Broadening Participation in Computing Through Cultivating Teacher Professional Growth: Stories from Teachers of Color

Abstract

With the need to ensure equitable and inclusive computer science (CS) education for K-12 students, much effort has been devoted to promoting secondary CS teachers’ practices and pedagogies. However, there is a lack of focus on elementary teachers’ experiences, especially those of teachers of color. This study stands at the intersections of Black/African American teachers teaching at an elementary school with a majority of historically underrepresented and economically disadvantaged students (Black/African Americans and Hispanic/Latinx). Using a basic qualitative approach with constant comparative analysis, this study revealed important insights regarding the professional growth manifested by six teachers of color over the course of computer science professional development and classroom implementation. Data analysis revealed five main themes reflecting the teachers’ growth: (1) Teachers reported positive outcomes including improved understanding, confidence, and intentions regarding CS integration as a result of attending PD; (2) Teachers demonstrated enhanced abilities to use a variety of tools and resources in CS teaching after PD; (3) Teachers discussed various pedagogies, including culturally and personally responsive pedagogical practices, and racial awareness to promote inclusive instruction in the classroom and used strategies to promote personal relevance more than the collective cultural values or beliefs in CS teaching specifically; (4) Teachers reported having ongoing reflections on how they can implement successful CS-integrated instruction with their enhanced knowledge and beliefs; (5) Positive student outcomes were both reported by the teachers and observed by the researchers as a result of teachers’ experimentation, which gave the teachers more confidence to enact CS teaching. Areas for improvement were also identified. This paper discussed the important implementations of fostering professional growth in teachers of color for broadening minoritized students’ participation in computing.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, there has been an increase in research effort devoted to K-12 computer science (CS) education in the United States. However, broadening participation in computing and achieving “CS for All” would remain an elusive target without investing in teacher expertise in CS education. Positive student outcomes are only possible when teachers have the knowledge, skills, and experiences to enact quality CS instruction in the classroom. Teaching CS at the elementary level in the U.S. is a particularly daunting task for a few reasons (Lee et al., 2011): Firstly, most elementary schools already follow a fully loaded curricula implementation pace and it is difficult to allocate instructional time for a new subject (i.e., CS); secondly, elementary teachers in the U.S. usually have to teach a range of subjects, such as reading, mathematics, and science, and integrating CS into these existing subjects provides a more equitable approach which allows all students to have access to CS learning during regular school time (e.g., Luo et al., 2020a, 2020b, 2022a; Rich et al., 2019; Israel et al., 2022). However, most elementary teachers do not have prior content knowledge or experience to integrate CS. Therefore, there is a dire need to equip elementary teachers with the ability to teach CS with the necessary pedagogical adjustments (Yadav et al., 2016; Ottenbreit-Leftwich & Yadav, 2022).

Prior research has primarily focused on providing professional development (PD) to secondary CS teachers (e.g., Leyzberg & Moretti, 2017; Qian et al., 2018; Gray et al., 2015; Milliken et al., 2019) to teach CS as an independent subject, and limited work has explored how to support elementary teachers to integrate CS into various subjects. Specifically, there is a scarcity of work that sheds light on how to support teachers of color in educational contexts with predominantly underrepresented student populations. Most PD studies reported findings for predominantly White teachers (e.g., Goode et al., 2021; Ketelhut et al., 2020), and few studies focused primarily on teachers of color. This study recognizes the need to bridge the gap in both research and practice and seeks to address the need to cultivate professional growth in CS education among teachers of color in the U.S. Through engaging teachers of color in PD and subsequent classroom implementation, this study aims to answer the following research question: How do teachers of color manifest professional growth over the course of participating in computer science professional development and classroom implementation?

2. Literature Review

2.1. Prior Work on CS PD in K-12

K-12 CS education has gained global attention in the past two decades. To prepare next-generation computer scientists, K-12 teachers need to be equipped with the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge to teach CS. A common type of CS teacher preparation takes the form of a PD workshop (e.g., Qian et al., 2018; Goode et al., 2021; Ketelhut et al., 2020; Dong et al., 2019; Jocius et al., 2020), which offers structured professional learning within a limited time (e.g., a few days to a few weeks). Other formats included the use of a coaching/mentoring model, which establishes one-on-one professional relationships, or a community of practice over an extended period of time to foster peer support and mutual discourse among teachers. Positive teacher outcomes reported included improved CS content knowledge (e.g., Hestness et al., 2018; Kong & Lai, 2023), improved skills in the implementation of CS pedagogies (e.g., Jocius et al., 2020), positive changes in attitudes, self-efficacy, and motivation in CS teaching (e.g., Ketelhut et al., 2020; Borowczak & Burrows, 2019). For example, in Ketelhut et al.’s (2020) study, elementary teachers discussed computational thinking (CT) concepts and completed robotics challenges. Teachers were encouraged to relate to their own classroom contexts and discuss ideas of integrating CT in existing content areas, such as science. Teacher participants were asked to complete written reflections after each learning session to share their opinions on the pros and cons of CT integration in elementary grades. The study reported teachers’ positive affective outcomes, including excitement to implement CS/CT instruction in their own classrooms.

Other CS PD studies reported results relevant to promoting teacher awareness and competency in equitable CS education or discussed teachers’ learning outcomes pertaining to equity. For example, Leonard et al. (2018) examined teachers’ self-efficacy, beliefs, and attitudes related to culturally responsive teaching (CRT). In their study, to enhance teachers’ competencies in meeting the needs of all students, teachers and researchers discussed articles on culture and shared instructional strategies where culture was integrated. In another study, which was situated in a critical framework, Goode et al. (2021) explored high school teachers’ discourse around race and how they developed knowledge around equity, race, and CS during PD. A few other studies touched on teachers’ improved awareness of equity as a result of PD. Such positive results were demonstrated as (1) teachers discussing how gender and racial dynamics in their classrooms could be shifted through intentional strategies (Nakajima & Goode, 2019) and (2) higher levels of preparedness to teach female and ethnic students (Milliken et al., 2019). Previous studies usually examined a sample with a majority of White teachers and their successes and/or challenges when teaching CS to diverse students. It is unclear how these reported results can apply to teachers of color or how teachers of color may bring their unique experiences into K-12 CS education.

2.2. Teachers of Color in K-12 CS Education

While research specifically focusing on teachers of color in CS education remains limited, the broader literature on culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP) highlights the unique strengths that teachers of color bring to educational spaces. Culturally responsive pedagogy, as defined by Gay (2018), emphasizes the importance of leveraging students’ cultural backgrounds, experiences, and identities to create inclusive and empowering learning environments. Teachers of color often bring lived experiences and cultural knowledge that enable them to connect with students from marginalized communities in ways that foster trust, engagement, and academic success (Burciaga & Kohli, 2018; Howard, 2021). For instance, research by Villegas and Irvine (2010) underscores that teachers of color are more likely to recognize and challenge systemic inequities in education, advocate for their students, and create classrooms that affirm students’ cultural identities. These teachers often serve as role models and mentors for students from historically marginalized backgrounds, fostering higher academic engagement and a stronger sense of belonging (Villegas & Irvine, 2010).

For example, research shows that teachers of color tend to spend more time differentiating instruction to meet individual students’ needs, building strong relationships with students and their families, and maintaining well-organized classrooms (Duquette, 2022; Goodwin, 2004). They also hold growth mindset beliefs about their students, viewing intelligence as malleable rather than fixed, which can positively impact student outcomes (Blazar, 2021). Additionally, teachers of color create classroom environments where students of color feel more comfortable expressing their authentic selves, leading to increased engagement and improved learning outcomes (Haddix, 2017; Kohli, 2019). These practices help address systemic inequities in education and empower students through advocacy, culturally affirming instruction, and high expectations for success.

These strengths are particularly relevant in the context of CS education. While there is an assumption that teachers of color are inherently sensitive to culture and diversity, this may not always be reflected in their teaching, especially if these teachers have not received proper training (Cherry-McDaniel, 2019). Therefore, teachers of color can benefit from learning opportunities that focus on instructional support to promote culturally responsive practices (Gist, 2017). By drawing on their cultural knowledge and pedagogical expertise, teachers of color can create learning environments that are not only inclusive but also transformative, empowering students to see themselves as capable and valued participants in the field (Borrero et al., 2016; Navarro et al., 2019).

Despite these strengths, teachers of color face challenges that limit their ability to address diversity and inclusion, particularly in CS education. A major issue is the lack of professional development that integrates culturally responsive practices within CS instruction. Many training programs focus solely on technical skills, leaving teachers without guidance on making CS education culturally relevant (Cherry-McDaniel, 2019; Gist, 2017). Without structured support, teachers may struggle to enact purposeful, inclusive CS teaching. In addition, teachers of color often lack institutional support and face an inequitable distribution of diversity-related responsibilities (Borrero et al., 2016; Kohli, 2019). The present study recognizes the necessity and urgency of addressing intersectionality by centering the research focus on Black/African American elementary school teachers who are teaching CS to a majority of minoritized students (Black/African Americans and Hispanic/Latinx).

3. Theoretical Framework

The current study follows Clarke and Hollingsworth’s (2002) model of teacher professional growth to cultivate elementary teachers’ knowledge, expertise, and practices in CS education (Figure 1). The Professional Growth Model (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002) presents the interconnectedness between several domains within a Change Environment, including the Personal Domain, the External Domain, the Domain of Practice, and the Domain of Consequence. Essentially, the External Domain refers to any external sources of information or stimuli that the teacher interacts with within the Change Environment, which could be a dedicated professional development program, a learning opportunity targeted at improving teaching practices, or informal conversations with colleagues or peers. The External Domain can be situated within a physical, dedicated space where structured PD takes place, or it can simply refer to the interactions a teacher has with external sources of information which can solicit change in the teacher’s knowledge and skills. The Personal Domain involves a teacher’s knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes (i.e., what the teacher knows and believes in). The Domain of Practice deals with the teacher’s professional experimentation (i.e., what the teacher does), such as the implementation of a new instructional activity. The Domain of Consequence includes salient outcomes, such as changes in the teacher’s existing value and belief system (e.g., attitudes, motivation, and engagement), and student learning outcomes. All four domains are interconnected with two types of mediating processes: enactment and reflection. For example, the enactment from the Personal Domain to the Domain of Practice is when a teacher acts upon their existing knowledge, belief, and/or attitude and carries out a professional experiment (e.g., a new teaching approach, an instructional activity, etc.). The reflection from the Domain of Practice to the Personal Domain is when a teacher reflects on their experimentation and how their knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes are changed as a result of that experimentation. Researchers have previously explored teacher change in computational thinking integration in elementary science following the Professional Growth Model with a focus on the factors impacting changes in the Change Environment (Ketelhut et al., 2020). Similarly, the Professional Growth Model is a suitable framework for this study because it allows us to examine teachers’ practices and growth in teaching CS in the classroom after attending CS-focused PD, which is where changes are expected (i.e., the “Change Environment”). In addition, the four domains in the model provide guidance on where growth may be observed throughout this study.

4. Method

4.1. Professional Development Implementation and Revision

This study is part of a multi-year research–practice partnership (RPP) between the Instructional Technology program in the College of Education at a southeastern public university and a local school district with a majority of historically underrepresented students. The RPP was established in 2020 with the goal of bringing district-wide computer science education to the school district. The RPP resulted in a professional development (PD) program collaboratively designed by researchers and teachers from the school district. The PD program was initially piloted in the 2021–2022 school year (Luo et al., 2023) and was revised for the implementation cycle in the 2023–2024 school year. The PD program included two-day face-to-face professional learning sessions and researcher-supported classroom implementation during the following school year.

Our PD is aligned with the six important aspects of high-quality PD identified by previous research to address teacher growth: knowledge and skills, opportunities for application, collaborations, sustained support, reflection on practice, and alignment to standards (Friend et al., 2022; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). In the summer of 2023, the learning sessions started with the participating teachers discussing and establishing a shared vocabulary and reviewing the computational thinking (CT) and computer science (CS) state standards. Then, given there was a need to address teachers’ deficit in CS content knowledge in the pilot (Luo et al., 2023), direct instruction was provided to teachers in this implementation cycle. The direct instruction served to guide teachers through the learning of particular CS concepts, such as sequence, repetition, conditionals, variables, decomposition, and debugging with hands-on coding activities. Next, teachers assumed the student role and explored a series of coding stations and guided pathways that incorporated different CS concepts, such as Bee-Bot, Scratch Jr., Code.org (accessed on 10 July 2023), Ozobot, and unplugged activities. On the second day, teachers worked on lesson planning by plotting out a typical week and identifying the CS standards (e.g., the Alabama Digital Literacy and Computer Science; DLCS) for interdisciplinary learning opportunities. Finally, teachers discussed what culturally responsive pedagogy would look like in their classrooms. For example, teachers discussed what it meant to provide “windows” and “mirrors” in their teaching so their students could see others’ CS learning experiences (through “windows”) and see themselves in different CS-related careers and academic pathways (through looking into a “mirror”). After PD, teachers were asked to implement four CS-integrated lessons when researchers were available to provide sustaining support during the following school year.

4.2. Participants

Ten teachers from a local elementary school in the school district were recruited. This was the teachers’ first time participating in formal CS PD. According to the latest enrollment data retrieved from the U.S. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the school has 98% minority student enrollment, with 86.7% Black or African American and 10.4% Hispanic/Latinx. The entire school receives free and reduced lunch due to the lower economic status. Most students at the school did not have any prior experience with hands-on coding or any formal or informal experience in CS learning. This study reported data on six of the ten teachers who completed the professional development sessions and implemented at least four integrated CS lessons during the school year. All six teachers are Black/African American females and teach kindergarten, first, second, third, and fifth-grade levels (

Table 1. Participant demographics.

Teacher Pseudonym	Grade Level	Years of Teaching Experiences	Number of Students in Class	Number of Black/African American Students (Observed)	Number of Hispanic/Latinx Students (Observed)
Williams	1st	22	17	13	4
Johnson	5th	23	24	22	2
Brown	5th	33	24	21	3
Harris	3rd	17	15	15	0
Smith	K	5	19	16	3
Jackson	2nd	-	14	13	1

).

4.3. Data Collection and Analysis

This study was categorized as a “basic interpretative study” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015), or “a basic qualitative study”. It is a foundational qualitative research design with a general purpose to understand people’s lives and/or experiences through collecting rich qualitative data such as interviews and observations. In this case, the purpose was to understand how teachers of color manifested professional growth over the course of PD and classroom implementation. Data including interviews, artifacts, reflections (documented as written reflections during PD and in the recordings during the interviews), and classroom observations were collected throughout the teachers’ participation. Specifically, the teachers were first interviewed after the two-day PD sessions and again after they implemented four CS-integrated lessons (The only exception was Mrs. Jackson, who missed the second interview). Each interview lasted 20–40 min depending on how individual teachers answered the interview questions. The interviews were transcribed and the lessons were observed by the authors. Data analysis followed the adapted constant comparative analysis (CCA). CCA was originally used to generate theories in the grounded theory approach (Glaser, 1965), but has been adapted for various contexts in basic interpretative studies to systematically analyze data sets and derive major themes (e.g., Fram, 2013; Tokarczyk, 2012; Horn, 2011; Luo et al., 2022a). Leveraging the teacher Professional Growth Model with the four domains, in this study, the constant comparative analysis involved three steps:

Step 1: Constantly compare each segment of interview data to the previous segments to form a category within a single interview. In this step, each interview of the same teacher was analyzed and data were clearly labeled as coded segments before being assigned a category. Each category was discussed and then indicated by the researchers as to which of the four domains in the teacher Professional Growth Model the category reflects. For example, the category pertaining to the teacher’s “pedagogical knowledge” would fall under the Personal Domain. The teacher’s artifacts and reflections are also analyzed and compared to the interview data before being categorized.

Step 2: Constantly compare categories between interviews from the same teacher to form a pattern. In this step, for each teacher, we compared and integrated categories from analyzing the interviews, reflections, and artifacts to form patterns that would describe the teacher’s professional growth in each of the domains (i.e., external domain, personal domain, domain of practice, and domain of consequence). We then created a graph for the teacher to highlight the key properties in each of the four domains. As an example, Figure 2 represents Mrs. Johnson’s professional growth. In this graph, Mrs. Johnson’s patterns of growth were added in the four domains. For instance, patterns pertaining to Mrs. Johnson’s pedagogical knowledge (e.g., ideas to teach CS, culturally relevant pedagogy), beliefs in CS teaching, and attitude and intentions toward PD and CS teaching fit under the Personal Domain. Patterns pertaining to Mrs. Johnson’s pedagogical practices in the classroom and strategies used for CS integration fit under the Domain of Practice. Under the Domain of Consequence are patterns that described the changes in Mrs. Johnson’s existing value system, the inferences she drew from her practices in the classroom, and students’ learning outcomes (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002). After organizing Mrs. Johnson’s professional growth patterns in all the domains, the researchers discussed how she enacted and reflected on her PD and CS-integrated teaching experiences and added arrows to reflect any mediating processes (enactment and reflection) that were present. Next, we moved on to the next teacher, following the same process for data analysis.

Step 3: Constantly compare across teachers and integrate patterns to form a theme. This step involved constantly comparing patterns and examining how the patterns that emerged from the six teachers were similar or different. Then, common patterns were integrated to form a theme.

5. Results

Data analysis revealed five main themes that reflected teachers’ growth across the four domains of the Professional Growth Model (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002): (1) Teachers reported positive outcomes including improved understanding, confidence, and intentions (Personal Domain) regarding CS integration as a result of attending PD (External Domain); (2) Teachers demonstrated enhanced abilities to use a variety of tools and resources (Domain of Practice) in CS teaching after PD (External Domain); (3) Teachers discussed various pedagogies, including culturally and personally responsive pedagogical practices, and racial awareness to promote inclusive instruction in the classroom (Personal Domain) and used strategies to promote personal relevance (Domain of Practice); (4) Teachers reported having ongoing reflections on how they can implement successful CS-integrated instruction (Domain of Consequence) with their enhanced knowledge and beliefs (Personal Domain); (5) Positive student outcomes (Domain of Consequence) were both reported by the teachers and observed by the researchers as a result of teachers’ experimentation, which gave the teachers more confidence to enact CS teaching (Domain of Practice).

Theme 1: Teachers reported positive outcomes including improved understanding, confidence, and intentions (Personal Domain) regarding CS integration as a result of attending PD (External Domain).

This theme discussed teachers’ growth in the Personal Domain, specifically, the reflections on their own knowledge, belief, and attitude after attending PD, which is considered the External Domain. Such reflections involved the teachers’ experiences in terms of teaching CS (both prior experience and PD experience), their understanding of CS, and intentions to implement CS-integrated instruction.

During the interview sessions, we inquired about the teachers’ prior experiences, aspirations, comprehension of computer science, and attitude toward integrating CS into their teaching practices. Most teachers want to create positive and meaningful learning experiences for their students through various means. For example, Ms. Williams, the first-grade teacher, said “I try to be the innovative teacher who is fun and creative, who wants my students to be involved and enjoy learning through different methods or different ways”. Ms. Harris, the third-grade teacher, tries to be a teacher who brings in different learning opportunities for her students. Other teachers had students’ futures in mind. Mrs. Johnson, one of the fifth-grade teachers, shared that she liked to be explicit in telling students the purpose of her teaching and helping students meet their goals. Mrs. Brown, another fifth-grade teacher, sees herself as “a teacher willing to learn in order to better equip students for the future”.

Most teachers reported having limited experience with CS prior to PD. Some teachers had previous experience using robots, such as Ozobot and Bee-Bot, in their lessons. For instance, Ms. Smith stated, “I attended the Bee-Bot workshop last year, and I brought the Bee-Bot into the classroom”. However, teachers were unaware that these robots could be utilized as tools for integrating CS concepts into their teaching and therefore did not intentionally use them for CS education in their classrooms. After PD, the teachers reported gaining a deeper understanding of CS and expressed increased confidence in their ability to implement CS in their classrooms. Mrs. Johnson told us “I want to try some of the skills and improve on some of the skills that I’m already using and incorporate them now that I have a better understanding of computer science and how to implement it”. Teachers found their PD experiences enjoyable and were motivated by the sessions—expressing eagerness to apply what they had learned. For instance, Ms. Williams stated, “I really enjoyed it [PD],” “I’ve really learned a lot” and “can’t wait [to implement CS integration]”. To Mrs. Jackson, the PD sessions were a “big eye-opener” for her. She told us, “You always think of it [CS] …separately so that [PD] kind of helps me see like, oh, it’s definitely a way where I can kind of like kill 2 birds at once. And I can actually do math with this [CS]. I can do reading. So that was a learning experience for me”. In addition, the PD sessions called her to look deeper into the activities that she engaged in on a day-to-day basis and how to incorporate CS. For example, she used to just have students spend time on the computer, but she has now started to think about how to make that a more meaningful experience for her students.

Theme 2: Teachers demonstrated enhanced abilities to use a variety of tools and resources (Domain of Practice) in CS teaching after PD (External Domain).

This theme reflected changes in the teachers’ Domain of Practice, which included enacting their knowledge and carrying out pedagogical experimentation; for example, using specific resources and tools and designing integrated activities to teach CS, after attending PD (External Domain).

Each teacher implemented four CS-integrated lessons in their classroom after the PD sessions. They used various technological tools (Ozobot, Bee-Bot, Scratch Jr., etc.) and techniques to integrate CS in multiple content areas. The content areas included mathematics (focusing on multiplication, area, perimeter, and volume), and English language arts (including reading, spelling, etc.). For example, Ms. Harris, a third-grade teacher, integrated debugging and testing into mathematics in her class. During this particular session, students engaged in a hands-on activity using Ozobot. Students first selected multiplication problems from a card stack. After solving each problem, they wrote down the answer and drew from a separate stack containing Ozobot action cards. Each action card has a specific action for Ozobot to perform and the corresponding color sequence in order for Ozobot to execute the action. For example, the “backward” motion is represented by the color sequence “red, green, black, blue,” and the “spin” motion is represented by “green, red, green, red”. Students then filled the Ozobot track using color markers with the color sequence indicated in the action card. After solving six problems, the Ozobot track would be completed for Ozobot to run on. Students practiced testing and debugging by reviewing their math calculations and running the Ozobot to see if the outcome actions were correct by checking the color combinations (Figure 3).

To most teachers, their integration strategy was to blend CS standards with what students were learning at the time. Therefore, the teachers were intentional and strategic about selecting the CS education standards to integrate. Some teachers used their instructional pacing guides as an anchor point for CS integration. For example, for each of her integrated lessons, Ms. Williams shared her lesson design documents with the research team. In one of the lessons where she used Bee-Bot to teach CVC words (i.e., words made up of a consonant, a vowel, and a consonant), she listed two DLCS standards, including “Order events into a logical sequence or algorithm” and “Construct elements of a simple computer program in collaboration with others”. She would say a CVC word and then have students come up with the sequence of instructions that Bee-Bot needed to follow (Figure 4) to go to that word. In another lesson titled “Mission Possible,” she integrated several DLCS standards on creating and following algorithms and decomposition into mathematics standards on addition and subtraction. In this lesson, students decomposed addition and subtraction problems and followed a precise sequence of instructions to solve the problems (Figure 5).

Theme 3: Teachers discussed various pedagogies, including culturally and personally responsive pedagogical practices, and racial awareness, to promote inclusive instruction in the classroom (Personal Domain) and used strategies to promote personal relevance (Domain of Practice).

The teachers discussed general pedagogical practices they had used to account for students’ diverse backgrounds, including but not limited to various cultures/races (e.g., Hispanic and Latinx) and languages, individual interests and challenges, gender differences, and religious affiliations. An exemplary illustration of this practice was provided by Ms. Williams, who would tailor her instructional materials and methodologies to resonate with the multicultural fabric of her classroom using various elements of Hispanic culture and language in her lessons through the use of books, pictures, and multilingual resources. She told us, “I include books. Like this month we are doing Hispanic Month, and we had parents and guest readers come in and read and do an activity”. Mrs. Brown shared how she engaged Hispanic and Latinx students by telling us,

“We have Caucasians and then we have Hispanics [in my classroom]. And so, … just like I want my African American students to be able to relate, [I want] all my other students to be able to relate as well…you’ve got to make it [curriculum] relate. You know, you want them to read and see things that they can relate to. You want them to see characters that look like them, that they can relate to”.

Specifically, she engaged her Hispanic and Latinx students in reading,

“[O]ur very first story was about a Hispanic family that was in America and how they, [when] it was Thanksgiving time…one of the children wanted to… follow American tradition for Thanksgiving and [discuss] how it was different from their family”.

Another example was when Ms. Williams incorporated different languages and celebrated cultural diversity through the activity in her classroom. She described a specific cultural activity in her classroom which was “This month we are doing Hispanic Month, and we had parents and guest readers to come in and read and to do an activity... Yesterday we did [an activity on] Argentina. We were talking about Argentina...”. Ms. Willimus also mentioned, “We also did a game. We did the duck duck, goose game, but it was called, it was called Ganso Ganso Pato”. Ms. Harris spoke specifically about respecting religious beliefs and practices such as dietary preferences and restrictions and religious holidays. She also emphasized the importance for a teacher to learn about cultural differences and make sure their verbiage and actions are not insensitive:

“I had some students who were from a Muslim background and … I made certain that any snacks that came into the classroom that they did not contain any pork or pork fry products…just making sure that you are aware of the different cultural aspects because everyone celebrates things differently and some students don’t celebrate the same holidays that we celebrate…you kind of dig into the students backgrounds to make sure that you are not, you know, being offensive in any way”.

In terms of the teachers’ enactment of culturally responsive teaching, observations of the six teachers’ CS lessons showed a few examples of incorporating elements that would represent collective values or beliefs of a culture. For example, during a class near the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays, Ms. Harris implemented an activity on the binary code alphabet that used the red and green paper strips to represent the binary code, 0 and 1, respectively (Figure 6). Each combination of the binary code corresponded to a letter in the English alphabet. Students then discussed what they were thankful for and created binary code word chains using the color strips that represented the words. Students’ word chains were hung on the walls in the classroom and students guessed what their peers were grateful for by decoding what worlds each word chain represented (Figure 7). Ms. Harris acknowledged the fact that not all students celebrated Thanksgiving, therefore, she focused on having students discuss what they were thankful for rather than tying specifically to the holiday celebration. The other example where culture was evident was Ms. Williams’ activity on decomposition that used fictional figures to represent multiple cultures and ethnicities when solving math problems (e.g., Figure 5).

In contrast, most of the teachers enacted pedagogical strategies pertaining to personal relevance. For example, by connecting CS with students’ prior knowledge, providing scaffolds such as visual aids and models, using CS vocabulary to refer to everyday practices such as decomposition and debugging, giving students the freedom to express, share, and lead, and expanding student access to CS learning by collaborating with other teachers who did not attend PD. For example, Mrs. Johnson explained how she connected to students’ prior knowledge: “find[ing] something that was geared toward their age and geared toward something that we were already studying. [I] try to tie in with their lessons, to integrate it with their lessons”. By doing so, Mrs. Johnson hoped to ensure that all students could access and engage with her lessons, regardless of their prior exposure to CS.

Moreover, Ms. Williams explained how she used CS vocabulary in her daily teaching. For example, she would say “debug” whenever she encourages students to fix a problem, or, when she breaks down a problem, she would refer to “decomposition”. Ms. Williams also emphasized the significance of aligning instructional content with students’ interests and developmental stages. By incorporating activities that resonated with students’ personal passions and daily challenges, such as chores or familiar responsibilities, she sought to engender a sense of relevance and engagement in CS learning. As she told us, “For instance, when we did that activity [“The Struggle Bus”], because we all struggle, we all have some ups and downs, and so that book was sort of personal for me and the student as well, because we have challenges in this classroom”. This student-centered approach aimed to address individual challenges and foster a deeper connection between the lesson activities and students’ lived realities.

Theme 4: Teachers reported having ongoing reflections on how they can implement successful CS-integrated instruction (Domain of Consequence) with their enhanced knowledge and beliefs (Personal Domain).

This theme involves teachers’ new inferences, interpretations, or ongoing reflections the teachers had from their implementation of CS integration. Data revealed how teachers had ongoing reflections on how to implement successful CS-integrated instruction, including the support they needed and the best practices to promote and sustain student learning. It was worth noting that while the teachers had a similar starting point in terms of their limited experience in teaching CS, they demonstrated different comfort levels in terms of preparing and implementing a CS-integrated lesson, thus, their needs for support in instructional implementation varied. For example, Ms. Brown, who still appeared to have a lack of confidence in teaching CS after PD, said she needed guidance on weaving content together and she actively sought input and feedback from the researchers in terms of the tools and content to use in her lessons. Mrs. Jackson thought that having more exposure to opportunities like that which PD provided would help teachers see multiple opportunities to integrate CS instead of thinking of CS as a “foreign thing”. Another teacher, Ms. Harris, reflected on how her approach to CS integration is a complex process that involves multiple strategic decisions rather than merely knowing what concepts to teach and how to teach them. To Ms. Harris, this process also involves knowing where to retrieve resources, understanding the needs of the students, and making good use of the time and resources while satisfying learning expectations. For example, Ms. Harris mentioned how the innovation room at her school was “a treasure” that she never had an opportunity to utilize. In addition to carefully planning to “make sure that all content area is covered so that the students can have that full effect of the computer [science]”, knowing how to take advantage of the expertise of the library media specialist and the space in the innovation room where she could have CS learning stations set up could be extremely beneficial for her students to dive deeper in learning within the limited instructional time. Collaborating with peer teachers was also identified by several teachers to be helpful in achieving successful CS integration. For example, the two fifth-grade teachers, Mrs. Johnson and Mrs. Brown, brainstormed lesson ideas together. They planned to continue working together to cover a few CS standards each month so that all CS standards could be covered by the end of the semester. Teachers also highlighted the importance of receiving feedback on their integrated lessons so that they were sure it would be a successful experience for the students.

Theme 5: Positive student outcomes (Domain of Consequence) were both reported by the teachers and observed by the researchers as a result of teachers’ experimentation, which gave the teachers more confidence to enact CS teaching (Domain of Practice).

This section discussed the themes that reflected the salient outcomes as a result of the teachers’ professional experimentation, such as any changes in student learning outcomes as perceived by the teachers.

In this study, student outcomes included those reported by the teachers and documented by researchers during classroom observations. Positive outcomes such as student engagement and enjoyment of the CS-integrated lessons, student agency and creative expression in the activities, improved confidence, motivation, and interest were the most salient. For example, Mrs. Johnson believed that integrating CS into math created “a fun way for them [the students] to show their work and show what they know about multiplication and division” and the Scratch Jr. task allowed her students to have “ownership of what they were doing” by explaining “what they were doing [and] their thinking behind it”. Figure 8 is an example of how a student in Mrs. Johnson’s class created an animation in Scratch Jr. to illustrate a learning scenario in the classroom. The scenario had four characters representing the teacher, Mrs. Johnson, the student himself, and two of his classmates.

Ms. Smith’s lessons allowed students to build background knowledge first, and then make the connection to the CS that was integrated. Ms. Smith emphasized the benefits of learning through doing, saying “CS…being more hands-on and I would say more memorable… they [students] catch on to the content quicker”. Ms. Smith also pointed out how the CS-integrated activities “transformed” previously shy students: “I did see them kind of wake up more and a bit more motivated and confident with the computer science lessons. I guess they felt more… comfortable after we did the CS and then I did it again on the story [lesson]... they were able to get it and they felt more confident about sharing it [their opinions]”.

Despite appearing to be less confident in teaching conditionals, Mrs. Brown was not shy in challenging herself and her students. She consulted with the researchers on how she could integrate conditionals into math and used a researcher-supplied Scratch program to illustrate conditional logic with conditions and resulting outcomes. Her lesson provided her students an opportunity to creatively explore and remix the computer program while enhancing their math knowledge. Figure 9 and Figure 10 are two examples of students in Ms. Brown’s class remixing the program with conditional logic.

Teachers also saw the integrated instruction as an opportunity to connect students with the real world. Ms. Williams, for example, explained that “Technology is all around but computer science has sort of helped them to relate and connect what they learned here, then take out in the real world to be able to apply”. Ms. Brown hoped to spark “some thoughts and ideas that her students had not even thought about” and wanted her students to “see how computer science is going to help them [the students] beyond this classroom” in terms of careers that involve computer science-related areas. Ms. Harris saw the benefits of teaching decomposition and debugging in that her students were “... excited. They were engaged. They understood what to do and when they got to a point where they got confused or they thought they made a mistake, they didn’t get frustrated. I think that it just kind of gives them that extra bit of confidence”. Students in Ms. Smith’s class were able to be in charge of their own learning now that they were in the center of learning,

“They’re seeing it [learning problem] like real life and they’re being the ones to change it. So, they feel like they even have a bigger role now versus just being a student…They get a chance to swap roles and like, hey, OK, I get a chance to be in charge… So, CS is a great motivator and influencer for the students and myself”.

6. Discussion

6.1. Interpreting the Teachers’ Growth in the Four Domains of the Professional Growth Model

In this section, we explained how the five themes of teachers’ growth corresponded to the five groups of arrows connecting the four domains in the Professional Growth Model (Figure 11).

The first theme is about the teachers’ report of positive outcomes including improved understanding, confidence, and intentions regarding CS integration as a result of attending PD. The teachers’ participation in PD corresponds to the enactment arrow (enacting learning, Arrow 1) in Figure 11 and their report on positive outcomes is a result of reflection, which corresponds to the reflection arrow (Arrow 2) in Figure 11.

The second theme is the teachers’ demonstrating enhanced abilities to use a variety of tools and resources in CS teaching after PD. The theme corresponds to Arrow 3 in Figure 11, representing the enactment of the knowledge gained from PD to the classroom implementation, which is the Domain of Practice. Mrs. Johnson’s implementation of the CS integrated lessons (Domain of Practice) based on her CS pedagogical knowledge gained in PD (External Domain) is an example of the enactment (Arrow 3).

The third theme is about how the teachers enacted various pedagogies to promote cultural and personal relevance in CS instruction, which corresponds to Arrow 4 in Figure 11. Such experimentation in the classroom in turn enhanced their knowledge, beliefs, and attitude through reflections (Arrow 5 in Figure 11). Ms. Williams’ activity on decomposition used fictional figures representing multiple cultures and ethnicities (Figure 5) is an example of her bringing in her own lived experiences and cultural knowledge to foster engagement in students (Burciaga & Kohli, 2018; Howard, 2021). Ms. Willian’s activity on “Struggle Bus” to learn about students’ struggles and Ms. Harris’ lesson on encouraging students to use binary code alphabet to express thankfulness (Figure 6 and Figure 7) are two examples of the teachers’ making efforts to build a relationship with students and creating a safe environment for students to express themselves (Haddix, 2017; Kohli, 2019). The teachers’ strategies to promote personal relevance in CS teaching (e.g., connecting CS with students’ prior knowledge, everyday practices, and interest, etc.) confirmed Duquette (2022) and Goodwin’s (2004) argument that teachers of color emphasize the need to differentiate instruction to meet individual students’ needs.

The fourth theme is the teachers reporting having ongoing reflections on how they can implement successful CS-integrated instruction with their enhanced knowledge and beliefs and how the outcomes they observed in the classroom in turn promoted their knowledge and confidence in CS integration (Arrows 6 and 7 in Figure 11). For example, as a reflection on salient outcomes in the Domain of Consequence, Ms. Williams reported students’ creative expression, enjoyment, and engagement in her CS lesson.

The fifth theme is about positive student outcomes that were both reported by the teachers and observed by the researchers as a result of teachers’ experimentation (reflection, Arrow 9 in Figure 11), which gave the teachers more confidence to enact CS teaching (enactment, Arrow 8 in Figure 11). For example, Mrs. Johnson reflected on the four integrated lessons she implemented and how they met instructional goals and created a fun way for her students to demonstrate their learning, connecting her Domain of Practice to the Domain of Consequence. Mrs. Johnson’s observing students’ interest in the integrated lesson and implementing another lesson based on the student feedback is an example of enactment from the Domain of Consequence to the Domain of Practice.

6.2. Insights from Working with Teachers of Color

When asked about their understanding of culturally responsive teaching and how they connected with a diverse group of students in the classroom, the six teachers did not explicitly discuss the role of their own culture and cultural identity in their teaching. Rather, they mainly focused on students from cultures and ethnic backgrounds different from their own. In this case, the African American/Black students consist of the majority of the students in a classroom at the school and students from other cultural backgrounds, namely Hispanics/Latinx and Muslims, were predominantly the focus of the teachers’ discussions. This finding corroborates our understanding that culturally responsive pedagogy does not necessarily mean emphasizing any single culture in the classroom, rather, it is about creating a safe space for students from multiple cultures to have a voice and feel they are included (Haddix, 2017; Kohli, 2019). The teachers also interpreted cultural responsiveness to be inclusive of personal relevance, in addition to the collective values, customs, and behaviors that a group of people share. The emphasis on personal relevance confirms prior research findings in terms of the commitment of teachers of color to differentiate instruction to meet individual students’ needs (Duquette, 2022; Goodwin, 2004).

In addition, this study identified that support is needed to facilitate the instruction on specific CS concepts. For some of the participating teachers, the CS concepts were sometimes not explicitly explained in their lessons. For example, a lesson by Mrs. Jackson was for students to follow instructions to build towers using plastic cups. The concept of “sequence” (i.e., following a list of instructions in order) was not emphasized or explained to the students. This led to the students building the towers without creating a set of instructions first. Although students were observed to be engaged in that lesson, a teacher-led discussion on the purpose of following instructions could have reinforced students’ understanding of sequence. Additionally, most of the teacher participants chose to start with integrating sequence, debugging, and decomposition, and few explored the more complex CS concepts such as conditional logic or variables, which was consistent with previous research findings in that continuous support is needed for teachers to develop a strengthening understanding and competency in integrating complex CS concepts (Luo et al., 2023). Several studies explored the teaching of variables and conditional logic in elementary grades (Luo et al., 2022b, 2024; Rich et al., 2017, 2022) that could be instrumental in addressing this challenge. For example, to help students better understand what a variable is, teachers can first refer to everyday items (e.g., the number of toys, the lunch menu at school, one’s math score) that can change. Moreover, while teachers may have the intention to integrate CS, they need support in critically reflecting on their practices and identifying areas for improvement. Reflection has been identified by a large body of literature to be conducive to meaningful learning in various areas (e.g., Boud et al., 2013; Chang, 2019; Raber Hedberg, 2009; Ghaye, 2010). Helping teachers reflect on what went well, what did not go well, and how that could be improved could strengthen teachers’ professional growth.

6.3. Broadening Participation in CS as a Result of Supporting Teachers of Color

The present study is unique in that it stands at the intersection of Black/African American teachers teaching at an elementary school with a majority of historically underrepresented and economically disadvantaged students. Unlike previous studies that explored White high school CS teachers’ positionalities (e.g., Goode et al., 2021; Moudgalya et al., 2024), this study focused on the experiences of Black/African American elementary teachers. As such, this study has important implications for broadening underrepresented students’ participation in computing. Firstly, as reported by the participating teachers, most students in their classrooms had no prior experience with CS or computing. Thanks to the six teachers’ commitment to CS integration, over 100 students at the school gained access to formal CS instruction. The reflections of teachers on implementing successful CS-integrated instruction and the perceived outcomes documented in this study underscore the transformative potential of CS integration at the elementary level for underserved student populations. Teachers’ reflections highlight the importance of providing continuous support and opportunities for professional growth to facilitate sustained improvements in instructional practices and positive student learning outcomes.

Secondly, in this study, the teachers of color presented as being comfortable and conscious in calling out the racial differences they see in their classrooms and were active in seeking pedagogical approaches and enacting personal care to engage all students. This level of comfort could be due to the history of the school in serving minority students and the school’s emphasis on promoting inclusive learning in all areas. The study’s results also highlighted the versatility and adaptability of CS education. This underscores the importance of promoting interdisciplinary approaches to teaching CS, wherein educators leverage technological tools and pedagogical strategies to enhance learning outcomes across different subjects. Moreover, this study highlights the intentional efforts made by teachers to enact cultural awareness and incorporate students’ diverse backgrounds and cultural identities into CS instruction. This will not only enhance the relevance of CS education for underrepresented students but also promote a sense of belonging and empowerment among them.

7. Conclusions

This study examined the professional growth of teachers of color in a school with a majority of historically underrepresented and economically disadvantaged students (Black/African Americans and Hispanic/Latinx). Using a basic qualitative approach with constant comparative analysis, this study revealed important insights regarding the experiences of six teachers of color during CS-focused PD and classroom implementation. Five main themes reflected the teachers’ growth across the Personal Domain, the Domain of Practice, and the Domain of Consequence: (1) Teachers reported positive outcomes including improved understanding, confidence, and intentions regarding CS integration as a result of attending PD; (2) Teachers demonstrated enhanced abilities to use a variety of tools and resources in CS teaching after PD; (3) Teachers discussed various pedagogies, including culturally and personally responsive pedagogical practices, and racial awareness to promote inclusive instruction in the classroom and used strategies to promote personal relevance more than the collective cultural values or beliefs in CS teaching specifically; (4) Teachers reported having ongoing reflections on how they can implement successful CS-integrated instruction with their enhanced knowledge and beliefs; (5) Positive student outcomes were both reported by the teachers and observed by the researchers as a result of teachers’ experimentation, which gave the teachers more confidence to enact CS teaching. This study revealed how teachers of color grew in their CS teaching and provided concrete examples of how a variety of pedagogical practices and activities may be used to engage diverse students, especially those historically underrepresented in CS. Future research is encouraged to explore (1) how providing additional support can prepare teachers for the teaching of complex CS concepts such as variables and conditionals, and (2) how teachers may interpret cultural relevance (personal vs. collective values) differently in their teaching.

8. Limitations

Given the qualitative nature, the findings in this study with a small, all-female sample may be somewhat biased and may not lend themselves to generalizable conclusions. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted within the context in which the study took place. It is also acknowledged that no additional socio-demographic information or contextual characteristics of the sample were collected. Future studies are encouraged to collect and present such information when appropriate to contribute to a better understanding of the context and a more informed interpretation of the teachers’ experiences. Nonetheless, this study revealed important insights into the professional growth of teachers of color engaged in CS education. The study is also part of the larger effort to broaden participation in terms of providing historically underrepresented and underserved students access to formal CS education.