Computer science in the school curriculum: issues and

challenges

Mary Webb1, Tim Bell2, Niki Davis2, Yaacov J. Katz3, Nicholas

Reynolds4, Dianne P. Chambers4, Maciej M. Sysło5, Andrew Fluck6,
Margaret Cox1, Charoula Angeli7, Joyce Malyn‐Smith8, Joke
Voogt9, Jason Zagami10, Peter Micheuz11, Yousra Chtouki12 and Nataša Mori13
1King’s College London, UK

[email protected], [email protected]
2University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

[email protected], [email protected]
3Michlala - Jerusalem Academic College and Bar-Ilan University, Israel

[email protected]
4University of Melbourne, Australia

[email protected]
[email protected]
5UMK Toruń, University of Wrocław, Poland

[email protected]
6University of Tasmania, Australia

[email protected]
7University of Cyprus, Cyprus

[email protected]
8Education Development Center, USA

[email protected],
9University of Amsterdam, Netherlands

[email protected]
10Griffith University, Australia,

[email protected]
11Alpen-Adria-University of Klagenfurt, Austria

[email protected]
12Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane, Morocco

[email protected]
13University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

[email protected]

Abstract. This paper is based on analysis and discussion undertaken over sev-
eral years by researchers, policymakers and practitioners from a range of coun-
tries which vary in their approaches to the curriculum for Computer Science.
The discussions, undertaken predominantly within the International Federation
of Information Processing (IFIP) and EDUsummIT communities were motivat-
ed by a need to examine the rationale, issues and challenges following some
concerns across the globe about the position and nature of Computer Science in
the school curriculum. We summarise our findings and focus specifically on
2

challenges for the computer science education community in communicating,

clarifying needs and promoting curriculum change in order to encourage Com-
puter Science in the curriculum both theoretically and practically.

Keywords: Computer Science, curriculum rationale, international perspec-

tives, Informatics

1 Introduction

This paper introduced the symposium: “From Curriculum Visions To Computer Sci-
ence And Computational Thinking In The Curriculum In Practice” [1] at the World
Conference on Computers in Education. The paper is based on an analysis and discus-
sion of the rationale, issues and challenges for Computer Science in the school curric-
ulum (K-12) that was initiated by the Curriculum Task Force of the International Fed-
eration of Information Processing1 (IFIP) and continued at EDUsummIT 20152 as
well as by IFIP meetings and conferences. We summarise and focus specifically on
challenges for the computer science education community in communicating, clarify-
ing needs and promoting curriculum change in order to encourage the realisation of
the roles of Computer Science in the curriculum both theoretically and practically.
The discussions have involved experts from many different countries and the analysis
has focused in particular on a comparison across seven countries: Australia, Cyprus,
Israel, New Zealand, Poland, UK and USA. The situation of the curriculum for Com-
puter Science varies between these countries. In some, e.g. Cyprus, Poland and Israel,
Computer Science has existed as a curriculum subject for many years. For others the
curriculum for Computer Science has recently been substantially revised after a peri-
od of neglect followed by calls for reform [2-4]. Even in those countries where Com-
puter Science in the curriculum has a long history, there are differences in approach
and in the importance of various factors that affect curriculum design and implemen-
tation. Thus our discussion, based on this range of experiences led to a rich range of
issues and considerations and a set of questions, some of which we were able to ad-
dress and others remain as challenges.
When discussing the curriculum for Computer Science, the need to identify an ac-
ceptable working definition for Computer Science as a curriculum subject was a key
consideration. Some popular definitions [5] were:
1. It seeks to answer the following questions: What is information? What is computa-
tion? How does computation expand what we know? How does computation limit
what we can know? [6].

1 IFIP is the leading multinational, apolitical organisation in Information and Communication

Technologies and Sciences; IFIP was originally set up under the auspices of UNESCO and
continues to have a formal consultative status within UNESCO.
2 EDUsummIT is a global community of researchers, policy-makers and educators committed
to supporting the effective integration of Information Technology (IT) in education by pro-
moting active dissemination and use of research.
 3

2. The study of computers and algorithmic processes, including their principles, their
hardware and software designs, their applications, and their impact on society. [7].
3. the scientific and practical approach to computation and its applications and the
systematic study of the feasibility, structure, expression, and mechanization of the
methodical procedures (or algorithms) that underlie the acquisition, representation,
processing, storage, communication of, and access to information (Wikipedia
2017).

In addition, definitions based on areas of knowledge can be found through widely

adopted curricula, such as the ACM/IEEE Computer Science curriculum for under-
graduates [8].
We favoured the Wikipedia definition as reflecting more recent consensus and cur-
rent practice, so we will use that definition throughout this paper. The Wikipedia def-
inition captures the key idea that the function of any physical computing device can
be abstracted to applying algorithms to data, and hence this definition captures the
key elements of the technical side of computing.
In our exploration of the definition of Computer Science as a curriculum subject
we also recognised that the name given for the curriculum subject varies across dif-
ferent countries. For example, Informatics, as a curriculum subject, is slightly broader
than Computer Science, but is the term used widely across Europe to refer to this
discipline. The Joint Informatics Europe & ACM Europe Working Group on Infor-
matics Education use the term Informatics to "cover the entire set of scientific con-
cepts that make information technology possible" [2 P. 9]. We also recognise the
importance of other aspects of computing and computer use such as digital literacy,
which may be linked into a curriculum grounded in the academic discipline of Com-
puter Science. In this paper we have focused only on the underlying scientific disci-
pline in order to examine its importance and we have used the term Computer Science
in order to restrict the definition.
In this paper we first summarise the challenges and solutions identified at
EDUsummIT 2015. Then we explain: the rationales for incorporating Computer Sci-
ence in the curriculum; arguments regarding the position of Computer Science in the
curriculum; the nature of curriculum design and the specific major challenges for
designing and implementing a Computer Science curriculum.

2 Key challenges and issues

Table 1 summarises the issues and solutions identified at EDUsummIT 2015 for ad-
vancing understanding of the roles of Computer Science in the curriculum. While the
order of challenges shown in Table 1 represents a logical progression for considering
curriculum rationale and design, the order of priority and difficulty will vary across
contexts. Furthermore there are interrelationships between the issues identified in
Table 1 as discussed in subsequent sections.
4

Table 1. Challenges and Solutions for Advancing Understanding of the Roles of Computer
Science in the Curriculum [adapted from 9 p. 64]

Challenge Solution/Recommendation to P, E, I, R

Key: Policy maker (P), Educator (E), Industry partners (I), Researcher (R)
1. Lack of clear understanding (outside (a) Adopt a globally agreed statement of Computer
the field of Computer Science) of Com- Science as a discipline in its own right (P, I, R, E).
puter Science as an academic discipline. (b) Articulate the nature, importance and relevance
of Computer Science to society and education (P, I,
R & E).
2. A need for Computer Science as a Disseminate and communicate a clear rationale to
distinct subject in school curricula is different stakeholders about the need to have Com-
controversial and poorly understood. puter Science as a distinct subject in school curricu-
la (P, I, R & E).
3. Computational thinking, a core com- Promote computational thinking through the means
ponent of Computer Science, is consid- of a Computer Science curriculum, which aims at
ered to be important in 21st century making computational thinking commonplace (P, R
skills, but due to its complexity, it is & E).
difficult to implement in schools.
4. The development of Computer Sci- Design Computer Science curricula based on a
ence school curricula is impeded by content analysis, and continue to research students’
insufficient empirical evidence of stu- learning difficulties as well as the effects of differ-
dent learning to support content defini- ent pedagogical approaches. (E & R).
tion and sequencing.
5. Previous ICT curricula deliveries Facilitate better smart partnerships between educa-
poorly prepared students for Computer tion systems and industry/professional associations.
Science in further/higher education or (E & I)
professional employment.
6. Integrating Computer Science across Identify clear learning outcomes, assessments and
other subjects in school curricula has standards for Computer Science. (E, I, P & R)
been ineffective.
7. Teachers’ professional development a) Encourage more Computer Science graduates to
in a newly introduced Computer Sci- become teachers. (P, I & E)
ence subject is a challenge in quality b) Add Computer Science specialisation to pre-
and quantity for many countries. service training for primary teachers. (P & I)
c) Make Computer Science professional learning a
requirement for periodic teacher re-
accreditation/licensing. (P)
d) Schools need resources to free teachers to under-
take the professional learning and preparation for a
new Computer Science subject. (P)
8. Identifying and allocating the addi- (a) Some of Computer Science can be taught with-
tional resources for teaching Computer out computers. But computers can enhance the
 5

Science is a challenge. learning experience. (P, E, I & R)

(b) Teacher training needs to provide skills in using
the available resources in the most efficient way. (E)
(c) Identify, and if not available, commission teach-
ing support materials in mother-tongue language
especially for younger students (P,E,I).

3 Rationales for Computer Science in the curriculum

Arguments for the inclusion of Computer Science in the curriculum are compelling,
as evidenced by many countries adopting it as a mandatory part of their curriculum.
The reasons were summarised at EDUSummIT 2015 as economic, social and cultural
[5, 9]. The economic rationale rests not only on the need for a country to produce
computer scientists to sustain a competitive edge in a world driven by technology but
also on the need for Computer Science-enabled professionals in all industries to sup-
port innovation and development. The social rationale emphasises the value in society
of a diverse range of active creators and producers rather than just passive consumers
of technology. Such capability provides people with power to lead, create and inno-
vate within society. The cultural rationale rests on enabling people to be drivers of
cultural change rather than having change imposed by technological developments.
Alongside these three rationales, we frame the inclusion of Computer Science in
school curricula with respect to two further dimensions for evaluating its contribution
[5]:

1. the beneficial context: the individual learner; society; humanity and the ecology
upon which we all depend; and the wider universe.
2. the timescale for the benefits of the learning to be experienced: immediately; the
lifetime of the individual learner; years within transformation of a social system;
the expected duration of humanity or the lifetime of the universe.

Furthermore we claim that Computer Science is necessary for education because of

its increasing importance for knowledge generation in a range of important areas of
human endeavour. Computer Science is heralding new developments in many areas of
science and technology and data science in particular, which links machine learning
with programming skills. Moreover it is providing new methods for knowledge dis-
covery [see for example 10].
Immediate broad educational benefits for students in learning Computer Science
include potential benefits for thinking and problem solving. There is a long history of
research into the benefits of learning programming for developing general thinking
and problem solving skills [see for example 11]. The issue remains controversial and
the debate has been enlivened recently by the revised focus on computational thinking
[12, 13] which we argued is best developed through Computer Science including
programming since 1) programming makes an excellent vehicle for students to ex-
plore the concepts in a concrete way and 2) implementing the concepts in a program
provides a means for students to check their thinking. As their expertise in computa-
6

tional thinking develops, students would be expected to use their skills and build their
understanding of applications of computational thinking via a range of examples
across different subjects.
In summary the arguments outlined here present a strong case for the importance
of Computer Science in the curriculum for 21st-century learning. Its importance for
individual learners, in particular, leads to our recommendation that learning Computer
Science is an entitlement for all school students and recent curriculum development
takes this approach [14].

4 The position of Computer Science in the curriculum

Following on from the clarification above of Computer Science as an academic disci-

pline and therefore the basis for a curriculum subject for schools, is the debate about
how the curriculum should be organised. In most countries, at least at secondary level,
the curriculum is subject-based. The major arguments for positioning Computer Sci-
ence as a distinct subject in the K-12 curriculum were articulated at EDUSummIT
2015 as: 1) its importance as a disciplinary area as explained above; 2) the evidence
that integrated approaches to curriculum delivery have failed to prepare students for
higher education and 3) the importance of computational thinking, which we argued is
best developed through Computer Science, including programming, and then built
upon in other curriculum areas. Computational thinking involves developing ways of
analysing and solving problems, designing systems and understanding human behav-
iour that draws upon concepts fundamental to Computer Science. Furthermore, while
computational thinking is beneficial in many curriculum areas, and doesn’t require
programming at all, representing a solution to a problem as a program provides a way
of evaluating the solution thus providing students with feedback and ways to proceed.
Therefore we argued that computational thinking should be implemented through
Computer Science learning including programming.
The challenges created by the limited empirical evidence for development of un-
derstanding and skills in Computer Science relate to the structure and organisation of
the curriculum together with pedagogical considerations. Curricula design may be
guided by epistemological considerations and other constraints [15, 16] and later in-
formed by empirical evidence. Therefore, in spite of the limited empirical evidence on
which to base curricular design, many Computer Science curricula exist and many
countries have recently re-designed Computer Science curricula. An analysis of de-
velopments in five countries as well as a review and content analysis of curriculum
reports [14] suggested key issues to consider when designing Computer Science cur-
ricula. First there is a consensus across various curriculum reports [2, 3, 17] about the
key concepts and techniques of the discipline. However there is as yet no consensus
about the importance of more general intellectual practices such as persistence in
working through problems and tolerance for ambiguity as well as the importance of
collaborative learning and social competence developed through group work. Fur-
thermore an emerging consensus regarding the best starting age for Computer Science
being young, about five to seven years old, came from a comparison of curriculum
 7

development in three out of the five countries examined: Poland, UK, Australia. The
importance of a young age for starting to learn Computer Science was also an out-
come from the panel discussion at IFIP TC3 Conference in Vilnius, 2015 [14]. The
availability of programming environments and other software designed to support
younger learners in learning programming was identified as one of the key factors that
have supported this early development of Computer Science learning [18]. Arguments
for starting Computer Science at an early age include: 1) learning programming is
difficult but a consensus is emerging that learning some of the techniques, approaches
and thinking involved in programming at a younger age enables more students to
become successful in programming and 2) developing student self-efficacy in pro-
gramming and Computer Science at an earlier age may reduce the gender gap [14,
18].
There are arguments that Computer Science might be taught from pre-school age
but there is also a need for caution and further research into pedagogical issues [19].
While it is possible for pre-schoolers to engage with pre-programming systems and
concepts from Computer Science, the real foundational material that is needed in
Computer Science in early years are already typical of curricula. Examples include
basic numeracy and literacy skills, learning to classify and sort objects, understanding
sequences of events, working with patterns in numbers and other symbols, becoming
familiar with physical directions such as forward/left/right, and social competency to
be able to follow and give instructions or identify the needs of another user.

5 Structuring the curriculum

One of the constraints for curriculum design identified by Winch [15] is the need to
introduce, early in the curriculum, all three major types of knowledge: concepts,
propositions and know-how because these knowledge types are dependent on each
other. One promising approach to addressing this constraint is a spiral curriculum,
such as that developed in Poland [20] where at each level unified aims are addressed
(see Table 2) but pedagogically the approach varies across three elements such that
the first element is more important at lower levels and 2 and 3 become more im-
portant during progression:

1. problem situations, cooperative games, and puzzles that use concrete meaningful
objects – discovering concepts
2. computational thinking about the objects and concepts – algorithms, solutions
3. programming

The concept of a spiral curriculum was put forward originally by Bruner [21] based
on his cognitive theory in which in earlier stages of cognitive development manipulat-
ing real objects is important and later these may become more abstract representa-
tions. As the curriculum spirals upwards more complex concepts and approaches can
be introduced. In line with Bruner’s [21] proposals, benefits of such a spiral curricu-
lum include: 1) reinforcement of key concepts and techniques each time the subject
matter is revisited; 2) progression from simple concepts to more complex ones; 3)
8

students can be encouraged to recap their previous knowledge and apply their
knowledge to new problems and situation. This changing emphasis in a spiral curricu-
lum can allow for a range of aspects of progression that are critical for Computer
Science including: increasing difficulty of problems; enabling students to tackle more
of the problem-solving process as they progress; consideration of the move from pic-
torial/block-based programming environments to text-based.

Table 2. Unified aims across all levels in Computing Curriculum in Poland [20]

Aim
1.understanding and analysis of problems based on logical and abstract think-
ing, algorithmic thinking, and information representations
2.programming and problem solving by using computers and other digital
devices – designing algorithms and programs, organizing, searching and
sharing information, using computer applications
3.using computers, digital devices, and computer networks – principles of
functioning of computers, digital devices, and computer networks, perform-
ing calculations and executing programs
4.developing social competences – communication and cooperation, in par-
ticular in virtual environments, project based learning, taking various roles
in group projects
5.observing law and security principles and regulations – respecting privacy
of personal information, intellectual property, data security, netiquette, and
social norms, positive and negative impact of technology on culture, social
life and security

6 Pedagogical and Assessment challenges

While our discussion was focused on curriculum issues and it is beyond the scope of
this paper to consider pedagogical and assessment challenges in depth, it is important
that curriculum challenges are seen in the broader context of education. Specifically
the curriculum is frequently depicted as in a triangular push-pull relationship with
pedagogy and assessment in that both of these act as forces constraining or promoting
curriculum change. Assessment was mentioned by many participants in the discus-
sions as a constraint, particularly for more creative aspects of Computer Science that
are typically harder to assess by traditional methods.
Implementing a curriculum focused on Computer Science was agreed to be par-
ticularly challenging in countries where the subject is being reintroduced and where
there are not enough specialist-trained and experienced teachers and hence there is a
lack of pedagogical expertise and a major professional development challenge. It is
beyond the scope of this paper to discuss in depth the professional development need-
ed to tackle these pedagogical challenges. Furthermore we acknowledge that factors
leading to effective teacher professional development are difficult to identify and
define and professional development is largely context dependent [see 22 for a
 9

review]. But in summary, our recommendations were to focus on teachers developing

pedagogical content knowledge [23] which is much less well understood for Comput-
er Science compared with other subject areas. Furthermore, we agreed on the im-
portance of using technology resources to enhance or transform learning where ap-
propriate and the importance of understanding the relationship between knowledge of
technology use and pedagogical content knowledge [24]. An ongoing debate around
the curriculum for Computer Science is the extent to which this curriculum must en-
compass enabling students to make good use of technologies. Learning Computer
Science is not dependent on using the latest technologies and indeed the value of “un-
plugged activities” [25] for learning various difficult concepts in Computer Science is
well recognised. Nevertheless good use of new technologies can transform learning
and we believe that pedagogy for Computer Science should reflect appropriate use of
technologies for achieving this transformation [24] and thus set an example for other
curriculum areas.
The nature of Computer Science as both scientific and practical presents significant
challenges for its implementation. The curriculum in Poland, for example, emphasises
the importance of problem solving at all levels. In our discussions we achieved a con-
sensus regarding the value of engaging students in tackling real-world problems in
order to stimulate their intellectual curiosity and motivation [24]. However, we should
not underestimate the challenges of implementing a curriculum that incorporates
problem solving and computational thinking as key practical elements of Computer
Science. Understanding of the importance of problem solving in the curriculum has
had a long and difficult history [see for example 26]. Schoenfeld’s work encompassed
theory and practice of problem-solving generally but focused specifically on its im-
plementation in Mathematics education, where problem-solving is recognised by
many to be crucial. In spite of a strong focus on the importance of problem-solving,
implementation in Mathematics curricula has been limited (ibid.) owing to: pedagogi-
cal challenges in teaching and managing open-ended problem-solving; assessing
problem-solving skills especially in authentic contexts and identifying suitable prob-
lems for students to tackle.

7 Discussion and conclusions

Key questions that emerged during our debate [5] were:

1. What is the range of skills and understanding that should be developed in Comput-
er Science?
2. Are such skills and understanding necessary for everyone? Should it be and remain
compulsory?
3. At what age should Computer Science education commence?
4. How many computing languages or frameworks should a student be exposed to in
the span of schooling from K-12?
5. How varied should these languages be? Should a variety of paradigms be ex-
plored?
 10

6. How closely should the curriculum match computers available to schools and stu-
dents?
7. What consideration in curriculum design should be given to emerging technologies
such as quantum networks and optical computing?
8. What pedagogical approaches are likely to be appropriate, and how do they vary
with age and other factors?

We have made some progress in answering Questions 1, 2, 3 and 8 but others re-
main to be examined. One of the strengths of the discussions that we have had to date
are that they were not restricted to those engaged in Computer Science education but
involved others who are committed to understanding the importance of digital tech-
nologies for learning but are more focused on digital literacy and the use of technolo-
gies for learning in other subjects. This has enabled us to gain greater insight into how
Computer Science as a subject may be perceived and how we need to continue to
make the case for Computer Science and consider its relationship to the rest of the
curriculum. There remain, for example, many who regard Computer Science as a
specialist subject that is accessible only to older or more capable students. Currently
the curriculum in Israel exemplifies this approach. Furthermore, in the broader educa-
tion community, the driver/mechanic analogy, a long-standing argument against
Computer Science as a curriculum subject for all, is still often used. This argument
suggests that cars are analogous to computers and that the majority of pupils need
only to be able to use them rather than understand their working. In order to counter
such arguments, we need to be aware of the rationales for Computer Science, as out-
lined in this paper, and to continue to research and develop pedagogical approaches
and professional development that enables the promise of Computer Science as a
curriculum subject to be realised.

References

1. Webb, M.E., Micheuz, P., Brinda, T., Overland, E., Malyn-Smith, J., Angeli, C., Kalas, I.,
Fluck, A., Syslo, M., Chtouki, Y.: From Curriculum Visions To Computer Science And
Computational Thinking In The Curriculum In Practice. World Conference on Computers in
Education (WCCE), Dublin, Ireland (2017)
2. Joint Informatics Europe & ACM Europe Working Group on Informatics Education:
Informatics education : Europe cannot afford to miss the boat: Report of the joint Informatics
Europe & ACM Europe Working Group on Informatics Education. (2013)
3. The Royal Society: Shut down or restart? The way forward for computing in UK schools. The
Royal Society (2012)
4. Wilson, C., Sudol, L.A., Stephenson, C., Stehlik, M.: Running on Empty: The Failure to Teach
K-12 Computer Science in the Digital Age. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM),
Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) (2010)
5. Fluck, A., Webb, M.E., Cox, M., Angeli, C., Malyn-Smith, J., Voogt, J., Zagami, J.: Arguing
for Computer Science in the School Curriculum. Education Technology and Society 19, 38-46
(2016)
 11

6. Denning, P.J.: The Profession of IT: Computing is a Natural Science. Communications of the
ACM 50, 13-18 (2007)
7. http://www.ioinformatics.org/conf/c5_CSTA.pdf
8. Sahami, M., Roach, S., Cuadros-Vargas, E., LeBlanc, R.: ACM/IEEE-CS computer science
curriculum 2013: reviewing the ironman report. Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical
symposium on Computer science education, pp. 13-14. ACM, Denver, Colorado, USA (2013)
9. Webb, M.E., Fluck, A., Cox, M., Angeli-Valanides, C., Malyn-Smith, J., Voogt, J., Zagami, J.:
Thematic Working Group 9: Curriculum - Advancing Understanding of the Roles of Computer
Science/Informatics in the Curriculum. In: Lai, K.-W. (ed.) EDUsummIT 2015 Summary
Report: Technology Advance Quality Learning for All, pp. 60-69, Bangkok, Thailand (2015)
10.Adam-Bourdarios, C., Cowan, G., Germain, C., Guyon, I., Kegl, B., Rousseau, D.: The Higgs
boson machine learning challenge. Journal of Machine Learning Research: Workshop on High-
energy Physics and Machine Learning and conference proceedings 42, 19-55 (2015)
11.Salomon, G., Perkins, D.: Transfer of cognitive skills from programming: When and how?
Journal of Educational Computing Research 3, 149-169 (1987)
12.Grover, S., Pea, R.: Computational Thinking in K–12: A Review of the State of the Field.
Educational Researcher 42, 38-43 (2013)
13.Lye, S.Y., Koh, J.H.L.: Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through
programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior 41, 51-61 (2014)
14.Webb, M.E., Davis, N., Bell, T., Katz, Y.J., Nicholas, R., Chambers, D.P., Sysło, M.M.:
Computer Science in K-12 school curricula of the 2lst Century: Why, what and when?
Education and Information Technologies (2015)
15.Winch, C.: Curriculum Design and Epistemic Ascent. Journal of Philosophy of Education 47,
128-146 (2013)
16.Young, M.: Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: a knowledgebased approach. Journal
of Curriculum Studies 45, 101-118 (2013)
17.Seehorn, D., Carey, S., Fuschetto, B., Lee, I., Moix, D., O’Grady-Cunniff, D., Boucher Owens,
B., Stephenson, C., Verno, A.: CSTA K–12 Computer Science Standards. ACM/CSTA (2011 )
18.Duncan, C., Bell, T., Tanimoto, S.: Should your 8-year-old learn coding? In: Proceedings of the
9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WIPSCE 2015), pp. 60-69.
New York, ACM, 2670774 (Year)
19.Manches, A., Plowman, L.: Computing education in children's early years: A call for debate.
British Journal of Educational Technology 48, 191-201 (2017)
20.Sysło, M.M., Kwiatkowska, A.B.: Introducing a new Computer Science curriculum for all
school levels in Poland. In: ISSEP 2015, pp. 141-154. LNCS 9378, Springer Verlag, (Year)
21.Bruner, J.S.: The process of education. Harvard University Press (1960)
22.Cordingley, P., Higgins, S., Greany, T., Buckler, N., Coles-Jordan, D., Crisp, B., Saunders, L.,
Coe, R.: Developing great teaching : lessons from the international reviews into effective
professional development. Project Report, DU (2015)
23.Shulman, L.: Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher
15, 4-14 (1986)
24.Angeli, C., Voogt, J., Malyn-Smith, J., Webb, M.E., Fluck, A., Cox, M., Zagami, J.: A K-6
Computational Thinking Curriculum Framework: Implications for Teacher Knowledge.
Education Technology and Society 19, 47-57 (2016)
 12

25.Bell, T., Newton, H.: Unplugging Computer Science. In: Kadijevich, D.M., Angeli, C., Schulte,
C. (eds.) Improving computer science education, pp. 66-81. Routledge, New York, London
(2013)
26.Schoenfeld, A.H.: Reflections on problem solving theory and practice. The Mathematics
Enthusiast 10, 9-34 (2013)