Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Exploring Fifth-Grade Teachers’ Integration of Computational Thinking, Instruction Strategies, and Efficacy Following Professional Development

Susan German 1 *
1 University of Missouri - Columbia* Corresponding Author
Download PDF
Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Volume 9, Issue SI, June 2026, pp. 31-59
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 23 DOWNLOADS: 19 Publication date: 15 Jun 2026
ABSTRACT
This study examined how fifth-grade teachers integrated computational thinking (CT) following participation in the eSTEM for Designing Games for Education (eDGE) professional development program. Using a qualitative-dominant mixed methods design, data were collected from two cohorts of teachers across multiple states and included qualitative artifacts, interviews, survey measures of self-efficacy, and Computational Thinking Pattern Analysis (CTPA) of coded projects. Findings indicate that teachers integrated CT primarily through interdisciplinary, student-centered instruction using simulation-based and problem-based approaches. Teachers demonstrated growth in foundational computational thinking practices—such as decomposition and algorithmic reasoning—alongside moderate increases in coding self-efficacy. However, more advanced computational concepts, including abstraction and dynamic system modeling, remained challenging, with minimal gains in computational thinking efficacy. Integrated findings reveal a patterned relationship between efficacy and proficiency: convergence in foundational, structured aspects of CT and divergence in more complex computational practices. These results support a partial conceptualization of computational thinking, in which teachers emphasize cognitive problem-solving processes without consistently translating them into computationally executable forms. Implications suggest that professional development should more explicitly connect problem-solving strategies to computational implementation and provide sustained opportunities for teachers to engage with complex computational practices.
KEYWORDS
Coding, Computational Thinking, Mathematics Education, Professional Development, Teacher Efficacy
CITATION (APA)
German, S. (2026). Exploring Fifth-Grade Teachers’ Integration of Computational Thinking, Instruction Strategies, and Efficacy Following Professional Development. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 9(SI), 31-59. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.512SI
REFERENCES
  1. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2),
  2. 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191.
  3. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–
  4. 81). Academic Press.
  5. Bandura, A. (1994). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media
  6. effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 61–90). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  7. Berland, M., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Comparing virtual and physical robotics environments for supporting complex
  8. systems and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 628–647.
  9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9552-x.
  10. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE.
  11. Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April 13–17). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of
  12. computational thinking [Paper presentation]. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Vancouver, Canada. http://scratched.gse.harvard.edu/ct/files/AERA2012.pdf.
  13. Chesnut, S. R., & Burley, H. (2015). Self-efficacy as a predictor of commitment to the teaching profession: A meta-
  14. analysis. Educational Research Review, 15, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.001.
  15. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
  16. approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
  17. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
  18. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Cambridge University Press.
  19. Computer Science Teachers Association, & International Society for Technology in Education. (2011). Operational
  20. definition of computational thinking for K–12 education. https://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/Operational-
  21. Definition-of-Computational-Thinking.pdf.
  22. Digital Promise. (2022, May 13). Computational thinking.
  23. https://digitalpromise.org/initiative/computational-thinking/.
  24. Duncan, C., & Bell, T. (2015). A pilot computer science and programming course for primary school students. In
  25. Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 39–48). ACM.
  26. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818314.2818328.
  27. Eells, R. J. (2011). Meta-analysis of the relationship between collective teacher efficacy and student achievement
  28. (Doctoral dissertation, Loyola University Chicago). Loyola eCommons. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/133.
  29. Fackler, S., & Malmberg, L.-E. (2016). Teachers’ self-efficacy in 14 OECD countries: Teacher, student group,
  30. school and leadership effects. Teaching and Teacher Education, 56, 185–195.
  31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.002.
  32. Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs: Principles
  33. and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6, Pt. 2), 2134–2156.
  34. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117.
  35. Gardner, H., & Davis, K. (2014). The app generation: How today’s youth navigate identity, iIntimacy, and
  36. iImagination in a digital world. Yale University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vm7dh.
  37. Gootman, E. (2007, October 24). Taking the middle schoolers out of the middle. The New York Times.
  38. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/education/22middle.html.
  39. Grover, S., & Pea, R. D. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational
  40. Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051.
  41. Ioannidou, A., Bennett, V., Repenning, A., Koh, K., & Basawapatna, A. (2011, April 8–12). Computational
  42. thinking patterns [Paper presentation]. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New
  43. Orleans, LA, United States.
  44. Ioannidou, A., Rader, C., Repenning, A., Lewis, C., & Cherry, G. (2003). Making constructionism work in the
  45. classroom. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 8(1), 63–108.
  46. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025617704695.
  47. Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Playing and making games for learning: Instructionist and constructionist perspectives for
  48. game studies. Games and Culture, 1(1), 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412005281767.
  49. Kalelioglu, F., Gülbahar, Y., & Kukul, V. (2016). A framework for computational thinking based on a systematic
  50. research review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(3), 583–596.
  51. Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. C. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: A meta-
  52. analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001.
  53. Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t
  54. tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863.
  55. Lee, I., Grover, S., Martin, F., Pillai, S., & Malyn-Smith, J. (2020). Computational thinking from a disciplinary
  56. perspective: Integrating computational thinking in K–12 science, technology, engineering, and
  57. mathematics education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 1–8.
  58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09803-w.
  59. Lockwood, J., & Mooney, A. (2017). Computational thinking in education: Where does it fit? A systematic literary
  60. review. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.07659.
  61. Manovich, L. (2018). Software takes command. Bloomsbury Academic.
  62. Mason, S. L., & Rich, P. J. (2019). Preparing elementary school teachers to teach computing, coding, and
  63. computational thinking. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4), 790–824.
  64. https://citejournal.org/volume-19/issue-4-19/general/preparing-elementary-school-teachers-to-teach-computing-coding-and-computational-thinking/.
  65. Mumcu, F. K., Andic, B., Maricic, M., Tejera, M., & Lavicza, Z. (2025). Unpacking teachers’ value beliefs about
  66. computational thinking and programming. Journal of Educational Technology & Online Learning, 8(1),
  67. 41–63. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1497284.
  68. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2017). Women, minorities,
  69. and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2015 (Special Report NSF 15-311).
  70. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/.
  71. Portelance, D. J., & Bers, M. U. (2015, June). Code and tell: Assessing young children’s learning of computational
  72. thinking using peer video interviews with ScratchJr. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference
  73. on Interaction Design and Children, ACM, 271–274. https://doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771894.
  74. Prensky, M. (2008, January 14). Programming is the new literacy. Edutopia.
  75. http://www.edutopia.org/literacy-computer-programming.
  76. Repenning, A., & Ioannidou, A. (2008). Broadening participation through scalable game design. In Proceedings of
  77. the 39th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM, 305–309.
  78. https://doi.org/10.1145/1352135.135224.
  79. Repenning, A., Webb, D., & Ioannidou, A. (2010). Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for
  80. getting computational thinking into public schools. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium
  81. on Computer Science Education, ACM, 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734357.
  82. Rich, P. J., Larsen, R. A., & Mason, S. L. (2021). Measuring teacher beliefs about coding and computational
  83. thinking. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 53(3), 296–316.
  84. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1771232.
  85. Rich, P. J., Mason, S. L., & O’Leary, J. (2021). Measuring the effect of continuous professional development on
  86. elementary teachers’ self-efficacy to teach coding and computational thinking. Computers & Education,
  87. 168, Article 104196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104196.
  88. Rittmayer, M. A., & Beier, M. E. (2009). Self-efficacy in STEM. In Applying research to practice (ARP) resources.
  89. http://www.engr.psu.edu/AWE/ARPresources.aspx.
  90. Rodrigues, R. N., Costa, C., & Martins, F. (2024). Integration of computational thinking in initial teacher training
  91. for primary schools: A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1330065.
  92. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1330065.
  93. Rushkoff, D. (2012, November 13). Code literacy: A 21st-century requirement. Edutopia.
  94. http://www.edutopia.org/blog/code-literacy-21st-century-requirement-douglas-rushkoff.
  95. Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: The developing definition. University of Southampton.
  96. Shoji, K., Cieslak, R., Smoktunowicz, E., Rogala, A., Benight, C. C., & Łuszczyńska, A. (2016). Associations
  97. between job burnout and self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 29(4), 367–386.
  98. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2015.1058369.
  99. Täschner, J., Dicke, T., Reinhold, S., & Holzberger, D. (2025). “Yes, I can!” A systematic review and meta-analysis
  100. of intervention studies promoting teacher self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 95(1), 3–52.
  101. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231221499.
  102. Taslibeyaz, E., Kursun, E., & Karaman, S. (2020). How to Develop Computational Thinking: A Systematic Review
  103. of Empirical Studies, Informatics in Education, 19(4), 701–719.
  104. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2020.30.
  105. Tschannen-Moran, M., & McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy: Four professional development formats
  106. and their relationship to self-efficacy and implementation of a new teaching strategy. The Elementary
  107. School Journal, 110(2), 228–245. https://doi.org/10.1086/605771.
  108. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching
  109. and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1.
  110. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education:
  111. Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 715–728.
  112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9412-6.
  113. Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining
  114. computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and
  115. Technology, 25(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5.
  116. Wilson, C., & Guzdial, M. (2010). How to make progress in computing education. Communications of the ACM,
  117. 53(5), 35–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/1735223.1735235.
  118. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
  119. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215.
  120. Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. In 2008 IEEE International Symposium
  121. on Parallel and Distributed Processing, IEEE, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/IPDPS.2008.4536091.
  122. Yadav, A., Stephenson, C., & Hong, H. (2017). Computational thinking for teacher education. Communications of
  123. the ACM, 60(4), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2994591.
  124. Yadav, A., Zhou, N., Mayfield, C., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2011). Introducing computational thinking in
  125. education courses. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science
  126. Education, ACM,. 465–470. https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953297.
  127. Younas, A., Inayat, S., & Sundus, A. (2021). Joint displays for qualitative-quantitative synthesis in mixed methods
  128. reviews. Research Methods in Medicine & Health Sciences, 2(3), 91–101.
  129. https://doi.org/10.1177/2632084320984374.
  130. Yurdakök, E. A., & Kalelioğlu, F. (2024). The effect of teaching physical programming on computational thinking
  131. skills and self-efficacy perceptions towards computational thinking. Journal of Educational Computing
  132. Research, 62(3), 785–815. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231220313.
  133. Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student
  134. academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational
  135. Research, 86(4), 981–1015. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801.
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.