Computers & Education 68 (2013) 141–152

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journa l hom e page : ww w .el sev ier. com/l ocat e/com pe du

High school computing

Maria Kordaki*teachers’ beliefs and practices: A case study

University of the Aegean, Department of Cultural Technology and Communications, University Hill, 81100 Mytilene, Greece

a r t i c

Article history:l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

The aim of this work is threefold. Firstly, an empirical study was designed with the aim of investigatingReceived 6 November 2012Received in revised form16 April 2013Accepted 17 April 2013

Keywords:High school computing teachersSecondary educationTeacher beliefs and practicesTeacher professional developmentTeaching/learning strategies

the beliefs that High School Computing (HSC) teachers hold about: (a) their motivational orientation,self-efficacy, and self-expectations as Computing teachers, (b) the nature of HSC and its curricula, (c) howtheir students could be better learners in Computing, and the expectations they have of their students,and (d) their own teaching approaches and the alternatives they propose for best teaching of HSC.Secondly, an empirical study was realized to investigate the same HSC teachers’ classroom practices.Thirdly, possible associations between the teachers’ beliefs and their teaching practices were investi-gated. 25 HSC teachers participated, their beliefs beingelicited through structured interviews, while theirpractices were investigated through non-participant observation, using structured observation sheets.The analysis of the data revealed that HSC teachers as a group held various beliefs about the afore-mentioned issues: some of these beliefs can ‘empower’ teachers to realize constructivist approacheswhile others can ‘constrain’ them to the well-known traditional behaviorist practices. The majority ofHSC teachers expressed mixed beliefs (‘empowering’ and ‘constraining’) and reported feeling over-whelmed, with little control over their teaching, due to contextual barriers, the rapid evolution ofComputing and, subsequently, their lack of knowledge about current trends and didactics in this disci-pline, as well as the perceived students’ culture about Computing as playing games and surfing theInternet. Data analysis also shows that there are synergies between HSC teachers’ beliefs and practices. Inthe case of mixed beliefs, at least one ‘constraining’ belief is reflected in teachers’ real practices. However,the descriptions of practices given by most of those teachers during the interviews are not fully reflectedin their practices.

Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Computing education has been increasingly viewed through the lens of social and constructivist epistemology (Ben-Ari, 2001, 2004;Hadjerrouit, 2009; Hazzan & Lapidot, 2004; Kolikant, 2008) withvarious teaching approaches proposed (see for example: Cajander, Daniels,& McDermott, 2012; Hamer et al., 2008; Lewis, 2011). The adaptation of such teaching approaches by HSC teachers to their everyday schoolpractices is crucial. Therefore, it is important to explore not only teachers’ beliefs about appropriate ways of teaching and learningComputing, but also their teaching practices themselves.

In fact, it is widely recognized that teachers’ educational beliefs are strong indicators of their instructional decisions and planning, as wellas of their classroom practices and, subsequently, of what students are to learn (Bandura, 1986; Hargreaves, 2002; Pajares, 1992). To this end,Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) defined a belief as a representation of the information one holds about an object, or a “person’s understanding ofhimself and his environment” (p. 131). This object can “be a person, a group of people, an institution, a behavior, a policy, an event, etc., andthe associated attribute may be any object, trait, property, quality, characteristic, outcome, or event” (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 12). Yet, theconcepts ‘belief’ and ‘conception’ are difficult to define clearly and diverse studies have attributed different meanings to these constructs(Pajares, 1992). Nevertheless, the relation between teachers’ beliefs and their instructional practices is a complex one (Thompson, 1992) andnot necessary consistent (Furingetti & Pehkonen, 2002). Individuals are not always conscious of their beliefs while some may hide them

* Tel.: þ30 2251 0 36627; fax: þ30 2251 0 36609.E-mail address: m.kordaki@aegean.gr.

0360-1315/$ – see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.020

142M. Kordaki / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 141–152

from external scrutiny. However, Pajares (1992) cautions that “little will have been accomplished if research into educational beliefs fails toprovide insights into the relationship between beliefs and teacher practices, teacher knowledge, and student outcomes” (p. 327).

Each individual’s behavior is also shaped by their motivation for involvement in any specific task (Covington, 200 0). Specifically, it hasbeen claimed that certainbehavior is valued either because of the need to meet intrinsic or extrinsic goals (Covington, 2000) or because thetask has some perceived significance (VanZile-Tamsen, 2001). Extrinsic motivation focuses on external rewards while intrinsic motivationmay stem from a personal goal derived from an interest in the course area.

The notion of expectancy has been also viewed as a prominent place for explanations of human behavior (Bandura, 1986). Expectancy isconceptualized as the intention to act on the basis of belief about particular outcomes. In general, a person who attributes success or failureto external events and thus has an external locus-of-control is less active in pursuing challenging tasks. One also holds beliefs about theirability to engage in particular activities and the likely outcome of such engagement, that is, self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1986). Such beliefsalso regulate behavior: a person’s low sense of self-efficacy militates against their engaging effectively in non-trivial tasks. One’s goals arealso believed to provide direction for one’s behavior (Pintrich. & Garcia, 1991). Consequently, it would appear to be essential to study what itis that motivates people to become Computing teachers, their self-efficacy beliefs and self-expectations (goals).

Teacher beliefs and conceptions aboutthe epistemological nature of the subjecttheyteachand its appropriate curricula would also appearto affect their teaching practices (Ertmer, 2005; Pajares, 1992; Thomson, 1992). As regards Computing, ithas beenviewed as awayof thinkingrather than a typical school subject (Wing, 2008). Indeed, computational thinking has been acknowledged as a synthesis of mathematical,engineering and scientific thinking, utilizing a sophisticated set of higher-order thinking skills and cognitive abilities, used everywhere andtouching everyone (Wing, 2006). In fact, it has beenproposed to add computational thinking to the repertoire of one’s own thinking abilities(Wing, 2008). Thus, Computing educators need to determine how and when people should learn to employ this kind of thinking.

However, there have been and still persist strong disagreements and confusion about the nature of Computing as a school subject by allparties involved in HSC education (Hadjerrouit, 2009; Stephenson, Gal-Ezer, Haberman, & Verno, 2005). A model curriculum for K-12Computer Science (CS) has actually been available since 1970 (BritishComputer Society as itis cited by Beynon & Mackay, 1992; CSTA, 2011),as a response to the view that Computing education is not clearly defined or well-established at K-12 level. As teachers play the mostessential role in helping students to conceptualize Computing in secondary education, it is important to investigate their views about thenature of HSC as well as what makes for appropriate curricula.

Despite the above, Computing teachers’ beliefs, their instructional practices and the relationship among them remain under-researched.In fact, previous research is limited to the investigation of some conceptions held by Computing teachers without relating these to theirclassroom practices. In particular, one such study refers to the investigation of the conceptions academic Computing teachers have aboutsuccessful and unsuccessful teaching (Carbone, Mannila, & Fitzgerald, 2007) while another study concerns the aforesaid academics’ con-ceptions of teaching using Virtual Learning Environments (Lameras, Levy, & Paraskakis, 2008; Lameras, Levy, Paraskakis, & Webber, 2012).Student teachers’ beliefs about creativity in CS (Romeike, 2010) as well as student and faculty attitudes and beliefs about CS have also beeninvestigated (Lewins, Jackson, & Waite, 2010). The instructors’ perspectives onmultiple choice questions insummative assessment of noviceprogrammers were also explored (Shuhidan, Hamilton & D Souza, 2010). Computing teachers’ ‘world views’ about Computing in secondary0

education, have been connected to the various roles they play in society (Berger, 1999; Kolikant, 2008). Another study has also reported thatComputing teachers have found contextual and personal beliefs constraints to implementing a specific constructivist framework forteaching (Hadjerrouit, 2009). The difference between the perceptions of Computing teachers and those of their students in terms ofalgorithmic problem solving was also reported in a study investigating Computing teachers’ perceptions of their goals and experience ofteaching basic aspects of algorithmic problem solving (Kolikant, 2011). The difficulties of experienced Computing teachers in teaching newtopics have been also recently investigated (Liberman, Kolikant, & Beeri, 2012).

The aim of the work presented in this paper was threefold. First, an empirical study was designed with the aim to investigate the beliefsthat HSC teachers hold about themselves as teachers as well as about basic issues regarding HSC and its teaching and learning, namely: (a)their motivational orientation, self-efficacy and self-expectations as Computing teachers (sub-aim 1a), (b) the nature of HSC as a learningsubject and the essential topics that need to be integrated into its curriculum (sub-aim 1b), (c) how students could be better learners inComputing and the expectations they hold of their students as learners of Computing (sub-aim 1c), and (d) their own teaching approachesand the alternative ways they propose for best teaching of HSC (sub-aim 1d). The second aim of this work was to design an empirical study toinvestigate the aforementioned Computing teachers’ real classroom practices in order to achieve a degree of insight into the way theseteachers understand and carry out their job. Thirdly, an attempt has been made to investigate possible associations between theseComputing teachers’ beliefs and their actual teaching practices. In this way, some insight can be obtained into the basic specific beliefs heldby such teachers that would seem to affect their classroom practices.

The work presented in this paper is original in the following respect: no other study has thus far investigated Computing teachers’ beliefsin terms of the set of aforementioned issues, their classroom practices and possible associations between these beliefs and practices.

The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 features the context of the empirical study. Section 3 presents the results of this study, andassociations between teachers’ beliefs and practices are drawn. Section 4 discusses the findings of the study and their implications for HSCteacher education, and conclusions are drawn, while the study’s limitations and future research directions are also suggested.

2. The context of the study

2.1. Sample, HSC context

Twenty-five Greek Computing teachers (henceforth labeled T1, T2, T3,., T25) participated in this empirical study, a two-phase researchexperiment. These teachers taught in typical public high schools (15 high schools), located in the city of Patras, Achaia region, Greece, andheld the following different undergraduate degrees: Mathematics (8 teachers), Physics (3 teachers) and Computing (14 teachers). Theirmean age was 39.84 (SD ¼ 6.169) and their mean teaching experience 9.6 years (SD ¼ 4.769). The aforementioned teachers participatedvoluntarily in this study and were not offered any incentives. In terms of teaching experience and educational background, this is a typicalsample of Greek HSC teachers.

M. Kordaki / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 141–152143

The status of HSC courses in the Greek school curricula is twofold: elective and mandatory. Elective courses are pass-fail. The curricula ofthese courses consist of the following topics: Computer and its applications, Information Systems, Data representation, Hardware, System/Application Software, Programming, Multimedia, Communications, and Networks (Internet and Web-applications). One mandatory courseis also included: ‘Development of Applications in a Programming Environment (DAPE)’. The curricula of this course consist of the followingtopics: Problem Analysis, Algorithms (basic concepts, analysis and design), Programming (Data Structures, Tables, Algorithmic structures,Subprograms and User Interface Design), Programming Environments, and Debugging – Evaluation- Documentation. Students must suc-cessfully pass national exams in the content of this course to enter a Computing department. However, given the absence of designatedresponsibility for the computer infrastructure in Greek high schools, Computing teachers find themselves playing multiple roles, such asteachers, school network administrators, school computer technicians, and fixers of any computer-related problems in schools, even thoseof school secretaries.

2.2. The research experiment and the methodology

2.2.1. 1st phaseDuring the first phase of the experiment, the aforementioned teachers’ conceptions and beliefs about themselves as Computing teachers,

as well as HSC and its teaching and learning, were investigated throughstructured interviews. During these, teachers were asked to provideanswers to a number of open questions (Qi, i ¼ 1,.,9) banded into four groups. The aim of the questions in eachgroup was the fulfillment ofeach of the sub-aims (sub-aims: 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d) of the first aim of this study, correspondingly. Specifically, the first group of questions (Q1,Q2, Q3) was aimed at eliciting teachers’ beliefs about: their motives in becoming Computing teachers (Q1), their self-efficacy (Q2) and self-expectations (Q3). The second group (Q4 and Q5) was targeted at probing teachers’ conceptions regarding the nature of Computing as aschool subject (Q4) and the essential topics that should be integrated into an HSC curriculum (Q5). The third group (Q6, and Q7) wasdesigned to elicitteachers’ ideas abouthow their students could become better learners in HSC (Q6) and the expectations they have of them(Q7). The fourth group elicited teachers’ conceptions regarding their own teaching practices (Q8) and the alternatives they propose for goodHSC teaching (Q9). All the questions included in the aforementioned groups are reported in the “Results’ sectionof this paper, along with theanswers given by the teachers.

2.2.2. 2nd phaseThe aim of this phase was to fulfill the second aim of the study. During this phase, these teachers were observed while teaching their

students. The observation concentrated on various points referring to specific teacher interventions performed during each lesson, as well ason specific students’ actions. These points were included in structured observation sheets and are reported in the “Results’ section of thispaper, together with the presentation of the data collected.

In terms of methodology, this study is a qualitative study and can be characterized as a case study (Cohen, Manion, & Morisson, 2007). Italso adopts a phenomenographic research approach(Marton & Booth, 1997) committed to the subjective and relational nature of knowledgeand has been used in many CS education studies (Kinnunen & Simon, 2012). A phenomenography study focuses on the variation in howpeople experience/comprehend phenomena. It also takes a bottom-up approach, which aims to construct knowledge by using inductivelogic (Babbie, 1989).

2.3. Data gathering and analysis

The interviews with HSC teachers were recorded and then transcribed. The data produced were firstly organized according to thequestions asked. For each question, the data were analyzed by closely reading the transcripts several times. During the first reading, a high-level overview of the data was achieved. In the second round, specific words and phrases that captured a specific theme the intervieweewas communicating through his or her account were highlighted. As an outcome, a list of themes was produced. Based on these, specificcategories of teachers’ beliefs were created. The categories emerging from all the said questions were also examined closely in relation toeach other to identify what they had in common and how they differed. As a result, the categories of teachers’ beliefs were classified as‘empowering’ beliefs and ‘constraining’ beliefs: the former can help teachers improve the quality of their teaching through practices basedon modern learning theories within the contextof an HSC course, while ‘constraining’ beliefs supposes the opposite. It is worth noting herethat the participants did not characterize their beliefs as ‘empowering’ or ‘constraining’ and perhaps they were unaware that some of theirbeliefs constrain their practices. The goal of the aforementioned classification is not to indoctrinate or train teachers to behave in pre-scribed ways, but - as Shulman suggests – to educate them to think about what they are doing, the beliefs that guide their actions and thechoices they make, and to use the wisdom of their experience to reason about their teaching and to perform skilfully, by flexibly selectingappropriate teaching ‘paradigms’ and ‘models’ (Shulman, 1986, 1987). The data produced from the observations of teachers’ practices werefirstly organized using the points included in the observation sheets. Next, these data were analyzed in a similar way to that used for theinterview data, resulting in the formation of specific categories of teacher practices. These categories were also examined for commonpoints and differences, and as a result specific profiles of teacher practices were formed. Finally, possible associations between each in-dividual teacher practices falling into each of the aforementioned categories, and the beliefs expressed during the interviews, wereexplored.

3. Results

The results of this study are presented in terms of: Computing teachers’ beliefs about HSC and its teaching and learning (Section3.1), andtheir actual teaching practices (Section 3.2). In the aforementioned section, the beliefs of each individual teacher are also illustrated anddiscussed along with their practices.

144

3.1.

M. Kordaki / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 141–152

Computing teachers’ beliefs about HSC and its teaching and learning

The results of the analysis of the teachers’ answers are presented according to the grouping of questions. The categories of teachers’answers are briefly depicted in Table 1 and are further discussed in the following sub-sections.

3.1.1. Computing teachers’ beliefs: motivational orientation, self-efficacy and self-expectationsTeachers’ answers regarding their motivation to become Computing teachers (Q1: What were your motives in becoming a Computing

teacher at High School?), their feelings of self-efficacy (Q2: Do you feel self-sufficient to teach Computing in high schools?) as well as theirself-expectations (Q3: Can you address any self-expectations as a Computing teacher?) are reported in this section.

3.1.1.1. Computing teachers’ motives in becoming teaching professionals. Teachers’ motives fall into the following categories:3.1.1.1.1. Intrinsic motivators. A considerable number of teachers (15) reported that they decided to become Computing teachers because

they ‘love to teach’. This is an intrinsic motivator that can empower teachers to face professional challenges and try new teachingapproaches.

3.1.1.1.2. Extrinsic motivators. A considerable number of teachers (15, all but one Computing graduates) also reported that they selectedthis professionas a second choice after a timeof employment as computer specialists inbig public organizations (e.g. municipalities, hospitals,libraries, Hellenic Telecommunications, BritishTelecom)and inthe private sector (e.g. companies in Greece and abroad). This canbe explainedby the fact that the usual primary intention and dreams of most Computing professionals are for them to become high profile employeeswithin the industry, and not HSC teachers. However, as these teachers reported, their decision to move to the education sector was becausethey were dissatisfied with the conditions in their former jobs: poor salaries, job insecurity, long working hours and demanding work. Af-terwards, they recognized the advantages of the teaching profession in secondary schools: liveliness of students, fast vocational rehabilitation,job security, fixed tasks and duties, balanced and relaxed job, etc. Some teachers (5) cited both of the aforementioned motivators.

3.1.1.2. Computing teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. Surprisingly, few of the participants (4) reported self-efficacy in teaching HSC. However, themajority (21) expressed feelings of inefficacy in terms of experiencing difficulties in: (a) keeping pace with the rapid and continuous evo-lution of technology (10), (b) teaching Computing due to their insufficient pedagogical knowledge (10), (c) dealing appropriately with thediversity of students’ technical and conceptual skills (5), (d) dealing with student Computing culture, such as playing computer games andsurfing the Internet (5). An indicative example of their arguments is presented below:

T4: “I find managing high school students in the Computing class highly problematic. How can I motivate them? They like playing games andfooling over the Internet.”

(e) facing various institutional barriers (21) such as: (i) Inadequate-inappropriate infrastructure of school computer labs (14), (ii) Thestatus of HSC courses (7): the pass-fail character of the elective courses, which negatively affects the general climate in the classroom

Table 1Categories of HSC teachers’ answers to the questions asked during the interviews.

Issues/QuestionsInterviews: Categories of HSC teachers’ answers Number of teachers Percentage of teachers %

Motivation/Q1

Self-efficacy/Q2

Self-expectations/Q3

Special characteristics of HSC/Q4

HSC curriculum/Q5Student necessary competences in computing/Q6

How students can be better learners in HSC/Q6

Expectations from students/Q7

Description of teaching practices/Q8

Alternative ways for good HSC teaching/Q9

The bold numbers and symbols indicate essential points.

Intrinsic: Love to teachExtrinsic: Advantages of the teaching jobNon self-efficientSelf-efficientBecome a more effective teacherMake progress in my knowledgeBetter job statusNo expectationsA fun subjectA mental toolA practical subjectA rapidly progressive disciplineSimilar to Computer Literacy coursesNo idea/no competencesHigh cognitive skillsImprovement of the institutional contextImprovement of the pedagogical contextNo ideaImprove their cognitive skillsEnter the Univ. dept they preferEnjoy their timeUnderstand algorithms-be good programmersBe familiar with MS-office applicationsAttend my lessonsNo expectationsExploit students previous knowledgeProviding the correct answer to student mistakesEncourage students to be self-correctedDirect teaching the mandatory courseDrill and practice in elective coursesProject work in elective coursesNo proposals

151521

414

52465

124

2521

419

555411844

2522

525

91625

6060841656208

1624204816

1008416762020201644

321616

1008820

1003664

100

M. Kordaki / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 141–152145

towards indifference and relaxation, while the lecturing teaching mode of the obligatory course -outside the lab- proves ineffective. (iii) Alarge number of students in class (6), (iv) The expansive Greek HSC curriculum and the limited teaching time per week (8). (v) The multiplerole of HSC teachers: Here, all participants in this study reported – using diverse expressions - that their multiple roles in school act asbarriers to their own attempts to become good teachers. Indicatively:

T13:”Despite the fact that I am a Computing teacher, I play multiple roles: secretary, administrator of the school network and school computertechnician. Of course, I do not feel I carry out all these roles adequately enough’.

3.1.1.3. Computing teachers’ self-expectations. Diverse self-expectations were expressed by the teachers: The majority (14) expressed‘empowering’ beliefs towards becoming effective teachers in terms of: (i) integrating new teaching approaches into their practices (7), and (ii)providing their students with necessary, interesting and useful knowledge and experience (7). A number of other teachers (5) expressed per-sonal goals suchas remainingup-to-date and informed aboutComputing, while a couple (2) considered their expectations related to obtaining abetter position in the educational system. It is worth noting here that teachers’ self-expectations should mention both their own personalprogress and advancing their students’ learning. Noteworthy is the fact that four (4) teachers did not express any self-expectations at all.

Based on the data presented in this section, it seems that HSC teachers’ extrinsic motivation, in combination with the personal andcontextual constraints reported above, forms the basis for their feelings of self-inefficacy and low self-expectations.

3.1.2. Computing teachers’ beliefs about HSC as a learning subjectTeachers’ beliefs were expressed through answering the following questions: Q4: ‘Does HSC have any special characteristics?’ and Q5:

‘Whatare the essential topics to be integrated into an appropriate HSC curriculum? Please explain the contentof these topics and the criteriayou have taken into account to propose each topic’. The categories of teacher responses to the aforementioned questions are further dis-cussed in the next sections (Section 3.1.2.1, and Section 3.1.2.2) respectively.

3.1.2.1. Teachers’ views about special characteristics of HSC. Teachers’ views fall into the following four categories: (a) Computing as a funsubject (6). Some teachers (3) acknowledged that it is their job to find ways to elevate Computing to the status of a school subject such asMathematics and Physics. However, others (3) claimed that Computing is a fun and undemanding subject for students– it is just about theuse of computers – and no special skills are required to deal with it. Characteristic examples of these conflicting views are:

T22: ‘Students come in touch with computers at school, where it is extremely attractive for them to play. So, teachers need to take appropriateactions to give Computing the status of a school subject, not a classroom plaything’

T25: ‘Computing is a fun, non-stressful subject. No special skills are required for students to deal with this subject, simply the decision to do so”.

(b) Computing as a mainly practical, laboratory subject. This one-sided view was reported by a considerable number of teachers (12), (c)Computing as a mental tool. Here, some teachers (5) claimed that Computing has a theoretical aspect that is related to algorithmic logic andthe use of analytical and synthetic thinking as well as the development of students’ critical thinking and mathematical reasoning. (d)Computing as a rapidly and continuously progressive discipline. A few teachers (4) consider that the books, computer infrastructure andteachers should always keep pace with this rapid and continuous progress.

3.1.2.2. Teachers’ beliefs about an appropriate HSC curriculum. Computing teachers proposed the following topics as necessary for inte-gration into an appropriate HSC curriculum: (a) Operating Systems (11), (b) MS-Office applications: Word (19), Excel (17), and Power Point(13), (c) Programming (19), (d) Internet (15), (e) Multimedia (18), (f) Networks (12), (g) Web design (12), (h) Hardware (10), (i) History ofComputers (4), and (j) Security (2).

Computing teachers’ descriptions of the content of each specific topic are as follows: (a) Familiarization with basic operations of the MS-Windows Operating System, basic computer applications such as Access and some MS-office applications, Internet browsers, search enginesand e-mailers, (b) Elementary architectural description and demonstration of basic components of a computer, e.g. CPU, Memory, etc., (c)Introduction to basic aspects of Programming and algorithmic structures through the use of LOGO and Pascal, (d) Forming simple multimediaexamples, and (e)Familiarizationwithbasic aspects of Web-designthroughthe designand implementationof bothprivateand school web-sites.

The main criteria reported by teachers related to the contribution of the specific knowledge area in the acquisition of: (a) problem-solving skills, e.g. programming, (b) a scientific understanding of Computing, e.g. hardware, (c) primary knowledge and skills, e.g. MS-Windows, (d) necessary skills for everyday life, e.g. Word, (e) a modern view of the various opportunities provided by computers, e.g.Internet, (f) basic skills used in diverse disciplines, e.g. Excel, Access, Multimedia, Web design and (g) student interest and enjoyment, e.g.Internet, Multimedia and Web design.

It is worthy of note that these teachers’ beliefs do not actually reflect HSC courses as currently proposed by professional organizations(see CSTA, 2011) but mainly accept a view adopted in the Computer Literacy courses of the last decade (Werner, 2005).

Based on the above, it seems that the opinions of most HSC teachers about the nature of HSC as a subject (fun and practical) are in-linewith the dominant Computer Literacy views they expressed about its appropriate high school curricula.

3.1.3. Computing teacher beliefs about student learning of computingTeachers’ beliefs were expressed through answering the following questions: Q6: ‘How can students be better learners of Computing in

high school?’, and Q7: ‘Can you address any expectations of your students as learners of Computing?’. The data emerging from theseteachers’ answers are reported in Section 3.1.3.1 and Section 3.1.3.2 respectively.

3.1.3.1. Computing teachers’ beliefs about how students can be better learners in HSC. To answer question Q6, teachers firstly pinpointed thenecessary competences for a student to be successful in computing courses. They then tried to draw a picture of their students’ profiles in theComputing classroom and, finally, estimated factors which they thought could play a crucial role in student learning in HSC.

146

3.1.3.1.1.

M. Kordaki / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 141–152

Necessary competences for a successful student in computing courses. Here, responses ranged from: (a) Algorithmic thinking andhigh cognitive skills are needed as well as extensive practical experience with computers (4), (b) No specific competences are needed (7)and(c) I have no idea about such competences (14).

3.1.3.1.2. Students’ profiles in the computing classroom. Teachers identified that in each class there are students with interest in: (a)Computing as a subject to pursue at university and as a future career (2), (b) the elective Computing courses because these are pass-fail, lab-based, easy and fun (9), and (c) computers, but not in Computing (14). For example:

T20: “Students are interested in those parts of Computing that are fun, such as surfing the Internet, listening to music, playing games,communicating with others, image processing, web-design.’

3.1.3.1.3. Factors that would positively affect student learning of computing. Teachers proposed:

(a) Improvement of the institutional context: Here, the majority of teachers (19)mentioned thatthe institutional barriers they had previouslyidentified must be fixed in order to help students become better learners in Computing. They also proposed: (i) the creation of specificlabs to cater for students with different skills and knowledge in Computing, (ii) the provision of a laptop for each student, (iii) thecommencement of Computing courses as early as primary school, (iv) making HSC lessons more demanding, and (v) changingComputing textbooks to emphasize practical issues and mathematical reasoning.

(b) Improvement of the pedagogical context: A few teachers (5) stressed that students could be helped if provided with: (i) frequent op-portunities to participate in projects, (ii) extrinsic motives, e.g. rewards, and (iii) extra support for at-risk students. However, only twoteachers mentioned the need for participation in appropriate teacher education programs.

Finally, it is notable that some teachers (5) stated they had no idea how to answer the question at hand.

3.1.3.2. Computing teachers’ expectations of their students. A considerable number of teachers (9) expressed various generic hopes for theimprovementof their students’ cognitive skills and their emotional and career satisfaction. Eight teachers were also of the opinion that theywould be satisfied if their students established a friendly attitude towards computers and also become good users of basic MS office ap-plications. It is worth noting that only one teacher stated she would be satisfied if her students also acquired knowledge about algorithmsand became good programmers, while some teachers (4) had no expectations of their students. Finally, some teachers (4) expressed theview that they would be satisfied if their students carefully attended their classes.

Based on the above data, it seems that the absence of knowledge –expressed by most HSC teachers - about necessary competences for asuccessful student in computing courses, in combination with their dominant belief about the prevailing student culture - as being mainly notinterested in Computing per se, but in playing games and surfing the Internet - are in-line with the low expectations, or complete lack ofthem, that most of them expressed for their students.

3.1.4. Computing teacher descriptions of their actual teaching practices, barriers encountered, and proposals for alternative ways of teachingHere, teachers were asked the following questions: Q8: ‘How do you teach Computing in terms of: (a) exploitation of students’ previous

knowledge, (b) handling of students’ mistakes, (c)kind of learning activities, (d) anything else you consider appropriate’, and Q9: ‘Would youlike to teach HSC in any other way? Are there any obstacles to best performance in your job?’ Responses appear in the following sections(Sections 3.1.4.1 and 3.1.4.2).

3.1.4.1. Teachers’ descriptions of their teaching practices. Teachers’ responses to the specific points of question Q8 are as follows.

(a) All teachers stated that they usually take their students’ previous knowledge into account during lessons.(b) Handling mistakes: Two types of handling mistakes were reported: (i) Providing the correct answer, (22 teachers), and (ii) Encouraging

students to reflect and self-correct (5 teachers).(c) Type of learning activities used: In the mandatory course, teachers reported that they directly teach (DT) their students by using past

papers, similar problems and questions, and those found in the textbook. Teachers noted – using diverse expressions – that they are notinterested in experimenting with alternative teaching methods because the aim of these courses is to help students enter a universitycomputing department, and the curricula, the time and the specific exams are strictly regulated. As regards elective courses, all teachersreported that they evaluate their students on the basis of 5-week projects, at the end of the school year, as suggested by the Greekeducational system. However, a considerable number of teachers (9) reported that they use ‘Drill and practice’ (DP) textbook-stylelearning activities in their everyday practices.

3.1.4.2.Teachers’ opinions: alternative ways of HSC teaching. Although a few teachers (4) expressed satisfactionwith the way they teach, the

rest were neutral and did not propose any specific alternative teaching approach.

3.2. Computing teachers’ actual teaching practices as compared with the beliefs expressed during the interviews

Computing teachers’ practices were investigated through the use of structured observation sheets including the following issues: (a)investigation of students’ previous knowledge, (b) handling of students’ mistakes, (c) kind of learning activities used, (d) kind of motivationused, (e) kind of communication that took place, and (f) student involvement (the number of students involved in each lesson). Theinvestigation of the aforementioned issues was deemed appropriate as it takes into account basic aspects of social and constructivist viewsof learning (Jonassen, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978). Some teachers were observed during their teaching of obligatory courses (10: T1, T2, T3, T4, T5,T6, T7, T8, T9 and T10); the rest were observed teaching elective courses. The results of the experimental study are presented in the nextsection.

3.2.1.M. Kordaki / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 141–152

Investigation of students’ previous knowledge

147

Surprisingly, no teacher attempted to investigate students’ previous knowledge and to help them make connections between thisknowledge and the new learning concepts in question. These practices are inconsistent with the descriptions given (see Section 3.1.4.1)by allthese teachers during the interviews. This inconsistency can be explained by these teachers possibly having taken into account what theyalready knew about their students’ misconceptions during the preparation of their lessons.

3.2.2. Handling student mistakesComputing teachers dealt withtheir students’ mistakes by: (i) directly correcting the mistake (11 teachers), and (ii) asking the individual

students to reflect on their opinions and take corrective action (7 teachers). However, the practices of some teachers (9: T1, T2, T3, T5, T13,T15, T20, T21 and T25) are inconsistent with the opinions they expressed in the interviews. This inconsistency can be explained by thepossibility that these teachers have other core beliefs, suggesting that under certain circumstances (constrained by situational factors) thecorrection of student mistakes could be better handled directly by the teachers themselves or in collaboration with other students.

3.2.3. Learning activitiesBased on the learning activities employed, the findings allow for four basic categories (Pi, i ¼ 1,.5, see Table 2) of Computing teacher

practices, namely: ‘direct teaching’ (observed in the mandatory classes), ‘direct teaching with implicit student involvement’, simply‘occupying the students’ time’, ‘project-based learning’ and ‘problem-solving’ (observed in the elective courses). Each category of practice isdiscussed in relation to the data relating to the aforementioned issues c, d, e and f, which are also briefly depicted in Table 2. The abbre-viations used in this Table are explained in the relevant sections. Each category of practice is discussed, along with certain beliefs expressedduring the interviews, namely: motivational orientation, self-efficacy, self-expectations, the nature of Computing, necessary studentcompetences in Computing and teachers’ expectations of their students. Each individual teacher’s beliefs are briefly depicted in Table 3,Table 4 and Table 5. Teacher practices are also discussed in relation to their descriptions given during the interviews. However, it isnoteworthy that during the interviews teachers expressed a number of commonly-held beliefs about the following issues: (a) Computingcurricula (mainly viewed as a Computer Literacy curricula), (b) how students can become better learners in Computing (if institutionalproblems are fixed), and (c) alternative ways of HSC teaching (no proposals). It was therefore decided to discuss these common beliefs – inrelation to the whole of the teaching practices observed during the experiment – in the ‘Discussion’ section of this paper.

3.2.4. P1: Direct teaching (DT), emphasizing preparation of students for national exams (NE)This approachwas used byallComputingteachers (10: T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9, and T10)duringteachingof mandatorycourses. While

teaching, these teachers usually emphasized the presentation of appropriately solved problems aiming to prepare students for success in NEand enter a tertiary-level Computing department. Monologue (M)was mainly used and directInstruction of a Student(IS) on how to write the

Table 2HSC teachers’ descriptions and practices.

Computing teachers’ descriptions of practices and real practices

Teachers Descriptions of learning activities Computing teachers’ real practices

Learning activities MotivesCommunication Student involvement

T1T2T3T4T5T6T7T8T9T10

P1: Direct teaching (DT), emphasizing preparation of students for national exams (NE)DT DT/NE NEDT DT/NE NE, Q, HDT DT/NE H, LG, NE, QDT DT/NE NEDT DT/NE NoneDT DT/NE QDT/DP DT/NE NEDT DT/NE QDT/DP DT/NE LGDT/DP DT/NE Q

M, ISM, IS, DM, IS, DM, ISMMMISM, ISM

FewMostMostFewNoneFewFewMostFewFew

T11T12T13T14T15

T16T17T18

T19T20T21T22T23T24

T25

P2: Direct teaching with implicit student participation: Teaching through reading and commenting (RC) onthe school textbook and PowerPointmaterialsDP RC Tests M FewDP RC None M NonePW RC None M FewPW RC None M FewPW RC Q D FewP3: Simply occupying students’ time: Teaching through very poor Whole Class Discussion (WCD) or leaving students free and unguided to surf (FS)the InternetPW WCD Q WCD HalfDP FS FS PC AllPW FS FS PC AllP4: Organizing project-work based settings (PW)DP PW PW-FT C AllDP PW PW-LG C MostPW PW PW C AllPW PW PW C AllDP PW LG C MostPW PW PW C All

P5:

Encouraging Problem

Solving

and

Critical Thinking (PCT)PW PCT H, Q, FT C All

148

Table 3Beliefs of HSC teachers who promoted direct teaching.

M. Kordaki / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 141–152

HSC teachers’ beliefs who fall in teaching profile P1

Issues Teachers’ beliefsHSC teachers involved in direct teaching

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10

Number ofteachers

Motivation

Self-efficacy

Self-expect/ns

Computing

Student necessary competencesin computing

Expectations from students

Constraining beliefsMixed beliefs

Intrinsic: Love to teachExtrinsic: Advantages of the teaching jobNon self-efficientSelf-efficientBecome a more effective teacherMake progress in my knowledgeNo expectationsA fun subjectA mental toolA practical subjectA rapidly progressive disciplineNo idea/no competencesHigh cognitive skillsImprove their cognitive skillsUnderstand algorithms-be good programmersBe familiar with MS-office applicationsAttend my lessonsEnjoy their timeNo expectations

þþ

þ

þ

þ

þþ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þþþ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þþþ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þþ

þ

þþ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þþ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þþ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

75815322342822

221219

The bold numbers and symbols indicate essential points.

solution to a problem on the blackboard. Most of these teachers asked questions but rarely received answers, students preferring to remainpassive receptors. Despite basic motivation for participationinthe lesson, suchas NE-oriented learning activities, thethreatof LowGrades (LG)and the asking of questions (Q), student participation was limited. However, some teachers (T2, T3, T8) used more student-orientedcommunication, including: dialogue (D), analytical presentation of the learning concepts in focus, humor (H), questions (Q) to the wholeclass, and encouragement to solve the problems posed. This kind of communication motivated more students to engage in their learning.

As shown in Table 2, these teachers’ practices are consistent with the descriptions they expressed during the interviews: DT or DT incombination with ‘Drill and practice’ (DP). These teachers also held the following common belief: the appropriate way to teach themandatory Computing course (DAPE) is through DT and study of past papers and similar textbook exercises. This belief is central and hasvalue for these teachers (because their priority is to help their students enter the university department of their preference) and seems to beperfectly associated with their practices. However, by carefully observing the beliefs these teachers expressed during the interviews

Table 4Beliefs of HSC teachers fall in teaching profiles P2 and P3.

HSC teachers’ beliefs who fall in teaching profiles P2 and P3

Issues Teachers’ beliefsTeachers who.. Number of

Promoted direct teaching with implicitstudent participation

Reading and commenting on text book in rotation

Simply occupied students’time during teaching

Whole class Free surfingdiscussions

teachers

T11T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18

Motivation

Self-efficacy

Self-expect/ns

Computing

Student necessarycompetencesin computing

Expectations fromstudents

Mixed beliefs

Intrinsic: Love to teachExtrinsic: Adv/ges of the teaching jobNon self-efficientSelf-efficientBecome a more effective teacherBetter job statusMake progress in my knowledgeNo expectationsA fun subjectA mental toolA practical subjectA rapidly progressive disciplineNo idea/no competencesHigh cognitive skills

Improve their cognitive skillsBe familiar with MS-office applicationsEnter the Univ. dept they preferNo expectations

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þþ

þ

þ

þþ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þþ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þþ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þþ

þ

þ

þ

þþ

þ

þ

þ

þþ

þ

þ

þþ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þþ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

17533221313171

15218

The bold numbers and symbols indicate essential points.

Table 5M. Kordaki / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 141–152 149

Beliefs of HSC teachers who promoted project work and critical thinking.

HSC teachers’ beliefs who fall in teaching profiles P4 and P5

Issues Teachers’ beliefsHSC teachers who promoted project work & critical thinking

Project work

T19 T20 T21 T22 T23 T24

PCT

T25

Number ofteachers

Motivation

Self-efficacySelf-expect/ns

Computing

Student necessarycompetences in computing

Expectations from students

Empowering beliefsMixed beliefs

Intrinsic: Love to teachExtrinsic: Advantages of the teaching jobNon self-efficientBecome a more effective teacherNo expectationsA mental toolA practical subjectA rapidly progressive disciplineA fun subjectNo idea/no competencesAlgorithmic thinking & high cognitive skillsImprove their cognitive skillsBe familiar with MS-office applicationsAttend my lessonsEnter the Univ. dept they preferNo expectations

þþþþ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þþ

þþ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þþ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þþþ

þ

þ

þ

þ

þþþþ

þþ

þ

þ

þ

þþ

þ

þþ

þ

þ

637611511612122116

The bold numbers and symbols indicate essential points.

(see Table 3), one can see that they expressed diverse beliefs about all the issues addressed during the interviews. Most individual teachersin this group also held contradictory (‘empowering’ and ‘constraining’) beliefs.

3.2.5. P2: ‘Direct teaching with implicit student involvement’The main characteristic of these teachers’ practices is that, in essence, although they did actually perform direct teaching, they tried to

engage their students’ participation through reading – in rotation – the school textbook and PowerPoint materials and listening to theirteachers’ comments. As shown in Table 2, this approach was used by 5 teachers (T11, T12, T13, T14, and T15). Most of these teachers did notprovide their students with opportunities to express their opinions. Actually, monologue (M) was observed in the classes of all but oneteacher (T15). Here again, the practices of these teachers were inconsistent with the descriptions provided during the interviews (DP andProject Work (PW); see Table 2). It is likely that they selected this teaching approach as being appropriate to capture the attention of theirstudents in the elective HSC courses, and to avoid their playing games and surfing the Internet, or they may have had no alternativepedagogical knowledge about how to involve their students in their lessons. As also shown in Table 4, these teachers expressed diversebeliefs about almost all the issues addressed during the interviews, the single exception being that all of them agreed on ‘extrinsic’motivation to become Computing teachers, at the same time believing (all exceptT12) that no specific competences are needed for a studentto be successful in Computing courses, or that they have no idea about such competences. These common beliefs seemed to be reflected inthese particular teachers’ practices and may well have ‘constrained’ them.

3.2.6. P3: Simply occupying students’ timeThe main characteristic of these teachers’ practices is that, in essence, they did not actually teach at all; rather, they simply attempted to

occupy students’ time by promoting the following teaching practices:

(a) Teaching through very poor Whole Class Discussion (WCD): The teacher in this category (teacher T16; see Table 2) did not use any learningmaterial; some information was presented orally, and its aspects weakly negotiated with the whole class. Students did express someinterest in this communication, and some involvement in the discussion was observed, but in terms of learning there was no evidencethat this had been achieved, the whole session being unstructured and without specific learning aims, learning activities and evaluationprocedures. This practice is also not in line with the descriptions of the practices expressed by this teacher during the interviews.

Mostof his teacher’s beliefs are ‘constraining’ beliefs (see Table 4) and contradicted. Despite thefactthathe expressed ‘intrinsic’ motivationin becoming a Computing teacher, it seems thathis undoubted feelings of self-efficacy in teachingComputing, his ego-based self-expectations(‘Make progress in my knowledge’), his ignorance of the various competences needed for astudent to be successfulinComputing, and the lowexpectations that he has of his students (‘be familiar with MS-office applications’) all form the basis of his teaching practices.

(b) Teaching through leaving students free and unguided to surf the Internet: Here, no specific learning activities were assigned to theirstudents by the teachers (T17, T18); they were simply encouraged to engage without guidance in free surfing (FS) via the Internet.Informal Personal Communication (PC) relating to students’ personal interests was also observed. FS seemed to motivate all students tobe engaged in this activity (see Table 2) but no specific learning activities were observed. These teachers’ practices are not in line withthe descriptions they provided during the interviews. However, their motivational orientation (see Table 4) was based on extrinsicmotivation to become Computing teachers. Inaddition, they expressed feelings of inadequacy inteaching Computing and the belief thatno competences are needed for a student to be successful in Computing, or that they have no idea how to answer this question.Furthermore, they hold low expectations of their students (‘be familiar with MS-office applications’) and their vision of Computing wasof it being a ‘fun’ subject. It seems that at least this vision of Computing is directly reflected in these teachers’ practices.

150

3.2.7. P4: Organizing project-based settingsM. Kordaki / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 141–152

Teachers who used this type of activity (6: T19, T20, T21, T22, T23, and T24) emphasized artistic project work (PW), activities from thestudents’ world (e.g. preparation of a presentation for the Rion-Antirion bridge), cooperation, a friendly tone (FT), and encouragement toparticipate. Communication (C) between the members of the groups was also observed (see Table 2) and PW seemed to motivate almost allstudents to participate. However, three (3) of these teachers (T19, T20, T23) were inconsistent in the description of their actual practicesduring the interviews (see Table 2).

As regards possible associations between these teachers’ beliefs and practices, one can see (by reflecting on Table 5)that all (except T23)expressed intrinsic motivation to be Computing teachers, and all (except T20) reported high self-expectations of ‘becoming more effectiveteachers’. However, all also expressed some ‘constraining’ beliefs, such as feelings of inefficiency in teaching HSC, and view Computing as a‘practical’ subject (all except T24). They also have no idea what is needed for a student to be successful in HSC or believe that ‘no com-petences are necessary’ and hold diverse expectations of their students. Some of these beliefs were consistentwith these teachers’ practices,as they promoted practical collaborative work, but did not explicitly address ways of approaching the development of critical thinking skillsin their students. However, one can argue that teachers’ intrinsic motivation and high self-expectations do make possible their engagementin innovating project-based teaching. This is in-line with the findings of other studies (Bandura, 1986; Covington, 2000).

3.2.8. P5: Encouraging Problem Solving and Critical Thinking (PCT)Here, one teacher (T25) involved her students in solving problems collaboratively and answering questions demanding Critical Thinking

(see Table 2). She also asked her students to reflecton their opinions and take corrective actions. She encouraged her students to participatethroughthe use of humor, critical questions and a friendly tone (FT). Communicationbetween the members of the groups while performingcollaborative problem solving was also observed. As a result, all students actively participated in the proposed activities. Her practices are inline with the descriptions she gave during the structured interviews (see Table 2).

As regards the beliefs expressed by this teacher through the interviews, one can say that all of them are ‘empowering’, congruent andconducive to constructivist teaching, as well as being consistent with her practices. Specifically, this teacher expressed her intrinsicmotivation inbecoming a Computing teacher, an openness to learn – she expressed feelings of inefficacy due to ‘lack of adequate knowledgeabout Didactics of Computing’ – and empowering self-expectations as ‘to become a more effective teacher’ (see Table 5). In addition, sheviewed Computing as ‘a mental tool’ and expressed the view that ‘Algorithmic thinking and high cognitive skills’ are necessary studentcompetences in Computing. She also held high expectations of her students, such as ‘improving their cognitive skills’ and ‘entering theuniversity department of their choice’.

4. Discussion and conclusions

A first glance at the results presented in this paper shows that Computing teachers who participated in this study held various beliefsregarding HSC and its teaching and learning, and that these fell into two main categories: ‘empowering’ and ‘constraining’ beliefs. Spe-cifically, teachers expressed various empowering beliefs, namely: (a) intrinsic motivation to be Computing teachers because they ‘love toteach’, and high self-expectations suchas ‘becoming aneffective teacher’, (b) a vision of HSC as ‘a mental tool’, (c)emphasizing Computing asa separate learning subject, distinct from Computer Literacy courses, (d) mentioning that the ‘developmentof algorithmic thinking and highcognitive skills’ are appropriate competences for students as learners in Computing, (e) stating high expectations of their students such as:‘improving their cognitive and real life skills’, ‘understanding algorithms’, ‘becoming good programmers’ and ‘succeeding in entering theuniversity department of their preference’, and (f) describing their practices in terms of: investigation of their students’ previous knowledge,proposing self-reflection for the correction of students’ mistakes and realization of project-based learning.

However, teachers expressed a number of ‘constraining’ beliefs such as: (a) extrinsic motivation to be Computing teachers because of ‘theadvantages of the teaching profession’, (b)feelings of self-inefficacy, due to the rapid progression of Computing as a discipline and their lackof knowledge regarding current trends in this subject and its didactics, the perceived student culture pointing towards Computing as beingabout playing games and surfing the Internet, and the school context that demands Computing teachers be responsible for solvingwhatsoever problems with the school computer infrastructure, (c) low, ego-based self-expectations, or none at all, (d) incomplete or vaguevisions of HSC, such as: ‘practical’, ‘fun’ and ‘a rapidly and continuously progressive discipline’, (e) weak views about HSC curricula throughemphasizing Computing Literacy issues, (f) sketching their students as being uninterested in Computing as a subject of study but rather interms of games and play, and in pass-fail courses, (g) mentioning that: ‘students do not need any competences to become better learners inComputing’ or ‘having no idea about suchcompetences’, (h) claiming that changing the educational context could help students to improvetheir Computing knowledge, while at the same time taking a back seat as teachers, (i)lowor no expectations of HSC students, being contentwith their “Developing a friendly attitude and being good users of the basic operations of MS office applications’ and ‘Enjoying their time asstudents’, and (j) having no proposals for alternative ways of HSC teaching.

On the whole, the main conclusions of this study are that: The majority of Computing teachers hold various ‘empowering’ and ‘con-straining’ beliefs regarding HSC and its teaching and learning, as well as aboutthemselves as Computing teachers. Inconsistent beliefs (a mixof ‘empowering’ and ‘constraining’ beliefs) seemed to co-exist in the majority of Computing teacher minds, who also seemed to be over-whelmed and lacking in control over their teaching; this appears to be due to contextual barriers, the rapid evolution of Computing and,subsequently, their lack of knowledge of its current trends and didactics, as well as the perceived student culture about Computing as beingall about games and surfing the Internet.

There are also synergies between the interaction of Computing teacher beliefs and their teaching practices; in fact, all the aforemen-tioned beliefs have been reflected in teachers’ actual practices. Specifically, consistent ‘empowering’ beliefs reflected in teaching practicesinclude problem solving and collaborative settings that encourage the development of students’ critical thinking skills. However, whenindividual teachers were found to hold inconsistent beliefs, these were associated with teaching practices where at least one ‘constraining’belief was reflected and appeared to play a central role.

For example, beliefs about Computing as a ‘fun’ subject were reflected in the classroom through leaving students free to surf the Internet,while extrinsic motivation to become a Computing teacher was reflected in the teaching practice as ‘Teaching through reading and

M. Kordaki / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 141–152151

commenting on textbook content’, a passive activity for students. The ‘constraining’ belief that ‘direct teaching is appropriate when one hasto teach a specific curriculum, with specific learning aims and within specific time limits’ encouraged teachers to stick to the traditionalteacher-telling approach when teaching the obligatory Computing course necessary for students to gain a place in Computing at a universitydepartment. These beliefs may well have been shaped by the teachers’ experience as school students themselves (Clark, 1988). Most teacherpractices were also closely related to traditional behaviorist approaches, in line with the fact that they did not propose any alternative HSCteaching practice during the interviews. The belief that no competences are needed for a student to be successful in Computing courses or ‘Ihave no idea about such competences’ was reflected in teaching practices suchas ‘teaching throughreading the school textbook’, ‘very poorwhole-class discussions’ and ‘free surfing of the Internet’ that did not support the development of student critical thinking.

It also seems that most teachers’ beliefs intheir inefficacy, due to their lack of up-to-date knowledge in Computing and its Didactics, theirbeliefs in HSC as a ‘practical’ subject and the perceived student culture regarding Computing as game and play, are in line with their un-derstanding of HSC – similar to Computer Literacy courses – as having non-genuine Computing elements.

Finally, it is noteworthy that, in most cases, teachers’ descriptions of their practices in the interviews differed from their actual practiceswhen observed. This finding is in-line with many other studies (e.g. Ertmer, 2005; Furingetti & Pehkonen, 2002; Pajares, 1992) and couldreflect a situation where teachers are not fully aware of their practices, either in their opinion that their practices reflect what they saidduring the interviews or that they came up with an appropriate conceptual design for their lessons at home but were constrained – by othercore beliefs or contextual and societal factors (Etmer, 2005) - from applying it in real practice. This is not to suggest that this study hasuncovered this particular contradiction but rather reaffirmed that HSC teachers – as any other teacher – act in complex ways and that thiscomplexity perhaps can be explained at least inpart by the tensions they have to deal with each day. This study also suggests that there areinherent difficulties in eliciting teacher beliefs accurately. Thus, to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of HSC teaching, one needsto be mindful of the complex and overlapping factors that appear to relate to HSC teachers’ practices.

4.1. Implications of the study for computing teacher educators and researchers

Computing teacher educators and researchers can utilize the results of this study to design appropriate teacher education programs andresearch experiments. In fact, Computing teacher educators can ask teachers to elaborate on the teacher beliefs and practices emerging fromthis study, with a view to: (a) reflecting on them, their relationships, consistencies and contradictions, (b) challenging their adequacy, (c)exploring alternative beliefs and practices based on modern learning theories, and making critical comparisons, (d) self-reflecting andbecoming self-aware of their own beliefs and practices, and (e) planning for future practices. Furthermore, teachers’ constraining beliefscould be used as a starting point to help them acquire appropriate knowledge about HSC and its curricula, how to deal with the students’culture about computers and how to successfully face the challenges arising from the rapid evolution of Computing and from their lack ofknowledge about its didactics.

4.2. Limitations of the study and future research directions

Although the results of this study are in line with the findings of other studies effectuated in other learning subjects, countries andpopulations, any generalization of these results should be limited to populations that have similar characteristics to those of the participantsin this study. In fact, Computing teachers’ beliefs may vary depending on the educational system of each country and on the educationprovided to students by specific Computing departments. Another limitation has to do with the number of subjects participating in thisexperiment (25 teachers), which is too limited for broad generalizations; further empirical and longitudinal studies are needed to replicatethe findings with bigger populations and in different (international) educational contexts.

This study yields interesting research prospects. The next item in the author’s research agenda is to take the results of this study intoaccount in the designing of a Computing teacher education program where teachers’ beliefs and practices will be investigated in relation toone another, aiming at their transformation. To this end, various research experiments could be designed, also taking into account the richteacher education literature onthe transformation of teachers’ beliefs and practices. Consequently, it would be interesting to investigate therole of diverse factors on the transformation of HSC teachers’ beliefs and practices. Examples of such factors are: (a) teacher self-reflection intheir beliefs and practices, (b) teacher participation in small communities of practice, (c) provision of vicarious experiences, etc. However,the results of such research would likely lead to another set of questions about the most effective means for changing Computing teachers’beliefs.

It is hoped that this paper provides useful and new insight into Computing teacher beliefs, their actual practices and associations amongthem. It is also hoped thatit offers new insights and useful guidance to educators and researchers involved in Computing teacher education,in the formation of Computing teacher education programs that are truly based on teachers’ beliefs and practices. It is also hoped that itprovides Computing teacher educators with useful knowledge that could be utilized with a view to helping teachers clarify, be aware of andadjust their beliefs and practices regarding HSC and its teaching and learning, so that they become consistent and approach modern socialand constructivist views of teaching.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to associate Professor Orit Hazzan for her insightful comments on an early draft of this paper. Many thanks also to Computerengineer Mrs Georgia Kaliva for her help in the collection of the data – presented in this paper – that was realized in the context of herundergraduate studies.

References

Babbie, E. (1989). The practice of social research. CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

152M. Kordaki / Computers & Education 68 (2013) 141–152

Ben-Ari, M. (2001). Constructivism in computer science education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20(1), 45–73.Ben-Ari, M. (2004). Situated learning in computer science education. Computer Science Education, 14(2), 85–100.Berger, P. (1999). Affective components of teachers’ computer beliefs: role specificaspects. InK. Krainer, F. Gofree, & P. Berger (Eds.). Proceedings of the 1st CERME, Osnabrueck,

Germany, 1999, Vol. 3, (pp. 63–78).Beynon, J., & Mackay, H. (1992). Technological literacy and the curriculum. Bristol, PA, USA: The Falmer Press.Cajander, A., Daniels, M., & McDermott, R. (2012). On valuing peers: theories of learning and intercultural competence. Computer Science Education, 22(4), 319–342.Carbone, A., Mannila, L., & Fitzgerald, S. (2007). Computer science and IT teachers’ conceptions of successful and unsuccessful teaching: a phenomenographicstudy. Computer

Science Education, 17(4), 275–299.Clark, C. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: contributions of research on teacher thinking. Educational Researcher, 17(2), 5–12.Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morisson, K. (2007). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: an integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171–200.CSTA/ACM. (2011). K-12 Computer Science Standards (Revised 2011): The CSTA Standards Task Force. URL. http://csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/CSTA_K-12_CSS.pdf. Last

Access 25.01.13.Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Furingetti, F., & Pehkonen, E. (2002). Rethinking characterizations of beliefs. InG. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. T4rner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education?

(pp. 39–57). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Hadjerrouit, S. (2009). Didactics of ICT in secondary education: conceptual issues and practical perspectives. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 6,153–178.Hamer, J., Cutts, Q., Jackova, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., McCartney, R., Purchase, H., et al. (2008). Contributing student pedagogy. SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(4), 194–212.Hargreaves, A. (2002). Editor in chief’s introduction: representing educational change. Journal of Educational Change, 1(1), 1–3.Hazzan, O., & Lapidot, T. (2004). Construction of a professional perception in the “Methods of teaching computer science” course. Inroads – The SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(2), 57–61.

ACM Press.Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Journal of Educational Research, 39(3), 5–14.Kinnunen, P., & Simon, B. (2012). Phenomenography and grounded theory as research methods in computing education research field. Computer Science Education, 22(2),

199–218.Kolikant, Y. Ben-David (2008). Computer-science education as a cultural encounter: a socio-cultural framework for articulating learning difficulties. In ITiCSE’08, June 30–July

2, 2008, Madrid, Spain (pp. 291–295).Kolikant, Y. Ben-David (2011). Computer science education as a cultural encounter: a socio-cultural framework for articulating teaching difficulties. Instructional Science, 39(4),

543–559.Lameras, P., Levy, P., & Paraskakis, I. (2008). Conceptions of teaching using virtual learning environments: preliminary findings from a phenomenographic inquiry. In Net-

worked learning conference 5–6 May, 2008, Halkidiki, Greece (pp. 218–225). URL. http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2008/abstracts/PDFs/Lameras_218-225.pdf. Last Access 08.10.12.

Lameras, P., Levy, P., Paraskakis, I., & Webber, S. (2012). Blended university teaching using virtual learning environments: conceptions and approaches. Instructional Science,40(1), 141–157.

Lewins, C., Jackson, M. H., & Waite, W. M. (2010). Student and faculty attitudes and beliefs about computer science. Communications of the ACM, 53(5), 78–85.Lewis, C. M. (2011). Is pair programming more effective than other forms of collaboration for young students? Computer Science Education, 21(2), 105–134.Liberman, N., Kolikant, Y. B.-D., & Beeri, C. (2012). “Regressed experts” as a new state in teachers’ professional development: lessons from computer science teachers’ ad-

justments to substantial changes in the curriculum. Computer Science Education, 22(3), 257–283.Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self regulation in the college classroom. In M. L. Maehr, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.). Advances in motivation and

achievement: Goals and self-regulatory processes, Vol. 7, (pp. 371–402). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Romeike, R. (2010). Student teachers’ beliefs about creativity in computer science. InJointopen and working IFIP conference ICTand learning for the next generation). IFIP Digital

Library. URL. http://cs.anu.edu.au/iojs/index.php/ifip/article/viewFile/13566/494. Last Access 08.10.12.Shuhidan, S., Hamilton, M., & D’Souza, D. (2010). Instructor perspectives of multiple-choice questions in summative assessment for novice programmers. Computer Science

Education, 20(3), 229–259.Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–21.Stephenson, C., Gal-Ezer, J., Haberman, B., & Verno, A. (2005). The new educational imperative: Improving high school computer science education. Final Report of the ACM/CSTA

Curriculum Improvement Task Force, 2005. URL. http://csta.acm.org/Communications/sub/DocsPresentationFiles/White_Paper07_06.pdf. Last Access 08.10.12.Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teacher beliefs and conceptions: a synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grows (Ed.), Handbook of research in mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127–

146). NY: Macmillan.VanZile-Tamsen, C. (2001). The predictive power of expectancy of success and task value for college students’ self-regulated strategy use. Journal of College Student Devel-

opment, 42(3), 233–241.Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Werner, L. (2005). Redefining computer literacy in the age of ubiquitous computing. In Proceedings of ACM SIGITE 2005 conference on information technology education, Newark,

NJ, USA (pp. 95–99).Wing, J. (2006). Viewpoint: computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.Wing, J. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 366, 3717–3725. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/

rsta.2008.0118. Published online 31 July 2008.