows: To provide prospective teachers with insights that will enable them to improve their students computing skills; to introduce teaching techniques for topics of computing, particularly programming; to adapt computer science concepts for presentations in programming languages commonly available in an educational setting; to examine the computing teacher s role in a secondary school setting (p. 277). The ACM Task Force on Teacher Certification in Computer Science also provided a long list of topics for the methods course but did not give examples of specific methods or references to relevant literature. This work was later echoed by Chen (1989), who also detailed what he referred to as a competency-based computer science teacher certification program. Like ACM s proposed program, this program included courses in computer science, computer use in education, the application of computers in the classroom, and an unspecified methods course. The work of Poirot and his colleagues is also believed to have heavily influenced the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) standards for accrediting computer science teacher preparation programs (ISTE, 2002). The evolution of these standards is described in a paper by Taylor (1997). This paper is especially important because it provides a clear differentiation between what Taylor describes as the fields of educational technology and computer science education as a distinct academic field (p. 71). Taylor also argues that there is a need for educational support courses and practical experiences that are typical for any content area teaching program (p. 71). Taylor also notes the importance of ensuring that certified computer science teachers exhibit knowledge, skills, and dispositions equipping them to teach application usage, computer science concepts, information technology fluency, and computer programming, Like Taylor (1997), Gal-Ezer and Harel (1998) argue that beyond the mastery of core CS material, good CS educators should also be familiar with a significant body of material that will expand their perspectives on the field, and consequently, enhance the quality of their teaching. They claim that there should be a difference between the background and knowledge required of a practitioner or researcher in a scientific field and that of an educator. While the work of the former requires extensive knowledge and skills in a particular sub area of the field itself, the latter must have the additional ability to provide perspective, and to convey this knowledge to others. This requires the educator to be more of a scientific intellectual, as far as that field in question is concerned. The authors describe the design of a meta course, which they claim assists in providing the required knowledge and skills necessary to achieve this goal. This course (which has actually been in place in Israel for more than a decade) is described as a Topics in Computer Science course and can be seen as a precursor to a computer science methods course. It addresses issues such as: Relationships between different areas of computer science a bird s-eye-view of the field, The nature of computer science, The history of computer science, 40

39 Familiarity with all kinds of existing computer science study programs, The challenges of teaching programming, and Tools and methods for teaching. These issues can easily be put in the context of Shulman's (1986) three critical domains: subject matter knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular knowledge. Gal-Ezer and Zur (2007) describe a distance learning computer science teacher preparation program leading toward certification. Program applicants must have completed an undergraduate computer science degree (applicants with a degree in related fields of study can also enroll but they are required to take qualifying courses in computer science and sometimes also in mathematics before they can begin the program). The program consists of computer science content courses, including the specially designed Topics in Computer Science course mentioned above, education courses, a workshop that serves the role of a methods course, and field experience. The researchers conclude that this kind of program is needed in Israel for both pre-service teachers and employees in the high tech industries who desire a back-up for their profession. They also note that it is especially important that this program be delivered via distance education so that it is accessible across the country and not just in the largest cities. Interestingly, Gal-Ezer and Zur also report that, contrary to some claims, their program attracts very strong graduate students. The report mentioned earlier from CSTA s Curriculum Improvement Task Force (2005) also points to the need to improve current certification requirements for high school computer science teachers. Addressing what it refers to as a system of teacher certification that makes it so difficult to become a computer science teacher that it actually discourages highly qualified individuals from applying in the first place (p. 76). CSTA recommends that certification requirements for teachers should adhere to a consistent (and enforced) national standard that would allow for greater clarity and mobility from state to state. The conclusions put forward in this report are consistent with later research by CSTA (Khoury, 2007) that examines computer science teacher certification requirements on a state-by-state basis. This study found a persistent lack of understanding of computer science as an academic discipline. Khoury also reported that very few states have developed distinct certification requirements for computer science as an academic discipline on its own even though 24 of the study s 45 responding states claim that they grant a computer science teaching endorsement at some level. As a result of these findings, Khoury provides the following list of recommendations: 1. Improve the level of understanding of Computer science as an academic and professional field at the state level and nationwide. 2. Clearly define computer science as a discipline distinguished from other related disciplines such as information/industrial technology (IT), educational technology (ET), management information systems (MIS) and so on, 3. Improve public awareness of the importance of current workforce issues specifically in the area of computer science and the long-term impact of the continued shortage of highly skilled technology workers on the economy. 4. Develop teacher preparation standards for computer science and share them with all state certification officials, national accreditation associations such as National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC), and national state associations such as the National Association of State Directors of Teachers Education and Certification (NASDTEC). Sharing these standards would not only affect how states view teacher preparation in computer science but could improve the general understanding of this discipline and how it is distinct from other technology disciplines. 41

40 5. Make individual states aware of gaps and inconsistencies in their current teacher preparation and certification requirements and be able to evaluate their performance on these issues in relation to other states. The provision of such information could also serve as a catalyst for new programs at the state level intended to improve the understanding of computer science as a discipline. 6. Work with professional associations (such as CSTA) and school districts to develop curriculum, supporting materials, and professional development for teachers, which could be used to support computer science learning in K 12 and encourage students to consider computing as a viable educational and career pathway. As these studies show, the early research on computer science teacher certification follows a similar pattern to research dealing with teacher preparation in that it tends to focus almost exclusively on determining whether teachers have the requisite computer science subject matter knowledge. More recent research, however, is more likely to consider whether the teachers actually have the pedagogical knowledge and strategies to address the conceptual and skills base of computer science specifically and whether these skills and knowledge are, or should be, imbedded in teacher certification requirements. 2.6 CONCLUSION The chapter explores a sampling of the published research on teacher preparation and certification, focusing mainly on pre-service programs. Because computer science is a relatively young and still evolving discipline, there is limited research specifically addressing the preparation and certification of computer science teachers. As a result, this chapter deals with these issues in a general context, in hopes of capitalizing on what has been learned by researchers from other scientific disciplines. Teacher preparation and teacher certification are also so intertwined that it is not possible to discuss them in isolation from one another. The goal of teacher certification requirements (where they are required by the state or national government) should be to ensure that teachers have been adequately and appropriately prepared to meet the challenges of advancing student learning in a given discipline or area. Likewise, the goal of any teacher preparation program should be to ensure that teachers are able to meet and exceed the certification requirements. Success in both of these instances requires a comprehensive understanding and a clear delineation of what teachers must know about their discipline and what they must know about how to teach their discipline. From the current available research, we can conclude that teachers require several different kinds of knowledge, including subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and curricular knowledge. All three of these kinds of knowledge must be a part of both teacher preparation programs (most likely integrated into methods courses) and certification requirements. In addition, both theory and practice should be interwoven in the pre-service experience of teachers before they become responsible for classrooms of their own. In the United States at present, there is a significant lack of consistency in computer science teacher certification standards. In fact, even states that appear to have clear standards either do not enforce them or do not provide teachers with a way to actually meet them. One can only conclude that this is a serious omission for a discipline that is known for its scientific rigor and for the extent to which computing and innovation are tied to the nation s long-term technical and economic viability. Clearly, students, teachers, and the educational system as a whole would benefit from the implementation of teacher preparation and certification programs that were clearly linked to one another, to the discipline of computer science, and to the learning needs of today s students. 42

41 2.7 REFERENCES American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence. (2007). Student achievement and passport to teaching certification in mathematics. Washington, D.C.: Retrieved August 7, 2007, from abcte.org/files/math_2007_validity.pdf Adler, J. (2000). Social practice theory and mathematics teacher education: A conversation between theory and practice. Nordic Mathematics Education Journal, 8(3), Anderson, R. D. (1997). The science methods course in the context of the total teacher education experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(4), Banks, J. A. (2003) Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In J.A. Banks & C.A. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and Perspectives. (p. 3 30). New York: Wiley. Banks, J. A. (2008). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies (8 th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bauer, C. R. and Meinke, J. G. (1975). Computer science for the high school teacher. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 7(3), Ben-Ari, M. (2001). Constructivism in computer science education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20(1), Bond, L., Smith, T., Baker, W., and Hattie, J. (2000). The certification system of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards: A construct and consequential validity study. Greensboro, NC: Center for Educational Research and Evaluation, University of North Carolina. Chen, J. (1989). Toward an ideal competency-based computer science teacher certification program: The Delphi approach. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 21(1), Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). The new teacher education: For better or worse. Educational Researcher, 34(7) Collins, A., Bercaw, L., Palmeri, A., Altman, J., Singer- Gabella, M,. and Gary, T. (1999). Good intentions are not enough: A story of collaboration in science, education, and technology. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(1), CSTA Curriculum Improvement Task Force. (2005). The new educational imperative: Improving high school computer science education. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). Research and rhetoric on teacher certification: A response to teacher certification reconsidered. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(36). Retrieved August 1, 2007, from v10n36.html. Bodzin, A. M. and Cates, W. M. (2003). Enhancing preservice teachers understanding of web-based scientific inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(4), Deek, F. P. and Kimmel, H. (1999). Status of computer science education in secondary schools: One state s perspective. Computer Science Education, 9(2), Bolte, L. A. (1999). Enhancing and assessing preservice teachers integration and expression of mathematical knowledge. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, Denning, P. J., Comer, D. E., Gries, D., Mulder, M. C., Tucker, A., Turner, A. J., and Young, P. R. (1989). Computing as a discipline. Communications of the ACM, 32(1),

42 Dewey, J. (1896). The university school. University Record, 5, teachers: Certification via distance learning. Mathematics and Computer Education, 41(3), Dewey, J. (1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. In McMurry, C. A. (Ed.), Third Yearbook of the National Society for the Scientific Study of Education (9 30). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Goldhaber, D. D. and Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2), Dhindsa, H. S. and Anderson, O. R. (2004). Using a conceptual-change approach to help preservice science teachers recognize their knowledge structures for constructivist teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(1), Good, T. L., McCaslin, M., Tsang, H. Y., Zhang, J., Wiley, Z., Bozack, A. R., and Hester, W. (2006). How well do 1st-year teachers teach: Does type of preparation make a difference? Journal of Teacher Education, 57(4), Ebby, C. B. (2000). Learning to teach mathematics differently: The interaction between coursework and fieldwork for preservice teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, Hazzan, O. and Lapidot, T. (2006). Social issues of computer science in the Methods of Teaching Computer Science in the High School course. Inroads the SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(2), Education Commission of the States (2005). Eight questions on teacher licensure and certification: What does the research say? Retrieved September 10, 2007, from Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., and Glass, B. (2003). Learning to learn to teach: An experiment model for teaching and teacher preparation in mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, Education Commission of the States (2003). Eight questions on teacher preparation: What does the research say? Retrieved July 29, 2007, from Eick, C. J., Ware, F. N., and Jones, M. T. (2004). Coteaching in a secondary science methods course: Learning through a coteaching model that supports early teacher practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(3), Frederick, T. J. (1975). Computer science education for students training to be secondary teachers. ACM SIGCUE Outlook, 9(SI), Gal-Ezer, J. and Harel, D. (1998). What (else) should CS educators know? Communications of the ACM, 41(9), Gal-Ezer, J. and Zur, E. (2007). Reaching out to CS Hollins, E., & Guzman, M. T. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse populations. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Teacher Education & Practice ( ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Hwang, C. J., Kulm, G., and Wheatley, G. H. (1981). Computing education for secondary school teachers: A cooperative effort between computer scientists and educators. Proceedings of the Twelfth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 13(1), ISTE (2002). Educational computing and technology standards for secondary computer science education initial endorsement program. Retrieved August 7, 2007, from Jaworski, B. (1999). Mathematics teacher education, research and development: The involvement of 44

43 teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, Jaworski, B. and Gellert, U. (2003). Educating new mathematics teachers: Integrating theory and practice and the role of practicing teachers. In Bishop, A. J., Clements, M. A., Keitel, C., Kilpatrick, J., and Leung, F. K. S. (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Mathematics Education, ( ). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press. Kahan, J. A., Cooper, D. A. and Bethea, K. A. (2003). The role of mathematical teachers content knowledge in their teaching: A framework for research applied to a study of student teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6(3), Kinach, B. M. (2002). Understanding and learning-toexplain by representing mathematics: Epistemological dilemmas facing teacher educators in the secondary mathematics methods course. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5, Khoury, G. (2007). Computer science state certification requirements: CSTA Certification Committee report. Retrieved October 10, 2007 from org/computerscienceteachercertification/sub/ CertificationStudyReport.html. Kushan, B. (1994). Preparing programming teachers. Proceedings of the 25 th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 26(1), Lapidot, T. and Hazzan, O. (2003). Methods of teaching a computer science course for prospective teachers. Inroads The SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(4), Lin, F. (2000). Making sense of mathematics teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, Manouchehri, A. (1997). School mathematic reform: Implications for mathematics teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(3), Meyer, R. (1975). Development in the training and retraining of school biology teachers. Paper presented at the International Congress on the Improvement of Biology Education, Uppsala, Sweden. Miller, J. W., McKenna, M. C., and McKenna, B. A. (1998). A comparison of alternatively and traditionally prepared teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 49(3), Mocciola, M. (1978). Teacher-training in computer science education in western Australia: Group projects. Papers of the SIGCSE/CSA Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 10(1), Moyer, P. S. and Milewicz, E. (2002). Learning to question: Categories of questioning used by preservice teachers during diagnostic mathematics interviews. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Peterson, R. F. and Treagust, D. F. (2001). A problembased learning approach to science teacher preparation. In Lavoie, D. R., and Roth, W. M. (Eds.), Models of science teacher preparation (49 66). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press. 45

44 Pietig, J. (1997). Foundations and teacher education: Do we need a new metaphor? Journal of Teacher Education, 48(3), Poirot, J. L. and Early, G. G. (1975). Teacher certification A computer science necessity. ACM SIGCUE Outlook, 9(SI), Poirot, J., Luerhmann, A., Norris, C., Taylor, H., and Taylor, R. (1985). Proposed curriculum for programs leading to teacher certification in computer science. Communications of the ACM, 28(3), Poirot, J. L., Taylor, H. G., and Norris, C. A. (1988). Retraining teachers to teach high school computer science. Communications of the ACM, 31(7), Ragonis, N. and Hazzan, O. (in press). Integrating a tutoring model into the training of prospective computer science teachers. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching. Schoon, K. J. and Sandoval, P. A. (1997). The seamless field experience model for secondary science teacher preparation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(2), Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Teacher, 15(2), Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), Shulman, L. S. (1990). Reconnecting foundations to the substance of teacher education. Teachers College Record, 91(3), Statz, J. and Miller, L. (1975). Certification of secondary school computer science teachers: Some issues and viewpoints. Proceedings of the 1975 Annual Conference ACM, 75, Swafford, J. O. (1995). Teacher preparation. In Carl, I. M. (Ed.), Prospects for school mathematics ( ). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Taylor, H. G. (1997). The evolution of standards for accrediting computer science teacher preparation programs. Proceedings of the 28 th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 29(1), Taylor, H. G. and Poirot, J. L. (1984). A proposed computer education curriculum for secondary school teachers. Proceedings of the 15 th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 16(1), Vithal, R. (2003). Teachers and street children : On becoming a teacher of mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London, UK: The Falmer Press. Walsh, K. (2001). Teacher certification reconsidered: Stumbling for quality. Baltimore, MD: Abell Foundation. Weld, J. D. and French, D. P. (2001). An undergraduate science laboratory field experience for pre-service science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(2), Wilson, S. M, Floden, E. F., and Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2002). Teacher preparation research An insider s view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), Wilson, S. M., Floden, E. F., and Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. 46

45 Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., and Richert, A. E. (1987). 150 different ways of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring Teachers Thinking ( ). London, UK: Cassel. Zeichner, K. M. and Schulte, A. K. (2001). What we know and don t know from peer-reviewed research about alternative teacher certification programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(4), Zeidler, D. L. (2002). Dancing with maggots and saints: Visions for subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), Zohar, A. (2004). Elements of teachers pedagogical knowledge regarding instruction of higher order thinking. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(4),

46 CHAPTER THREE SELECTED CURRENT MODELS OF COMPUTER SCIENCE TEACHER CERTIFICATION 3.0 INTRODUCTION In order to get a more detailed perspective on teacher certification issues for computer science, we will examine the certification requirements in Scotland, Israel, and three states: Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Texas. All secondary level computer science teachers in Scotland must be deemed specifically qualified to teach computer science. Israel requires all teachers of computer science to have at least a bachelor's degree in computer science and a computer science certificate, which is achieved after the completion of a teachers' preparation study program. Pennsylvania has no certification or endorsement for computer science, Georgia has a voluntary endorsement for computer science, and Texas has a required certification in computer science. We will list the computer science courses or programs that are offered in each state or country and the department or departments that offer them, the endorsement or certification that is required to teach computer science courses, and the requirement teachers must fulfill in order to obtain the endorsement or certification. We will also list alternatives to the endorsement or certificate. Some states or countries have a certification or endorsement, but also allow teachers with a different endorsement or certificate to teach computer science courses. Some states or countries allow teachers to teach without the endorsement or certification while they are working toward the endorsement or certification. We will also detail alternative routes to an endorsement or certification for professionals in computer science who wish to become teachers. We will further break down the requirements into pre-service, in-service, and professional development. In the pre-service subsection we will examine how teachers are prepared to teach computer science before they become practicing teachers. In the in-service section we will examine how teachers can become certified or endorsed to teach computer science after they have already become practicing teachers. For example, a teacher might be certified in mathematics and decide to add a certification or endorsement in computer science. In the professional development section we will examine the continuing education that is required for teachers to keep their endorsement or certification in computer science. 3.1 PENNSYLVANIA STATE CERTIFICATION In Pennsylvania, computer science courses are offered in the Business, Computer and Information Technology (BIT) department and cross listed with the Mathematics department. The computer science courses offered in Pennsylvania are Programming and Advanced Placement Computer Science A and Advanced Placement Computer Science AB. Pennsylvania does not have a certification or endorsement in computer science. Computing courses are taught by teachers with certificates in any of: K 12 Business, Computer and Information Technology (BIT): teaching/lib/teaching/033_businesscomputer InformationTechnologyCSA_0603.pdf 7 12 Mathematics: teaching/lib/teaching/050_mathematicscsa_ 6800.pdf K 12 Technology Education: state.pa.us/teaching/lib/teaching/065_technol ogyeducationcsa_6075.pdf 48

47 Most teachers who teach computing courses have the K 12 Business, Computer, and Information Technology (BIT) certificate Covered Courses Professional Pathway Professionals must get a teaching certificate in either K 12 Business, Computer and Information Technology (BIT) or 7 12 Mathematics. None of the teacher certifications makes any mention of computer science, but they do mention programming. Teachers with a K 12 Business, Computer, and Information Technology (BIT) certificate can teach keyboarding, word processing, information processing, database, spreadsheet, desktop publishing, accessing shared information resources via networks or Internet, multimedia, webpage design, and other emerging software. Also included are business programming and operating systems, including hardware and software applications. Teachers with a 7 12 Mathematics certificate can teach, computer software, as well as programming, courses which are related to mathematics. Teachers with a K 12 Technology Education certificate often teach robotics courses but the certification contains no mention of programming or computer science Endorsement or Certificate Requirements Pennsylvania does not have an endorsement or certification in computer science. None of the K 12 Business, Computer and Information Technology (BIT), the 7 12 Mathematics, or the K 12 Technology Education certificates require computer science courses. The 7 12 Mathematics Praxis exam and the K 12 Technology Education Praxis exam also contain no computer science content Pre-service Requirements All candidates for initial certification in Pennsylvania must have earned at least a bachelor's degree, completed an approved program of teacher education, and have passed The Praxis Series tests for their certification area. However, there is no Praxis exam for computer science. As already mentioned, teachers who wish to teach computer science must be certified in K 12 Business, Computer and Information Technology (BIT) or 7 12 Mathematics In-service Requirements Since Pennsylvania does not have an endorsement or certification in computer science, this does not apply Professional Development Requirements Since Pennsylvania does not have an endorsement or certification in computer science, this does not apply Problems Since Pennsylvania has no certification or endorsement in computer science, there is the risk that teachers will teach computer science with little to no training or preparation Alternative Teacher Requirements 3.2 GEORGIA STATE CERTIFICATION Since Pennsylvania does not have an endorsement or certification in computer science, this does not apply. In Georgia, computer science courses are offered in the Business and Computer Science Program under 49

48 the Career, Technical, and Agricultural Education Division. In the fall of 2007 a new computing pathway was adopted based on the ACM Model Curriculum for K 12 Computer Science (Tucker, 2006). Students who wish to specialize in this new computing pathway must take the following courses: Computing in the Modern World, Beginning Programming, and Intermediate Programming. They must also take one additional course that could be Advanced Placement Computer Science A, Advanced Placement Computer Science AB, or a course in the Web Design pathway. The committee that created the new computing curriculum in Georgia felt that the Level III ACM model curriculum course standards were too difficult to cover in one course and so they split them between the Beginning Programming and Intermediate Programming courses. In December of 2007, the Georgia Professional Standards Commission (PSC) adopted a voluntary Secondary Computer Science Endorsement. Teachers can add this endorsement to any existing Level 4 or higher secondary professional teaching certificate. See Rules.asp for more information on this endorsement Covered Courses The endorsement covers Beginning Programming, Intermediate Programming, Advanced Placement Computer Science A, and Advanced Placement Computer Science AB. See =CICTACRComp for more information on these courses Endorsement or Certificate Requirements The Georgia endorsement was based on the NCATE Computer Science Endorsement. See org/ncate/n_cs-stands.html for more information on the requirements for this endorsement. The require - ments for the NCATE endorsement are equivalent to a minor in computer science Alternative Teacher Requirements Since the computer science endorsement is voluntary, any teacher with a valid certificate for teaching in ACM Model Curriculum Level II - CS in the Modern World Georgia Computing Curriculum Level II - Computing in the Modern World Level III - Computer Science as Analysis and Design Level III - Beginning Programming Level III - Intermediate Programming Level IV Topics in Computer Science including CS AP A and AB Level IV Topics in Computer Science including CS AP A and AB 50

49 high school can teach any of the courses in the computing pathway. But, since these courses are offered by the Business and Computer Science Department, it is most likely that they will be taught by teachers with a Business certificate. Current teachers who have been teaching any of the courses in the computing pathway can submit a portfolio for review to any of the agencies that offer the endorsement for review and the agency can award the endorsement. The endorsement is voluntary so new teachers can choose whether or not they wish to obtain the computer science endorsement. Rules.asp for more information on this endorsement Professional Development Requirements Georgia does not require professional development beyond the original teaching certificate Problems Professional Pathway Georgia has a Georgia Teacher Alternative Preparation Program (GATAPP), which allows individuals with bachelor s degrees or higher to teach while working on their teaching certificates. For more information on this program, see home.asp. Georgia also has a Troops to Teachers Program that provides financial assistance to eligible former military personnel in the form of a stipend of up to $5000 to help pay teacher certification costs or a bonus of up to $10,000 for teaching in a high needs school. For more information on this program, see Pre-service Requirements Georgia introduced the new voluntary computer science endorsement in 2007, so it is still too early to determine how popular it will prove with teachers or whether individual school districts will choose to require the endorsement. There is some concern, however, that the placement of the endorsement within the Business and Computer Science Program may be problematic in that teachers in this department may have little or no computer science experience. It is also interesting to note that while the recent decision by the Georgia Department of Education to allow high school freshman to receive a mathematics or science credit for Advanced Placement Computer Science A or AB may have the positive impact of increasing student enrollment in computer science classes. It will also increase the demand for well-prepared computer science teachers. Teachers in Georgia must take an accredited program resulting in a bachelor s degree and pass a praxis exam in their area of certification There is no way for a teacher to be certified as a computer science teacher in Georgia. Teachers can only add the computer science endorsement to another teaching certificate such as Business or Mathematics In-service Requirements Any teacher with a valid certificate for high school can add the computer science endorsement. See 3.3 Texas State Certification In Texas, computer science courses are offered in the Technology Applications Department which is also called Career and Technology Education (CATE), but they may be also listed in the Mathematics Department. In order to teach computer science in Texas, teachers need to hold either the Computer Science 8 12 certificate (current) or the Secondary Computer Information Systems, Grades 6 12 certificate (no longer issued). Information on the requirements for the Computer Science 8 12 certificate is at manuals/141_compsci8_12_55076_web.pdf. 51

50 3.3.1 Covered Courses Texas, unlike many U.S. states, provides a comprehensive framework of computer science courses for high school students. These include: Computer Science I, Computer Science II, Advanced Placement Computer Science A, Advanced Placement Computer Science AB, and an Independent Study in Technology Applications. Computer Science I covers loops, conditionals, testing, some software engineering, sequential search algorithms, and more. Computer Science II adds object-oriented programming, recursion, data structures, software engineering, binary search, string processing, and Big-O analysis. The Advanced Placement A and AB courses follow the curricula set by the College Board. The Independent Study course can take a variety of forms. See for the standards for each course Endorsement or Certificate Requirements Texas defines a set of minimum technology standards for all teachers in all disciplines. The computer science teacher must also have the knowledge and skills needed to teach the Foundations, Information Acquisition, Work in Solving Problems, and Communication strands of the Technology Applications Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) in computer science. For more details on these standards, see: pdf/testprep_manuals/141_compsci8_12_55076_web.pdf Alternative Teacher Requirements A teacher can teach a course for one to two years while working on her or his certificate. become teachers. One example is the Region IV Alternative certification program in Houston. This program consists of approximately one semester of training and the choice to participate in a one-year teaching internship or twelve-week clinical teaching program. For more information, see esc4.net/default.aspx?name=eps.cert.overview Pre-service Requirements The routes to computer science certification for a new teacher require significant college-level computer science education. New teachers must have bachelor's degrees in any discipline, complete teacher training through an approved program, pass a background check, and pass two tests: TExES Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities, and the TExES Computer Science In-service Requirements A teacher who holds an appropriate Texas classroom teaching certificate and a bachelor's degree may add classroom certification areas by successfully completing the appropriate certification examination(s) for the area(s) sought. Teachers from other states or countries who hold acceptable credentials from their home state or country can gain certification in Texas by passing the appropriate Texas certification tests. Some out-of-state teachers can gain certification in Texas based on the certification tests they took in another state, if the Texas State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) has found those tests to be similar to, and at least as rigorous as, the equivalent Texas tests Professional Pathway Professional Development Requirements Several alternative certification programs offered by different organizations in Texas can help professionals Newly issued certificates are valid for five years. Renewal requires at least 150 clock hours of 52

51 acceptable Continuing Professional Education (CPE), a new criminal background check, and a fee Problems Alternative Teacher Requirements The Scottish teacher certification requirements provide no alternative to full certification. Because Texas has a well-defined curriculum and its certification requirements are rigorous and solidly grounded in that curriculum, Texas has experienced few of the problems common in other educational constituencies Professional Pathway Scotland does not provide an alternative pathway to teaching computing. All teachers must meet the same pre-service and in-service requirements. 3.4 SCOTTISH TEACHER CERTIFICATION In Scotland, computer science courses are offered in the Computing Department. Scotland offers a multi-level computing curriculum that is broken down in to two strands: Standard Grade and Higher. In order to teach computer science in Scotland, teachers must meet rigorous criteria Covered Courses Pre-service Requirements Computer science teachers in Scotland need to have completed: a four-year course leading to a Bachelor of Education degree; or a combined degree (sometimes known as a joint or concurrent degree); or a Professional Graduate Diploma in Education (PGDE) course following their bachelor s degree ( Publications/2005/11/ /58512#5). The Standard Grade strand consists of an Intermediate 1 Computing Studies course, an Intermediate 2 Computing Studies course, and an Intermediate 2 Information Systems course. The Higher strand consists of a Higher Computing course, a Higher Information Systems course, an Advanced Higher Computing course, and an Advanced Higher Information Systems course. In addition, computer science teachers must have a degree with 80 credit points (including 40 credit points at Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework Level 8 or above) from at least two of the following areas of computing: computer systems, software development, databases, or information systems. The other 40 credits are required in any computing area relevant to the computing curriculum in Scottish schools. A number of university degrees and postgraduate diplomas meet these requirements Endorsement or Certificate Requirements All secondary level computer science teachers in Scotland must be deemed specifically qualified to teach computer science In-service Requirements All courses leading to teacher certification in Scotland are offered by universities (higher education institutions). These include: the University of Paisley, the University of Strathclyde, the University of 53

52 Glasgow, the University of Aberdeen, the University of Stirling, the University of Dundee, and the University of Edinburgh. These programs are offered through the School or Faculty of Education. Teachers wishing to add an Additional Teaching Qualification in Computing to their original teaching qualification must demonstrate that they have the necessary academic requirements, have participated in continuing professional development (CPD) activities to develop their professional knowledge and skills in computing, and have achieved the requirements for full registration. They can meet these requirements by successfully completing a part-time course that usually involves one day per week on a university campus and a six-week placement in a school Professional Development Requirements All teachers in Scotland are contractually bound to take 35 hours of continuing professional development (CPD) per year. A wide range of experiences can be counted toward these CPD hours, including: reading, attending conferences, and taking courses PROBLEMS courses for students seeking a computer science degree as well as for teachers preparing to teach computer science in schools. Teacher preparation programs are offered either by Computer Science departments or by Education departments or schools, or by Science Teaching departments Covered Courses In Israel, secondary school students can take one of two computer science programs: one program consisting of three 90-hour units and another consisting of five 90-hour units. The three-unit program includes two core courses (Fundamentals 1: Foundations in Computer Science and Fundamentals II) and a third unit in which students can choose from a selection of courses (Logic Programming, Computer Organization and Assembly Language, Information Systems, and Graphics). The five-unit program includes all of the same courses as the three-unit program, but includes two additional units: one on Software Design and one on Theory. In the Theory unit, students can choose either a Computational Models course or a Numerical Analysis course. These subjects are all covered either in undergraduate courses or in teacher preparation programs. Teachers whose original degree was not in computer science may have had no credit courses in computer systems or software development, which may hamper their ability to adequately cover the curriculum. 3.5 ISRAELI TEACHER CERTIFICATION Endorsement or Certificate Requirements In Israel, all teachers must be certified by the Ministry of Education, which oversees education policy and implementation for the entire country. This certificate is achieved upon the successful completion of an undergraduate degree study program and a teacher preparation program. In Israel, computer science teachers are required to meet a rigorous set of criteria, which includes a formal undergraduate computer science degree and graduation from a teacher preparation program. University Computer Science departments provide Alternative Teacher Requirements The Israeli teacher certification requirements provide no alternative to full certification for teachers 54

53 currently entering the field. However, when these teacher certification requirements were mandated in the mid 1990s, the government supported an extensive mandatory in-service program to provide professional development (delivered by academic institutions) for those who were already teaching In-service Requirements Today, the Ministry of Education supports in-service training as the curriculum is updated and new learning units are added. Thus training is mandatory for all computer science teachers Professional Pathway Israel does not provide an alternative pathway to teaching computing. All teachers must meet the same pre-service and in-service requirements Professional Development Requirements Israel has no on-going professional development requirements for teachers beyond mandatory inservice for updated or new curriculum content Pre-service Requirements The computer science teacher preparation program has three components: 1. Academic credits in Computer Science. At the Open University of Israel (OUI). These credits include the following courses: Algorithmics: The Foundations of Computer Science, which provides a bird s-eye-view of the discipline, and the seminar, Topics in Computer Science Education. Students who have taken these courses as part of their bachelor s degree studies are also required to take other courses in computer science. 2. Academic courses in Education, including (at the OUI): Critical Thinking: Statistical and Intuitive Considerations, Curriculum Design, Development, and Implementation, and either Educational Psychology or Individualized Instruction. 3. Methodology and field experience. Every student must take the Methodology of Computer Science Teaching course or workshop, and successfully complete the field experience during which they have to observe a number of classroom lessons and practice teaching about five lessons in a designated school Problems Like many countries, Israel struggles with the fiscal issues related to the provision of teacher training and professional development but these issues are not unique to computer science. 3.6 REFERENCES Gal-Ezer, J. and Zur E. (2007). Reaching out to CS teachers: Certification via distance learning. Mathematics and Computer Education, 41(3),

54 CHAPTER FOUR RECOMMENDED MODELS FOR TEACHER PREPARATION AND CERTIFICATION IN COMPUTER SCIENCE 4.0 DEVELOPING A MULTI-FACETED MODEL Computer science education involves design, creativity, logic, problem solving, critical thinking, collaboration, and communication skills. As the ACM s Model Curriculum for K 12 Computer Education (Tucker, et.al., 2006) suggests, the foundational aspects of this knowledge can be taught throughout primary and secondary schools. Students who pursue computer science or a related field in college will apply this knowledge in a wide variety of contexts and environments. They will work with medical imaging, biometric identification and authentication, bioinformatics, mobile devices, digital imaging, music and video entertainment, animations, digital forensics, and much more. In fact, the demand for computer scientists is predicted to dramatically increase in the United States over the next few years. However, there are not enough students in the nation entering the computer science pipeline to meet this demand. The number of students enrolling in computer science in high school and college has just recently evened out after several years of declining enrollment (College Entrance Examination Board, 2007; Zweban, 2008). Nations that have a seamless, integrated (at all educational levels) and rigorous computer science curriculum will be better prepared to solve the scientific, economic, and social challenges that we face. And, as is the case in all fields of study, teachers are the key to the successful implementation of this curriculum. The critical question for all nations, then, is how do we adequately prepare teachers to accept the challenge of readying students for a competitive economy where so much is dependent on computers and technology and so many professions can benefit from graduates who have mastered the problemsolving and analytical skills that are taught throughout the K 12 computer science curriculum? 4.1 THE CURRENT CHALLENGES OF COMPUTER SCIENCE CERTIFICATION Beyond the mastery of core professional material, teachers need to be able to convey this material to others accurately and reliably, to provide perspective, and to cultivate the student s interest and curiosity. In other words, as the research described in Chapter 2 shows, they need to possess three distinct kinds of knowledge: subject matter knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular knowledge. This requires a rigorous, well-established teacher preparation program, defined by certification requirements and supported by professional development opportunities. Ensuring that we have a sufficiently large pool of teachers prepared to teach computer science in secondary schools is particularly challenging, however, because the path to becoming a computer science teacher differs significantly from that for teachers in many other disciplines. One of the key challenges to improving computer science teacher preparation and certification centers on the current lack of consistency between educational and licensure bodies in different countries and even in different states. The terms used to describe various levels of teacher licensure can be 56

55 confusing and the bodies responsible for licensing teachers often use them in slightly different ways. In some U.S. states, for example, teachers must become certified to teach at a specific educational level (for example elementary or secondary). They then must meet additional qualifications to receive an endorsement to teach a specific subject area. In other states, the original teacher certification can include both their educational level and their subject area (Khoury, 2007). Whatever the state and national logistics are, the necessary elements for quality teacher preparedness are the same: academic requirements in the fields of computer science and education, and a comprehensive understanding of methodology and pedagogy in the teaching of computer science. In many instances there is no specific computer science certification, so computer science teachers must first meet the certification requirements in some other discipline. In some cases, these teachers may be able to receive an additional endorsement to teach computer science. The content they are required to initially master may have no more than a tangential relationship to what is needed to teach in a computer science classroom. The previously mentioned survey conducted by the Computer Science Teachers Association (Khoury, 2007) indicated that approximately 53% of the states required an endorsement to teach computer science at some grade level (K 12) but the courses that the endorsed teachers could teach vary from keyboarding and computer applications to programming. Finally, teachers may find it very difficult to prepare to become computer science teachers because so few teacher preparation institutions provide programs with rigorous and relevant computer science training. In the absence of clear and specific requirements for computer science, these institutions, whose primary mission is to prepare teachers to meet discipline-based requirements for certification, have little or no incentive to address the needs of computer science teachers. The current patchwork of teacher preparation and certification strategies, policies, and requirements makes it almost impossible to devise a one size fits all solution. What we need instead, is an agile, multi-level plan that will enable the bodies responsible for preparing and certifying teachers to prepare teachers adequately and appropriately, to apply sound measures to determine that those teachers are well-prepared, and to ensure that their knowledge and skills as computer scientists and teachers continue to develop throughout their teaching careers. In the present educational structure, the majority of K 12 computer science teachers have come from one of the following constituencies: new teachers: presently college or university students working towards their first teacher certification, veteran teachers with a certification in another area who have never taught computer science, veteran teachers with a certification in another area who have experience teaching computer science, and those coming from business with a computer science background and no teaching experience. As a result, the current population of computer science teachers is exceedingly diverse, creating a wide continuum of expertise and experience. It is important to note that our goal is not to divide the current population of computer science teachers into more and less privileged groups. Right now there are many wonderful teachers with little or no formal computer science background struggling to stay one step ahead of their students. The challenge for these teachers is that there are very few resources that they can access. Also, they are often isolated within their schools or districts, so have little opportunity for mentoring from more experienced computer science teachers. While this may not be the ideal, the truth is, without these teachers, there would be no computer science at all in many schools. These teachers are keeping the discipline alive and accessible to their students. Our wish is to provide a mechanism to ensure that teachers are encouraged to teach, rather than discouraged from teaching, computer science. Our goal is to provide all of these teachers with the opportunity to be the best computer science teachers 57

56 they can be and to recognize the constant effort it takes for them to do this. In the following sections, we will describe several models for the preparation and certification of K 12 computer science teachers that we believe meet the needs of each of these diverse constituencies. 4.2 STANDARDS FOR ALL COMPUTER SCIENCE TEACHERS Although the populations from which we draw our computer science teachers are diverse, we believe that any preparation program for computer science teachers must include the following four major components: 1. Academic requirements in the field of computer science 2. Academic requirements in the field of education 3. Methodology (a methods course) and field experience 4. Assessment to document proficiency in general pedagogy, for example the Praxis II Principles of Learning and Teaching Test While the methods of meeting these requirements may differ, the resulting preparation will provide the needed consistency in the certification of computer science teachers A More Detailed Discussion of the Methods Course It is almost impossible to find any single course more essential to teacher preparation than the methods course. In this course, teachers learn how to actually teach a given discipline. This is the place in the teacher preparation process where subject matter knowledge (what students need to learn), pedagogical content knowledge (how to teach), and curricular knowledge (knowledge of the tools that can be used for teaching) come together. At present, there are very few computer science methods courses and so, for many people, there is no clear sense of what such a course should look like. Here is a description of the requirements of such a course, which is an extended version of the computer science methods course originally developed at The Open University of Israel. Course Focus: A methods course should aim to impart a didactic approach to computer science teaching, while focusing on the following topics: problem-solving methods, misconceptions, teaching and learning strategies, and other related topics. Course Structure: The course could run as a workshop that combines videotaped lectures of an excellent teacher, self-study of academic material, group work, and exercises. Students would attend several face-to-face sessions each, and feedback on student presentations would be provided by the instructor and the other students. Course Content: Topics recommended for discussion could include the following: The computer science K 12 curriculum: principles and objectives. Curriculum planning and implementation. Fundamental topics in computer science: programming, hardware design, networks, graphics, databases and information retrieval, computer security, software design, programming languages, logic, programming paradigms, artificial intelligence, the limits of computation, applications in information technology and information systems, social issues. Problem-solving heuristics: abstraction, decomposing a problem into sub-problems, topdown design, bottom-up design, gradual refinement, generalization, reduction, and analogy. Misconceptions in the following areas: variables, input statements, output statements, conditional execution, repetition, procedures, functions, and arrays. Teaching and learning strategies: 58

57 teaching/learning methods motivating toward concepts/ideas, case studies, demonstrations, games, projects, self-explanation, and so on. Diversity in the classroom. Security and maintenance of equipment. Ethical and legal issues related to computer science and computer science education. Teaching in a heterogeneous classroom: pupil grouping in the classroom group work, individual work, face to face teaching; the structure of a lesson combining class work, lab work, and practice at home. Developing and writing lesson plans. Assessment: writing and grading programs, tests, and exercises. Assessment: At the end of the course, students would be required to submit a final assignment that included a detailed unit of instruction for a specific topic chosen from the K 12 curriculum. This instructional unit might include the following. Classroom strategies and/or pedagogical approaches explaining how the lesson is presented. A minimum of two different ideas for instructional delivery that would meet the needs of varied learning styles and ability levels. Summative assessments: Summative assessments given periodically to determine at a particular point in time what students know and do not know. What are the students able to do as a result of their learning? Formative assessment: Providing suggestions for determining, throughout the unit/lesson, that students are progressing and understanding new concepts. When incorporated into instruction, this assessment provides the information needed to adjust teaching and learning while they are happening. Sample student handouts, assignments, or projects. List of any cited works and references. 4.3 PREPARING NEW TEACHERS TO TEACH COMPUTER SCIENCE Teacher preparation and teacher certification are so intimately linked that it is impossible to reasonably discuss one without first discussing the other. Section 4.2 outlined four major components that are necessary in any teaching preparation program. Our comprehensive model for teacher certification begins by addressing these components and their related subcomponents. 1. Academic requirements in the field of computer science: The ideal teacher preparation program for a student in any field requires that the student have an undergraduate degree in that field. Computer science should be no different. However, in order to ensure a sufficient supply of computer science teachers in the short term, some certification bodies may choose to require simply a computer science minor. Applicants with a degree in a related field of study should be required to take qualifying courses in computer science as described below. Computer science courses that include: programming, object-oriented design, data structures and algorithms, computer hardware and organization, and computational models. An undergraduate computer science degree or a minor in computer science would most likely include these courses. A seminar-type course that covers the history of computer science (including theory, hardware, and software), addresses the nature of the field and its relationship with other disciplines, and explores the details of various computer science curricula and study programs on both the high school and college/university level. This course must also examine a variety of issues concerning specific problems common to the teaching of programming and the use of tools and aids in teaching computer science. 59

58 The submission of a paper that describes a current topic of research in the field of computer science education. Due to the dynamic nature of computer science, there is continued research in innovative educational models and pedagogy in the computer science classroom. Teacher candidates should be aware of these current models. 2. Academic requirements in the field of education: The number and depth of other required education courses should be the same as those required for teaching certification in other disciplines. 3. Methodology and field experience All students should take a computer science teaching methodology course. All students should successfully complete a field experience during which they observe a number of classroom lessons and complete a minimum of 10 weeks of practice teaching. 4. A Praxis Exam In the United States, The Praxis Series assessments provide educational tests and other services that states use as part of their teaching licensing certification process. The Praxis I tests measure basic academic skills, and the Praxis II tests measure general and subject-specific knowledge and teaching skills (ETS, 2008). In an ideal world, a Praxis II exam in computer science would be the tool used to measure a candidate s content knowledge. Since there is no Praxis II exam for the candidates to demonstrate their proficiency in computer science content knowledge, satisfactory performance on the Praxis II Principles of Learning and Teaching Test should be required to verify proficiency in general pedagogy. In countries where the Praxis Series assessments are not available, satisfactory performance on a similar assessment can be used to document proficiency in general pedagogy. 4.4 CERTIFICATION OF VETERAN TEACHERS WITH A CERTIFI - CATION IN ANOTHER AREA In countries that have no national standards for the teaching of computer science in the K 12 curriculum, veteran teachers with certification in other disciplines are often asked to teach computer science courses. These veteran teachers fall into two categories: teachers who have no experience teaching computer science, and teachers who have experience teaching computer science. As noted in Section 4.2, there are four key areas for successful teacher preparation and certification in computer science. It is likely safe to assume that teachers with a certification in another academic discipline have already satisfied academic requirements in the field of education (#2). In the United States, they have passed a Praxis I Exam and a Praxis II Exam in a content area. In other countries, they have satisfied similar requirements (#4). The two remaining areas of concern are an adequate computer science knowledge base (#1) and pedagogy and methodology in the computer science classroom (#3). The recommendations contained in this section are therefore focused on filling these key gaps in teachers knowledge and experience. The authors also wish to note that while it is absolutely essential that all computer science teachers, new and veteran, have adequate preparation to teach computer science successfully, it is equally important that we do not drive good dedicated teachers who are already teaching computer science away from the discipline or even the classroom. The challenge for any model of teacher certification, therefore, is to find a way to deal fairly and respectfully with our existing teaching community, while at the same time ensuring that they are prepared to be the best computer science teachers they can be. 60

59 4.4.1 Teachers With No Computer Science Teaching Experience Teachers With Computer Science Teaching Experience The key issue for veteran teachers with a certification in another area who have no experience teaching computer science is whether they have an adequate knowledge of computer science content (#1) and an adequate knowledge of pedagogy and methodology in the computer science classroom (#3). Because these teachers have not had any experience teaching computer science, teacher licensure bodies can only determine whether teachers with no computer science experience possess an adequate base knowledge of computer science content (#1) by requiring those teachers to provide: Documented completion of formal computer science coursework covering programming, object-oriented design, data structures and algorithms, and computer hardware and organization. Documentation would most likely be in the form of a college/university transcript. The documentation should include submission of the syllabus of the completed course or courses. There are a number of ways in which teacher licensure bodies could require teachers to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of pedagogy in the computer science classroom. These include successful completion of one of the following two options: Documented completion of a methods course in computer science education (as described in section 4.2.1). Documented observation or team teaching of an entire computer science course at the K 12 level that is taught by a computer science teacher who has fulfilled the requirements as defined within this document. Documentation should be in the form of a professional journal kept by the computer science candidate teacher. The key issue for veteran teachers with a certification in another area who have experience teaching computer science is whether they have an adequate base knowledge of computer science content knowledge (#1) and an adequate knowledge of pedagogy and methodology in the computer science classroom (#3). As mentioned in Section 4.1, research results indicate that there is no clear-cut understanding among many school administrators and policy makers of what computer science is intended to encompass. To appropriately align our recommendations with our goals, and to ensure that our recommendations are clear, consistent, and are uniformly implemented, we define experience teaching computer science as completion of one of the following. Successfully teaching an Advanced Placement Computer Science course (or the equivalent) for at least two years, and/or Successfully teaching the International Baccalaureate HL Computer Science course (or the equivalent) for at least two years, and/or Successfully teaching a rigorous introductory computer science course (equivalent to the Level II or Level III course described in the ACM Model Curriculum for K 12 Computer Science (Tucker, 2006) for at least two years. In order to further demonstrate an adequate base knowledge of computer science content, teacher licensure bodies could require these teachers to complete at least one of the following. Documented completion of a minimum of 40 hours of recent (within the last two years) professional development workshops designed for teachers of computer science. Examples of workshops in the United States include: College Board Advanced Placement Summer Institute for Computer Science, CS4HS workshops (offered by a number of universities including Carnegie Mellon and the University of Washington), 61

60 Teacher Enrichment in Computer Science (TECS) workshops offered by colleges and universities in partnership with the Computer Science Teachers Association, and Other workshops specifically designed for teachers of computer science offered through colleges/universities for a minimum of three Continuing Education Units (CEUs) or three graduate credit hours. Documented completion of formal computer science coursework covering programming, object-oriented design, data structures and algorithms, and computer hardware and organization. Documentation would most likely be in the form of a college/university transcript. It should also require submission of the syllabus of the completed course or courses. There are also a number of ways in which teacher licensure bodies could require teachers to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of pedagogy in the computer science classroom. These include successful completion of one or more of the following: Documented completion of a minimum of 40 hours of professional development workshops designed for teachers of computer science. Examples of workshops in the United States include: College Board Advanced Placement Summer Institute for Computer Science, CS4HS workshops (offered by a number of universities including Carnegie Mellon and the University of Washington), Teacher Enrichment in Computer Science (TECS) workshops offered by colleges and universities in partnership with the Computer Science Teachers Association, and Other workshops specifically designed for teachers of computer science offered through colleges/universities for a minimum of three Continuing Education Units (CEUs) or three graduate credit hours. Documented completion of a methods course in computer science education (as described in section 4.2.1). Observation or team teaching of at least one entire computer science course at the K 12 level that is taught by a computer science teacher who has fulfilled the requirements as defined within this document. Documentation should be in the form of a professional journal kept by the computer science candidate teacher. Creating a portfolio that documents knowledge of pedagogy in computer science teaching containing a minimum of three instructional units for three distinct topics covered in a K 12 computer science curriculum. Each instructional unit should be developed following the criteria described in Section In addition, it is worth noting that in the absence of suitably qualified local high school teachers, computer science faculty/instructors from colleges and universities may be asked to teach high school computer science courses in some areas. While this is not an ideal solution, in some cases it may be the only solution. We therefore recommend that these faculty/instructors should be required to demonstrate adequate base knowledge of computer science content by having successfully taught a CS1 or equivalent course for at least two years. As was stated earlier, the recommendations contained in this section are focused on filling the possible gaps in teachers knowledge and experience. We do not wish to drive good dedicated teachers who are already teaching computer science away from the discipline if they do not presently have the requirements stated above. We therefore recommend that these requirements be fulfilled within three years. 4.5 CERTIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS COMING FROM BUSINESS WITH A COMPUTER SCIENCE BACKGROUND Today it is common for professionals with experience in the scientific or technical fields to choose a second career as a computer science teacher. These 62

61 individuals often have considerable experience working as computer scientists or in related fields. Examples of related fields can include: Bioinformatics, Computer Information Systems, Computer Programming, Computer Systems Engineering, Database Systems, Electrical Engineering, Information Science, Information Systems Design, Information Technology, Mathematics, Networking, Robotics, and Software Engineering. Teacher licensure bodies can determine whether individuals coming from a business with computer science experience possess an adequate base knowledge of computer science content (#1) by requiring them to have a bachelor's degree or higher in computer science or a related field and to complete a three-year alternate licensure to teach high school computer science that would include the following elements: A minimum undergraduate cumulative Grade Point Average (GPA) of 2.5 where the maximum GPA is 4.0. A minimum undergraduate cumulative GPA in the major field of 3.0 where the maximum GPA is 4.0. A minimum of two years of related work experience during the past five years. The primary challenge, however, is that individuals transitioning from business and technical careers rarely have training in education. These candidates for licensure should therefore also be required to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of pedagogy in the computer science classroom by completing 18 college/university credits of coursework within three years of beginning the licensure program that includes the following elements: Pedagogy: curriculum design and development, educational psychology, and technology in the classroom (at least nine college/university credits). Content pedagogy including the following elements. methodology for teaching computer science (as described in Section 4.2.1) (at least three college/university credits), and field experience during which they have to observe a number of classroom lessons and complete a minimum of 10 weeks of practice teaching. Content including advanced coursework in: programming, object-oriented design, data structures and algorithms, and computer hardware and organization (at least three college/university credits). Candidates for alternate licensure should also be required to pass the Praxis II Principles of Learning and Teaching Test. In countries where the Praxis Series assessments are not available, satisfactory performance on a similar assessment can be used to document proficiency in general pedagogy. 4.6 THE NEED FOR CONTINUED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The education of the computer science teacher does not end with the granting of an endorsement, a certificate, or a license. It must be viewed as a continuous, life-long process that provides opportunities for professional and intellectual growth. Professional development in this rapidly changing technological age requires constant updating of knowledge and resources. A wellplanned, ongoing professional development program that is aligned with the goals of the ACM Model Curriculum for K 12 Computer Science (Tucker, 2006) and sustained by adequate administrative and financial support is essential if teachers are to prepare 63

62 students to enter into, function in, and contribute to a world of constantly emerging technologies. A professional development program should promote an environment where computer science educators feel comfortable and confident working collaboratively with other educators, parents, administrators, and business and community leaders. The strongest programs result from collaborations among all stakeholders. Such collaborations increase coherence, and they bring a wide variety of expertise and resources to support a set of common goals that are directly connected to the needs of teachers in the communities in which they teach (National Science Education Standards, 2008). For example, in the United States, most states require teachers to complete a certain number of professional development hours to maintain their state teacher certifications, but national standards for professional development do not exist. Although there may be agreement that professional development must be an on-going process of refining skills, inquiring into practice, and developing new methods (The State of New Jersey, 2008), professional development programs for computer science teachers must also address computer science content areas. They must be designed to dynamically associate the current computer science curriculum with the emerging technological trends and needs. It is essential that computer science teachers be current in their field. Because computer science is such a dynamic and continually evolving discipline, it is imperative that computer science teachers stay abreast of the field by participating in ongoing professional development in the computer science discipline. This ongoing professional development requirement should meet or exceed the requirement for all teachers who are licensed in a particular state or country. The Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) is an international organization that supports and promotes the teaching of computer science and other computing disciplines. CSTA provides opportunities for K 12 teachers to better understand the computing disciplines and to more successfully prepare themselves to teach and learn. CSTA can provide information and guidance in designing and recommending appropriate professional development opportunities for computer science teachers so that these teachers can prepare students to be competitive in our rapidly changing world. 4.7 CONCLUSION The challenge of ensuring that all high school computer science teachers are knowledgeable, well-prepared, and continually engaged in improving student learning is indeed a complex one. Many different levels of teacher preparedness exist in today's high school computer science classroom. Candidates for high school computer science licensure have varied educational backgrounds and experiences. In an ideal world, all computer science teachers would have an undergraduate degree in computer science and a primary license to teach computer science. In the United States, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) is the profession s mechanism to help establish high-quality teacher preparation. NCATE s goal is to strengthen the quality of teacher preparation programs by requiring adherence to established and contemporary research, the wisdom of practice, and emerging educational policies and practices. To achieve this goal, it promotes teacher preparation programs that reflect K 12, state, and professional standards in the performance assessments of education candidates (NCATE 2003). Unfortunately, the current crisis in computer science teacher certification extends well beyond the reach of NCATE and directly into the classrooms of many nations. There are many teachers currently teaching computer science who have a computer science degree but do not have the necessary pedagogical training. There are many teachers who do NOT have a computer science degree, but who do have pedagogical training, although not in computer science. There are also many individuals who have completed one career in a computer science area who now want to teach computer science. 64

63 Our goal in this paper has been to present a model for teacher preparation and certification that includes recommendations for all of these groups in all nations, with the goal of creating a strong computer science teaching community prepared to meet the needs of today s students and to ensure that these students have the knowledge and skills they need to thrive in the new global technological economy. In this chapter, we have outlined the requirements for all of these individuals to obtain either a primary computer science teaching license, a computer science teaching endorsement, or an alternative computer science teaching license. It is essential that all levels of education commit to ensuring that computer science teachers are highly qualified by adopting the following guidelines as described in sections 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. Pre-service teachers will obtain licensure to teach computer science by completing the requirements outlined in Section 4.3. This would be a primary teaching license in computer science. Veteran teachers who are licensed to teach in a related field but who have not taught computer science courses must obtain alternate licensure in computer science by completing the requirements in Section Teachers who are already licensed to teach in a field related to computer science, and who have been teaching computer science, must add a computer science endorsement to their existing certificate by completing the requirements outlined in Section Computer science professionals with no background in education must obtain alternate licensure by completing the requirements in Section 4.5. computer science licensure, a computer science teaching endorsement, and alternate licensure in computer science that are presented in this paper are designed to assist the licensing bodies responsible for issuing licenses to qualified education professionals within their respective states. The ultimate goal of this effort is to ensure that the standards for computer science teachers are clear, consistent, and are uniformly implemented in the United States as well as in other countries. It is critical that these standards be universally accepted and applied to the licensing of all high school computer science teachers. The tables following this section summarize the eligibility and license/endorsement requirements of each of these four constituencies. As was stated in Chapter 2 of this paper, there is a significant lack of consistency in computer science teacher certification standards in the United States and other countries worldwide. The standards for 65

64 Certification for Eligibility Requirements License/Endorsement Requirements New Teachers Degree (or presently working for degree) Bachelor s degree or higher in computer science or a minor in computer science Academic Work and Field Experience Academic requirements in the field of computer science Major or minor in computer science A seminar-type course that includes the history of computer science, the nature of the field and its relationship with other disciplines, the various computer science curricula on both high school and college/university levels Writing a research paper in the field of computer science education Academic requirements in the field of education Curriculum design and development Educational Psychology Technology in the classroom Methodology and field experience CS Methods Course Class observations and a minimum of 10 weeks practice teaching Praxis Exam Praxis II: Principles of Learning and Teaching Exam or equivalent satisfactory performance on a similar assessment to document proficiency in general pedagogy Veteran Teachers with NO Computer Science Teaching Experience Degree Bachelor s degree or higher in a field other than computer science Certification Certification in an academic discipline other than computer science Academic Work and Field Experience (to be completed within 3 years) Academic requirements in the field of computer science include advanced coursework in the following areas programming object-oriented design data structures and algorithms computer hardware and organization Methodology requirements can be documented by the completion of at least one of the following: CS Methods Course Auditing one complete K 12 computer science course 66

65 Certification for Eligibility Requirements License/Endorsement Requirements Veteran Teachers WITH Computer Science Teaching Experience Individuals Coming From Business With A Computer Science Background Degree Bachelor s degree or higher in a field other than computer science Certification Certification in an academic discipline other than computer science Computer Science Teaching Experience Teaching an Advanced Placement Computer Science course (or the equivalent) for at least two years, and/or Teaching International Baccalaureate HL Computer Science (or the equivalent) for at least two years, and/or Teaching a rigorous introductory computer science course (equivalent to the Level II course described in the ACM Model Curriculum for K-12 Computer Science) for at least two years Degree Bachelor s Degree or higher in Computer Science Bachelor's Degree or higher in Related Field Examples: Bioinformatics Computer Information Systems Computer Programming Computer Systems Engineering Database Systems Electrical Engineering Information Science Information Systems Design Information Technology Mathematics Networking Robotics Software Engineering Undergraduate minimum 2.5 GPA on a scale of 4.0 Undergraduate minimum 3.0 GPA in major field on a scale of 4.0 Work Experience A minimum of two years related work experience within past five years Academic Work and Field Experience to be completed within 3 years Academic requirements in the field of computer science can be documented by completing one of the following: Completion of a minimum of 40 hours of professional development workshops designed for teachers of computer science. Advanced coursework in the following areas: programming object-oriented design data structures and algorithms computer hardware and organization Methodology requirements can be documented by the completion of at least one of the following: Completion of a minimum of 40 hours of professional development workshops designed for teachers of computer science CS Methods Course Auditing one complete K 12 computer science course Creating a portfolio that documents pedagogy in the computer science classroom Academic Work (a total of 18 college/university credits) and field experience to be completed within 3 years Academic requirements in the field of computer science include advanced coursework in the following areas (minimum of 3 credits) programming object-oriented design data structures and algorithms computer hardware and organization Academic requirements in the field of education (minimum of 9 credits) The number and depth of other required education courses should be the same as those required for teaching certification in other disciplines Methodology and field experience CS Methods Course (3 credits) Class observations and a minimum of 10 weeks practice teaching Praxis Exam Praxis II: Principles of Learning and Teaching Exam or equivalent satisfactory performance on a similar assessment to document proficiency in general pedagogy 67

66 4.8 REFERENCES College Entrance Examination Board. (2007). Advanced placement program national summary report. New York, NY. Educational Testing Service. (2008). The Praxis Series. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.fab2360b1645a1de 9b3a0779f /?vgnextoid=48c05ee3d74f4010 VgnVCM f95190RCRD&WT.ac=Praxis+Br ochure+and+front+door. nses/4.html. The State of New Jersey (2008). The State of New Jersey academic and professional standards (NJ) Retrieved May 2, 2008, from education/profdev/standards.htm. UCSD Department of Computer Science and Engineering. (2008). Graduate course descriptions. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from edu/gradedu/courses/gradcoursedesc/cse599.html. Gal-Ezer, J., & Harel, D. (1998). What (else) should CS educators know? Communications of the ACM, 41(9), Zweban, S. (2008). Ph.D. production exceeds 1,700: Undergraduate enrollment trends still unclear. Computing Research News, 20(3). Garrison, C. & Ehringhaus, M. (2008). Formative and summative assessments in the classroom for The National Middle School Association. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from WebExclusive/Assessment/tabid/1120/Default.aspx. Khoury, G. (2007) Computer science state certification requirements, CSTA Certification Committee report. Retrieved June 11, 2008, from Certification/sub/TeachCertRept07New.pdf. Martin, C. K. (1999). Teaching basic computer science concepts through programming by example: A study teaching middle school students computer science using Stagecast Creator. Retrieved June 11, 2008, from ckmartin/pdf/creator.pdf. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE 2003). Strategic goals and objectives. Retrieved May 21, 2008, from documents/ncatestratgoalobjec.pdf. National Science Education Standards. (2008). Standards for professional development for teachers of science (NSES). Retrieved May 2, 2008, from 68

67 BIBLIOGRAPHY American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence (2007) Student Achievement and Passport to Teaching Certification in Mathematics. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved August 7, 2007, from abcte.org/files/math_2007_validity.pdf. Adler, J. (2000). Social practice theory and mathematics teacher education: A conversation between theory and practice. Nordic Mathematics Education Journal, 8(3), Anderson, R. D. (1997). The science methods course in the context of the total teacher education experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(4), Banks, J. A. (2003) Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In J.A. Banks & C.A. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and Perspectives. (3 30). New York: Wiley. Banks, J. A. (2008). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies (8 th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bauer, C. R. and Meinke, J. G. (1975). Computer science for the high school teacher. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 7(3), Ben-Ari, M. (2001). Constructivism in computer science education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20(1), Bodzin, A. M. and Cates, W. M. (2003). Enhancing preservice teachers understanding of web-based scientific inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(4), Bolte, L. A. (1999). Enhancing and assessing preservice teachers integration and expression of mathematical knowledge. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, Bond, L., Smith, T., Baker, W., and Hattie, J. (2000). The certification system of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards: A construct and consequential validity study. Greensboro, NC: Center for Educational Research and Evaluation, University of North Carolina. Chen, J. (1989). Toward an ideal competency-based computer science teacher certification program: The Delphi approach. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 21(1), Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). The new teacher education: For better or worse. Educational Researcher, 34(7) College Entrance Examination Board. (2007). Advanced placement program national summary report. New York, NY. Collins, A., Bercaw, L., Palmeri, A., Altman, J., Singer- Gabella, M., and Gary, T. (1999). Good intentions are not enough: A story of collaboration in science, education, and technology. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(1), CSTA Curriculum Improvement Task Force. (2005). The new educational imperative: Improving high school computer science education. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). Research and rhetoric on teacher certification: A response to teacher certification reconsidered. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(36). Retrieved August 1, 2007, from 69

68 Deek, F. P. and Kimmel, H. (1999). Status of computer science education in secondary schools: One state s perspective. Computer Science Education, 9(2), Denning, P. J., Comer, D. E., Gries, D., Mulder, M. C., Tucker, A., Turner, A. J., and Young, P. R. (1989). Computing as a discipline. Communications of the ACM, 32(1), Dewey, J. (1896). The university school. University Record, 5, VgnVCM f95190RCRD&WT.ac=Praxis+ Brochure+and+Front+Door. Eick, C. J., Ware, F. N., and Jones, M. T. (2004). Coteaching in a secondary science methods course: Learning through a coteaching model that supports early teacher practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(3), Emmott, S. (2006). Towards 2020 Science. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from com/towards2020science. Dewey, J. (1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. In McMurry, C. A. (Ed.), Third yearbook of the National Society for the Scientific Study of Education (9 30). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Dhindsa, H. S. and Anderson, O. R. (2004). Using a conceptual-change approach to help preservice science teachers recognize their knowledge structures for constructivist teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(1), Ebby, C. B. (2000). Learning to teach mathematics differently: The interaction between coursework and fieldwork for preservice teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, Education Commission of the States (2005). Eight questions on teacher licensure and certification: What does the research say? Retrieved September 10, 2007, from Education Commission of the States (2003). Eight questions on teacher preparation: What does the research say? Retrieved July 29, 2007 from Educational Testing Service (2008). The Praxis Series. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.fab2360b1645a1de 9b3a0779f /?vgnextoid=48c05ee3d74f4010 Frederick, T. J. (1975). Computer science education for students training to be secondary teachers. ACM SIGCUE Outlook, 9(SI), Friedman, T. (2006) The world is flat. New York, NY: Picador. Gal-Ezer, J. and Harel, D. (1998). What (else) should CS educators know? Communications of the ACM, 41(9), Gal-Ezer, J. and Zur, E. (2007). Reaching out to CS teachers: Certification via distance learning. Mathematics and Computer Education, 41(3), Garrison, C. & Ehringhaus, M. (2008). Formative and summative assessments in the classroom for The National Middle School Association. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from Assessment/tabid/1120/Default.aspx. Goldhaber, D. D. and Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2), Good, T. L., McCaslin, M., Tsang, H. Y., Zhang, J., Wiley, Z., Bozack, A. R., and Hester, W. (2006). How well do 1st-year teachers teach: Does type of preparation make a difference? Journal of Teacher Education, 57(4),

69 Hazzan, O. and Lapidot, T. (2006). Social issues of computer science in the Methods of Teaching Computer Science in the High School course. Inroads The SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(2), Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K. and Glass, B. (2003). Learning to learn to teach: An experiment model for teaching and teacher preparation in mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, Hollins, E., & Guzman, M. T. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse populations. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Teacher Education & Practice ( ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Hwang, C. J., Kulm, G. and Wheatley, G. H. (1981). Computing education for secondary school teachers: A cooperative effort between computer scientists and educators. Proceedings of the Twelfth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 13(1), ISTE (2002). Educational computing and technology standards for secondary computer science education initial endorsement program. Retrieved August 7, 2007, from ITAA. (2002). Bouncing back: Job skills and the continuing demand for IT workers. Arlington, VA: Information Technology Association of America. Jaworski, B. (1999). Mathematics teacher education, research and development: the involvement of teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, ( ). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press. Kahan, J. A., Cooper, D. A. and Bethea, K. A. (2003). The role of mathematical teachers content knowledge in their teaching: A framework for research applied to a study of student teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6(3), Kinach, B. M. (2002). Understanding and learning-toexplain by representing mathematics: Epistemological dilemmas facing teacher educators in the secondary mathematics methods course. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5, Khoury, G. (2007). Computer science state certification requirements. CSTA Certification Committee Report. Retrieved October 10, 2007 from Certification/sub/CertificationStudyReport.html. Kushan, B. (1994). Preparing programming teachers. Proceedings of the 25 th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 26(1), Lapidot, T. and Hazzan, O. (2003). Methods of teaching a computer science course for prospective teachers. Inroads The SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(4), Lin, F. (2000). Making sense of mathematics teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, Manouchehri, A. (1997). School mathematic reform: Implications for mathematics teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(3), Jaworski, B. and Gellert, U. (2003). Educating new mathematics teachers: Integrating theory and practice and the role of practicing teachers. In Bishop, A. J., Clements, M. A., Keitel, C., Kilpatrick, J., and Leung, F. K. S. (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Mathematics Education, Martin, C. K. (1999). Teaching basic computer science concepts through programming by example: A study teaching middle school students computer science using Stagecast Creator. Retrieved June 28, 2008, from ckmartin/pdf/creator.pdf. 71

70 McKlin, T. (2008). GaComputes! CS teacher interview report: Teacher learning. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA. Meyer, R. (1975). Development in the training and retraining of school biology teachers. Paper presented at the International Congress on the Improvement of Biology Education, Uppsala, Sweden. Miller, J. W., McKenna, M. C., and McKenna, B. A. (1998). A comparison of alternatively and traditionally prepared teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 49(3), information technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Science Education Standards. (2008). Standards for professional development for teachers of science (NSES). Retrieved May 2, 2008, from 4.html. Peterson, R. F. and Treagust, D. F. (2001). A problembased learning approach to science teacher preparation. In Lavoie, D. R. and Roth, W. M. (Eds.), Models of Science Teacher Preparation (49 66). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press. Mocciola, M. (1978). Teacher-training in computer science education in western Australia: Group projects. Papers of the SIGCSE/CSA Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 10(1), Moyer, P. S. and Milewicz, E. (2002). Learning to question: categories of questioning used by preservice teachers during diagnostic mathematics interviews. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2003). Strategic goals and objectives. Retrieved May 21, 2008, from org/documents/ncatestratgoalobjec.pdf. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. National Research Council on Information Technology Literacy. (1999). Being fluent with Pietig, J. (1997). Foundations and teacher education: Do we need a new metaphor? Journal of Teacher Education, 48(3), Poirot, J. L. and Early, G. G. (1975). Teacher certification A computer science necessity. ACM SIGCUE Outlook, 9(SI), Poirot, J., Luerhmann, A., Norris, C., Taylor, H. and Taylor, R. (1985). Proposed curriculum for programs leading to teacher certification in computer science. Communications of the ACM, 28(3), Poirot, J. L., Taylor, H. G. and Norris, C. A. (1988). Retraining teachers to teach high school computer science. Communications of the ACM, 31(7), Ragonis, N. and Hazzan, O. (in press). Integrating a tutoring model into the training of prospective Computer Science teachers, The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching. Roberts, E and Halopoff, G. (2005). Results of the 2005 CSTA National Secondary Computer Science Survey: 200 survey analysis. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from CSTAResearch.html. 72

71 Sargent, J. (2004). An overview of past and projected employment changes in the professional IT occupations. Computing Research News, 16(3), Schoon, K. J. and Sandoval, P. A. (1997). The seamless field experience model for secondary science teacher preparation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(2), Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 16(1), The College Board. (2007). Advanced placement report to the nation. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from about/news_info/ap/2007/2007_ap-reportnation.pdf. Shackelford, R. (2005). Why can t smart people figure out what to do about computing education? CS & IT Symposium, February 26, 2005, St. Louis, MO. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Teacher, 15(2), Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), Shulman, L. S. (1990). Reconnecting foundations to the substance of teacher education. Teachers College Record, 91(3), The State of New Jersey (2008). The State of New Jersey academic and professional standards (NJ) Retrieved May 2, 2008, from education/profdev/standards.htm. Tucker, A., McCowan, D., Deek, F., Stephenson, C., Jones, J., & Verno, A. (2006). A model curriculum for K 12 computer science: Report of the ACM K 12 Task Force Computer Science Curriculum Committee, 2 nd ed. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. UCSD Department of Computer Science and Engineering. (2008). Graduate course descriptions. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from edu/gradedu/courses/gradcoursedesc/cse599.html. Statz, J. and Miller, L. (1975). Certification of secondary school computer science teachers: Some issues and viewpoints. Proceedings of the 1975 Annual conference ACM, 75, Swafford, J. O. (1995). Teacher preparation. In Carl, I. M. (Ed.), Prospects for school mathematics ( ). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Vithal, R. (2003). Teachers and street children : On becoming a teacher of mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London, UK: The Falmer Press. Walsh, K. (2001). Teacher certification reconsidered: Stumbling for quality. Baltimore, MD: Abell Foundation. Taylor, H. G. (1997). The evolution of standards for accrediting computer science teacher preparation programs. Proceedings of the 28 th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 29(1), Taylor, H. G. and Poirot, J. L. (1984). A proposed computer education curriculum for secondary school teachers. Proceedings of the 15 th SIGCSE Weld, J. D. and French, D. P. (2001). An undergraduate science laboratory field experience for pre-service science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(2), Wilson, S. M., Floden, E. F., and Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2002). Teacher preparation research An insider s view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3),

72 Wilson, S. M., Floden, E. F., and Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., and Richert, A. E. (1987). 150 different ways of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers thinking ( ). London, UK: Cassel. Zeichner, K. M. and Schulte, A. K. (2001). What we know and don t know from peer-reviewed research about alternative teacher certification programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(4), Zeidler, D. L. (2002). Dancing with maggots and saints: Visions for subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), Zohar, A. (2004). Elements of teachers pedagogical knowledge regarding instruction of higher order thinking. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(4), Zweban, S. (2008). Ph.D. production exceeds 1,700: Undergraduate enrollment trends still unclear. Computing Research News, 20(3)

73 NOTES 75

74 76 NOTES

75 ACM founded CSTA as part of its commitment to K 12 computer science education