You are here:

Preservice Teacher Computer Science Preparation: A Case Study of an Undergraduate Computer Education Licensure Program

, , , Indiana University, United States

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Volume 26, Number 3, ISSN 1059-7069 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA


This study presents the design of a Computer Education Licensure (CEL) program based on a situated learning theory framework. The study captures instructors' design considerations while designing the courses in the CEL program based on this theoretical framework. The study also captures preservice teachers and alumni perceptions regarding the value of courses that were informed by this framework. Additionally, the study presents longitudinal data from four preservice teachers who pursued their license from the CEL program, and later moved into teaching positions. Longitudinal interview data began capturing perceptions and experiences during participants' internship year in the CEL program and continued into their first and second years of inservice teaching. Based on the analysis of data from these sources, we conclude that situated learning characteristics were present in all courses of the CEL program. The use of three specific situated learning characteristics (authentic contexts, authentic activities, and reflection) were emphasized by all instructors as being major considerations in course design. Despite this, teachers only emphasized the value of having authentic contexts and authentic activities. Suggestions for similar computer science licensure programs are recommended based on these findings.


Ozogul, G., Karlin, M. & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2018). Preservice Teacher Computer Science Preparation: A Case Study of an Undergraduate Computer Education Licensure Program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 26(3), 375-409. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved January 17, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Bagley, W.C. (1933). The Ideal Preparation of a Teacher of Secondary Mathematics from the Point of View of an Educationist. The Mathematics Teacher, 26(5), 271-276.
  2. Undergraduate Computer Eduation Licensure ProgramBell, R.L., Maeng, J.L., & Binns, I.C. (2013). Learning in context: Technology integration in a teacher preparation program informed by situated learning theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 348-379.
  3. Bell, S., Frey, T., & Vasserman, E. (2014, March). Spreading the word: introducing pre-service teachers to programming in the K-12 classroom. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 187-192). ACM.
  4. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
  5. Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2009). Strategies for preparing preservice social studies teachers to effectively integrate technology: Models and practices. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 46-59.
  6. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century tion. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-314.
  7. DeBoer, G. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
  8. DeLyser, L., Goode, J., Guzdial, M., Kafai, Y., & Yadav, A. (2018). Priming the computer science teacher pump: Integrating computer science education into schools of education. New York: CSforAll.
  9. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Lexington, MA: Heath.
  10. De Vaus, D. (2014). Surveys in Social Research (6th ed). New York, NY: Routledge.
  11. Ericson, B., Guzdial, M., & Biggers, M. (2007, March). Improving secondary CS education: progress and problems. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 298-301). ACM.
  12. Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1987). When is student teaching teacher education?. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(4), 255-273.
  13. Freese, A.R. (2006). Reframing one’s teaching: Discovering our teacher selves through reflection and inquiry. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(1), 100-119.
  14. Gal-Ezer, J., & Stephenson, C. (2010). Computer science teacher preparation is critical. ACM Inroads, 1(1), 61-66.
  15. Gal-Ezer, J., & Stephenson, C. (2014). A tale of two countries: Successes and challenges in k-12 computer science education in Israel and the united states. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(2), 8.
  16. Goode, J. (2007). If you build teachers, will students come? The role of teachers in broadening computer science learning for urban youth. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(1), 65-88.
  17. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational Thinking in K–12 A Review of the State of the Field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43. tion and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33-49.
  18. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (1995). Critical characteristics of situated learning: implications for the instructional design of multimedia. In Proceedings of ASCILITE 95 conference. 253–262.
  19. Hu, H.H., Heiner, C., Gagne, T., & Lyman, C. (2017, March). Building a Statewide Computer Science Teacher Pipeline. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 291296).
  20. Hur, J.W., Cullen, T., & Brush, T. (2010). Teaching for application: A model for assisting pre-service teachers with technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(1), 161-182.
  21. ISTE Standards. (2007). Retrieved March 06, 2016, from: Standards/iste-standards
  22. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. (1985). Classroom conflict: Controversy versus debate in learning groups. American Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 237-256.
  23. Klopfer, L.E. (1969), The teaching of science and the history of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching., 6: 87–95.
  24. Kopcha, T.J., & Sullivan, H. (2007). Self-presentation bias in surveys of teachers’ educational technology practices. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(6), 627-646.
  25. Lang, K., Galanos, R., Goode, J., Seehorn,D., Trees, F., Phillips, P., & Stephenson, C. (2013). Bugs in the System: Computer Science Teacher Certification in the US. The Computer Science Teachers Association and The Association for Computing Machinery.
  26. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press.
  27. Lee, A. (2015). Determining the Effects of Computer Science Education at the Secondary Level on STEM Major Choices in Postsecondary Institutions in the United States. Computers& Education.
  28. Liakopoulou, M. (2012). The Role of Field Experience in the Preparation of Reflective Teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(6). Http://,H.(1996).Situatedlearning: Multiple perspectives. Situated learning perspectives, 5-17.
  29. Menekse, M. (2015). Computer science teacher professional development in the United States: a review of studies published between 2004 and 2014. Computer Science Education, 25(4), 325-350.
  30. Merriam, S.B., & Tisdell, E.J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley& Sons.
  31. Meyers, S., & Lester, D. (2013). The Effects of Situated Learning Through a Community Partnership in a Teacher Preparation Program. Sage Open, 3(3), 1-9.
  32. Monk, D.H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125-145.
  33. Orland-Barak, L., & Tillema, H. (2006). The ‘dark side of the moon’: A critical look at teacher knowledge construction in collaborative settings. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 12(1), 1-12.
  34. Orland-Barak, L., & Yinon, H. (2007). When theory meets practice: What student teachers learn from guided reflection on their own classroom discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 957-969.
  35. Parker, M.C., & DeLyser, L.A. (2017). Concepts and Practices: Designing and Developing A Modern K-12 CS Framework. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 453458. Patel, P. (October 2, 2017). More Teachers, Fewer 3D Printers: How to Improve K–12 Computer Science Education. IEEE Spectrum. Https://
  36. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks. Sage.
  37. Phillips, P., & Stephenson, C. (2013). Bugs in the System: Computer Science Teacher Certification in the U.S. New York: Computer Science Teachers Association.
  38. Ragonis, N., & Hazzan, O. (2009). A tutoring model for promoting the pedagogical-disciplinary skills of prospective teachers. Mentoring& Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 17(1), 67-82.
  39. Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.
  40. Seehorn, D., Carey, S., Lee, I., Moix, D., O’Grady-Cuniff, D., Boucher Owens, B., Stephenson, C., & Verno, A. (2011). The CSTA K–12 computer science standards. New York, NY: Computer Science Teachers Association.
  41. Seehorn, D., & Clayborn, L. (2017). CSTA K-12 CS Standards for All. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 730-730.
  42. Simard, C., Stephenson, C., & Kosaraju, D. (2010). Addressing Core Equity Issues in K–12 Computer Science Education: Identifying Barrier and Sharing Strategies. The Anita Borg Institute and the Computer Science Teachers Association. Palo Alto, CA.
  43. Southern Regional Education Board (2016). Bridging the Computer Science Education Gap: Five Actions States Can Take. SREB Commission on Computer Science and Information Technology. Retrieved from:
  44. The WhiteHouse (2017). Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Education. Retrieved from:
  45. The WhiteHouse (2016). FACT SHEET: President Obama Announces Computer Science for All Initiative. Retrieved from:
  46. Tucker, A., Deek, F., Jones, J., McCowan, D., Stephenson, C., & Verno, A. (2003). A model curriculum for K–12 computer science. Final Report of the ACM K-12 Task Force Curriculum Committee, CSTA.
  47. United States Department of Education (2016). 2016 Title II Reports: National Teacher Preparation Data. Retrieved from Aspx
  48. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). U.S. Department of labor, Occupational outlook handbook, 2016 edition, computer and information technology. Retrieved from:
  49. Webb, M., Davis, N., Bell, T., Katz, Y.J., Reynolds, N., Chambers, D.P., & Sysło, M.M. (2017). Computer science in K-12 school curricula of the 2lst century: Why, what and when?. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 445-468.
  50. Wedman, J.M., & Martin, M.W. (1986). Exploring the development of reflective thinking through journal writing. Reading Improvement, 23(1), 68.
  51. Willard-Holt, C., & Bottomley, D. (2000). Reflectivity and effectiveness of preservice teachers in a unique field experience. Action in Teacher Education, 22(2), 76-89.
  52. Wilson, C., Sudol, L.A., Stephenson, C., & Stehlik, M. (2010). Running on empty: The failure to teach K-12 computer science in the digital age. New York, NY: The Association for Computing Machinery and the Computer Science Teachers Association.
  53. White, M.D., & Marsh, E.E. (2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library Trends, 55(1), 22-45.
  54. Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational thinking for all: pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends, 60(6), 565-568.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact