Running head: CS PD for ELementary Teachers

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

MONTEREY BAY
Computer Science Professional Development for Elementary
Teachers
CAPSTONE Report
Submitted in partial satisfaction of requirements of the degree
of
MASTER OF SCIENCE in
Instructional Science and Technology
Derrall Garrison
December 13, 2016
Capstone Approvals: (At least one advisor and capstone instructor should approve)
_________________________ ___________________________ _____________
Advisor Name
Signature
Date
_________________________ ___________________________ _____________
Capstone Instructor Name
Signature
Date

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

Table of Content
Executive Summary.....................................................................................3
Introduction/Background.............................................................................5
Problem description (gap analysis)..................................................................................6
Target Audience...............................................................................................................7
Environmental Scan/Industry Trends..............................................................................8
Relevant Research...........................................................................................................9
Solution Description..................................................................................10
Goals of the Project.......................................................................................................10
Learning Objectives.......................................................................................................10
Proposed Solution..........................................................................................................11
Learning Theories/Instructional Principles....................................................................11
Instructional Strategies and Justification.......................................................................14
Analysis of Tasks/Content.............................................................................................15
Media Components........................................................................................................24
Challenges......................................................................................................................24
Breakthroughs................................................................................................................25
Methods and Procedure.............................................................................25
Deliverables...................................................................................................................27
Resource........................................................................................................................28
Timeline.....................................................................................................28
Milestones......................................................................................................................29
Evaluation and Testing Report...................................................................29
Formative Evaluation.....................................................................................................29
Summative Evaluation...................................................................................................30
Data Analysis.................................................................................................................30
Conclusion.................................................................................................31
Current Limitations and Future Implementation...........................................................32
References..................................................................................................34
Appendices................................................................................................36

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

Appendix A: Notice for help to take learning module assessments..........36

Appendix B: Formative Assessment..........................................................37
Appendix C: Overall response data for pretest..........................................39
Appendix D: Break down of results per question for pretest....................40
Appendix E: Overall test results for Posttest.............................................43
Appendix F: Usability portion of Posttest.................................................44
Appendix G: Usability test results.............................................................46
Appendix H: Compare Means T-Test........................................................50

Table of Figures
Figure 1. Comparing syntax with graphic based programming......................................................7
Figure 2. SFUSD scope and sequence used for learning module..................................................10
Figure 3. Home page of learning module......................................................................................17
Figure 3. Scope and Sequence slide..............................................................................................18
Figure 4. Avatar explaining the content and focus of the submodule...........................................19
Figure 5. Explanatory boxes for each of the four main topics......................................................20
Figure 6. Video explaining the importance of computational thinking.........................................21
Figure 7. How decomposition relates to young children...............................................................22
Figure 8. Further details on decomposition...................................................................................22
Figure 6. The user is asked to program a yellow box to move......................................................23
Figure 7. A more complex example of programming an object to move......................................24
Figure 8. Challenge to choose an activity with students...............................................................25
Figure 9. T-Test for pretest and posttest for learning module on coding.......................................33

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

Executive Summary
Coding, computational thinking, and computer programming are viewed by some in
education as the new literacy. Thought leaders and organizations are concerned that students
need these skills to succeed in a competitive global job environment. Teachers need to
understand and grasp this driving force in our culture which is now connected with almost all
daily activity in our modern lives. Teachers, without grasping the concepts and the ability to
incorporate and create lessons in their classroom, will be doing their students a disservice and
putting them at a disadvantage. It is key for the teachers to see, and the students to understand,
that without this understanding, they will be left behind and view everyday technology as
something to consume rather than something utilized to express their thinking and creativity
with.
The capstone project fulfills the needs of teacher professional development while still
allowing them the freedom to choose from a plethora of tools and concepts to teach age
appropriate computer science concepts in their everyday curriculum planning and instructional
design. It is important that the teachers see connections and eventually design their lessons with
the Common Core and Next Generation Science Standards in mind when they are using coding
activities with their students. The online modules are broken down into key areas that allow for
the teacher to understand where their grade level relates in the overall sequence of
developmentally appropriate skills while at the same time allowing the teacher freedom to
choose a tool and a curriculum area that they would like to try coding with. One topic includes a
computer science scope and sequence for the elementary grade levels that is broken down into
computational thinking skills, computer science concepts, and the tools that are age appropriate,
that a teacher may choose from. Another section is on the tools that can be used to teach coding.
The topics are further broken down into learning tools that work only on a screen and those that
can be used such as robotics, which show how programming and coding relate to the real world.
Another section dives more deeply into computational thinking and covers the four main
concepts of decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction, and algorithm design. A last area
covers examples of lesson plans by curricular area including language arts, math, and science.
The capstone will be delivered as a web based learning experience, as the Cupertino
Union School District does not utilize a learning management system. The future plan is for
teachers to utilize the training until the district formalizes how computer science will be

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

implemented in the school district. The capstone project utilizes a Google Form based formative
pre-test and post-test in order to show the learning effectiveness of the model. There is also
attached to the end of the post-test a set of questions to gather usability testing issues. The actual
learning module does not utilize formal quizzes or tests but rather checks for understanding with
questions and drag and drop activities which provide immediate feedback. The school district
does not utilize any formal assessment of teacher learning effectiveness for professional
development but rather uses reaction type, level one evaluations.
Keywords: computer science, elementary teachers, coding

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

Introduction/Background
In the current approaches to incorporating the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and
the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) in education at the elementary level, the
importance of computer coding and computational thinking comes up often as a means of
helping students meet the skills and strategies they need. These skills and strategies revolve
around the fact that almost any process or tool in the current workplace has a computer
connected with it. Students may not directly learn skills to run a computer, but do need to have a
basic understanding of how they work, to be able to participate in a 21st century workplace.
Fortunately, in todays current state of technology there are many developmentally appropriate
tools that can be utilized beginning in Kindergarten up through the fifth grade that can help the
students do just that. For example, one skill that we are asking students to participate more in is
reflecting on their own thinking, which Seymour Papert proposed, computer programming excels
at (Papert, 1980). Coding is becoming the new lingua franca, like French was in the 19th
century, and English in the 20th, for the 21st century. In the Cupertino school district, the need
to meet the new NGSS has led to the need for creating professional development modules for
teachers on computer science and coding. This is so that they can incorporate lessons in-between
the regular Full Option Science System (FOSS) and later other subject matter areas during the
course of the school year.
This MIST Capstone project involves solving this need for students to have access to
coding and computer science concepts by helping to prepare teachers to incorporate them in their
classrooms. Teachers are introduced to coding concepts that can be taught in Kindergarten up
through fifth grade by looking at the scope and sequence, tools, and lesson plan ideas. The
primary focus is on what are called graphical interfaces for iPads and computers as these allow
for children to focus on what they are programming by dragging blocks to a designated area of
the screen.

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

Figure 1. Comparing syntax with graphic based programming.

The blocks are combined to create an action such as move a character on screen, play a
sound, or make an interactive animation. This type of programming based on visual symbols
have been found to be very engaging and make the act of programming more captivating with
the use of a multimedia interface (Mahadevan, Freeman, & Magerko, 2016). Earlier studies
which relied upon text based programming using Logos instead of a visual one indicated that
while students gained important metacognitive skills, some students at the primary grades were
not developmentally prepared for this type of programming (D. L. Brown, 1996). Also, based on
several frameworks that are currently being created and posted by school districts and
organizations such as K12CS, the sixth grade seems to be a general cutoff for beginning to
introduce a command line or typing interface rather than a graphics based one.

Problem description (gap analysis). Cupertino school district, like some other
suburban, high socio-economic, public school districts, has benefitted from extremely high state
test scores (four elementary schools placing in the top ten for the state of California with the rest
of the school sites in the top 50 in 2013) (LAtimes 2013) and continued high enrollment due to
being a destination district. Along with these positive measurements for academic achievement
has come some complacency to change teaching practices and incorporate technology. These

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

factors combine with others to create a low rate of adoption of technology. Another factor is the
high rate of new teacher turnover which means that these new teachers after spending their first
few years learning to use the state adopted textbooks and materials and afterwards potentially
being open to incorporating technology are leaving the profession or the district because of the
high cost of living factors in Silicon Valley such as real estate. Older teachers who have been
teaching many years may because of their age tend to be less enthusiastic towards changing well
established teaching practices. Teacher attitudes and beliefs have long been connected with the
degree of incorporation of technology in the classroom. Several studies such as those by Palak
and Wall (Palak and Walls 2009) have found statistically significant differences when looking at
these factors. In particular, programming and coding incorporation into the classroom were one
of several areas specifically found to be influenced by teacher attitudes toward technology.
Looking at a breakdown of technology skills and practices being taught and incorporated into
classrooms, coding, computer science, and computational thinking would seem to be fairly low
on the list of needed student skills at the elementary level in particular with typing speed, multimedia presentations, and basic operating skills given priority. Also, another reason that coding
and programming tend to be the last type of technology skills being taught to students is because
while other skills such as multimedia may be used to create content by the teachers, rarely is
coding or computer science used by teachers for their lessons. Groups such as Code.org have
spent considerable time and effort in the past few years stressing its importance with substantial
outreach to teachers and the bringing together of several edtech companies dedicated to teaching
computer science and coding concepts to children. Also, although the parent community for the
Cupertino district is composed of engineers and other high tech workers, their own education,
with many coming from locations such as India, Taiwan, and China, was made up of more
traditional educational practices. Lastly, the Cupertino district and school board only within the
last three years has made daily technology usage and integration in all subject areas a key focus
of improvement for classrooms. All these factors have played an influence in relegating
computer science, coding, and computational thinking to a place of minimal priority.

Target Audience. The target audience for this Capstone project is the elementary
school teachers between the Kindergarten and fifth grade level. There are approximately 800
teachers within the school district with about two-thirds teaching at the above grade levels and
the rest being composed of middle school teachers (sixth to eighth). All the elementary school

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

sites currently utilize the FOSS science kits and the intention is to give teachers access to the
training in the four week break periods when the kits are returned to a central processing area for
replenishment of materials to be sent back to school sites. The belief is that teachers can begin to
incorporate coding and computer science skills into the time slots that had been given over to
science instruction.

Environmental Scan/Industry Trends. To say that coding and computer science

has become just another tech skill that students must learn is quite an understatement. Numerous
articles in public newspapers and journals and interviews with CEOs and industry influencers
have continued to stress the importance of high technology skills for future workers to help the
United States economy continue to be competitive with the world. No less than the President of
the United States, President Obama has taken up this need and directed considerable resources
including three billion dollars being given to states and one hundred million going to school
districts to making sure that students across the nation, and in particular those that are
underserved, have access to learning these critical skills. In particular, his Computer Science for
All initiative, https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/01/30/computer-science-all has made these
skills a key focus.
Furthermore, a comprehensive organization called K12CS has drawn upon and received
support from numerous states, but more importantly key organizations such as ACM
(Association of Computing Machinery), CSTA (Computer Science Teacher Association),
Code.org, CIC (Cyber Innovation Center), NMSI (National Math and Science Initiative), have all
provided funding along with the academic support of over 100 advisors. They published a
framework in October of 2016 which was looked at and incorporated into the scope and
sequence portion of this Capstone project.
Numerous school districts have already completed a framework with scope and sequence
that can be incorporated into the Capstone project including an extensive one from the San
Francisco Unified School District called CSINF (Computer Science for all in San Francisco).
This framework in particular is well detailed and with their supporting resources and references
was thoroughly utilized and referenced for the Capstone module on Scope and Sequence.

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

10

Figure 2. SFUSD scope and sequence used for learning module.

Most of the coding materials that have so far been created are intended to be reviewed
and utilized during conferences as presentations, synchronous professional development sessions
at school sites or district meetings, or references and handouts to be utilized and understood
asynchronously without follow up.

Relevant Research. When looking at what tools a teacher should utilize to teach
coding and computer science, the primary focus for the Capstone module is on graphical based
coding with a Constructivist approach to the classroom environment. Most of the research
undertaken for the Capstone project looked at earlier elementary grades and how coding and
computer science skills have been presented to students. This is due to the substantial direct
classroom experience with 4th and 5th grade students that has already occurred by the author
using Scratch, MIT App Inventor, Code.org, Tynker, and Tickle in a project based, Constructivist
learning environment. As for earlier elementary grades, there have been several research
projects involving the use of coding or programming using a visual interface at the elementary
school level involving an application of constructivist theory. One study which looked at teacher
styles by Melissa Su Ching Lee looked at using the app called Scratch Jr. on iPads at the
kindergarten level. Scratch Jr. was created jointly at Tufts University and MIT. The app itself

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

11

was designed on constructivist principles such as allowing the students to construct their
understanding through their own sounds, painting, and programming characters to animate and
move. Lees study looked at three classrooms whose teachers employed a variety of classroom
management styles and structure. Her findings through student assessment were that students in
classrooms which were more constructivist in nature and were student centered and collaborative
scored the highest for learning programming concepts (Lee 2015).
Overall there have been multiple studies that have looked at the efficacy of teaching
coding or programming concepts to younger students (Kafai 2006), (Portelance et al. 2015),
(Karadeniz et al. ), (Hansen et al. 2015). Early studies using LOGOS found that the use of a text
based programming tool was difficult for some five year olds to show understanding of the
programming concepts (Brown 1996). Modern apps such as Scratch Jr. use symbols for
programming, dont require reading skills, and are similar to Lego in which the student drags
blocks to a part of the screen to create actions.

Solution Description
Goals of the Project. The goal of the project is for teachers to shift their fears and
attitudes in a more positive direction on the difficulties of teaching computer science in a
kindergarten classroom up through a fifth grade classroom, and to feel knowledgeable enough
and empowered to introduce several computer coding lessons during either the gap in the
instructional day left by the absence of science materials or within other subject matter
instruction. The Cupertino district has also directed that classrooms become in an indirect way
more Constructivist in nature. Included with this is the push for more student centered activities
including student choice, voice, critical thinking, problem solving, and self-assessment.

Learning Objectives. Teachers will, after completing three of the modules, construct
a short age appropriate computer science skills related activity that they can then complete with
their students in their classroom.
Teachers will, after completing the learning modules, identify several age appropriate computer
science skills with 85% accuracy.
Teachers will be able to identify tools that they can utilize in their classroom with 100% accuracy
to teach computer science to their students.

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

12

Proposed Solution. The proposed solution to fulfill the gap in teachers understanding
of concepts, skills, and tools, necessary to teach computer science in a Kindergarten through fifth
grade classroom is to create an Adobe Captivate based set of asynchronous activities or learning
modules and a website to embed and present them in. There will be four main modules for
teachers to complete. The first module will be called Scope and Sequence. This module will
involve looking at a table that shows computer science concepts as well as tools or apps that can
be utilized in the classroom to teach the students with. The module at the end will assess the
learner based on a drag and drop activity. The second module will be titled Tools. This module
will focus on specific tools that will be introduced to the learner so that they can gain a better
understanding of what they have available to them to use. Within this module there will be three
sub modules. The first sub-module will be called Inside the Box. This will examine and present
all the possible iPad apps, websites, and organizations that use web based activities such as
Code.org to teach students computer concepts. The second sub-module will be called Outside
the Box and will cover robots or movement based objects that are controlled by computer code
that has been generated that is sent either via Bluetooth or USB cables to control some action
using movement, light, or sound. The third sub-module will be called Paper and will look at and
present ways to teach computer science concepts that use only paper and a pencil.
The third module will be called Computational Thinking and will introduce the learner to the
four primary systems involved with solving problems via decomposition, pattern recognition,
abstraction, and algorithm design. The intent is to show that students need to build up
background knowledge in order to create a computer program that solves some problem or
challenge. The fourth module will be called Lessons. This will have three sub-modules called
language arts, math, and science. Each module will present a short lesson or activity that is
complete and presents an activity that can be used for each of the content areas.

Learning Theories/Instructional Principles. The theories that will be helping

to direct teachers in creating activities and informing the Capstone project will include
constructivism as viewed through Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky, as well as constructionism as
presented by Seymour Papert. Constructivism will be an overriding theory in its emphasis on the
students creating their own understanding and help to emphasize to the teacher the learner
centered approach to be the key focus for the project (D. L. Brown, 1996). Constructionism will

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

13

be utilized because of its focus on hands on learning. Also Papert was a leading advocate for the
use of computers and programming as a fulfillment of constructivist theories in practice. He
advocated that programming should fulfill what was called a low floor, meaning low challenge
programming tool, with a high ceiling, meaning the tool will give ample opportunities for those
that grow into more advanced learners, and wide walls, meaning that the tool could be used for
many different types of projects (Resnick et al., 2009). The overall goal is to find learning
theories which will help balance between inquiry based learning, socially constructed activities,
and still guide the teacher to help the students to create coding programs that apply to multiple
subjects and include some form of instructional guidance to introduce computer science
programming concepts such as loops, sequence, and variables as well as computational thinking
concepts.
Piaget will be influential and applicable to the capstone project for several reasons. His
ideas related to cognitive development and his stages of the preoperational stage and the concrete
operational stage will be important especially as they may relate to assessments and how they
may look or change between the Kindergarten students up through the fifth grade (Portelance,
2015). Overall his placing importance on the peer to peer interactions especially as they relate to
more open ended activities will need to be considered (Gredler, 2005).
Vygotsky is important as a representative of social constructivism in regards to his zone
of proximal development for the capstone project with the consideration that each students
developmental level will need to be considered and that the peer interactions that will be
promoted in the capstone project will be based on the similar interests that will come about
through the use of the multimedia tools and the differences in abilities to interact with the tools
based on the childs previous exposure at home and at school (Portelance, 2015). The instruction
will be important in particular as it relates to having the teacher drawing upon the students
existing knowledge and then to take this knowledge to help the students build new and further
understandings (Toy, 2013). Also Vygotsky while advocating for social learning placed a strong
emphasis on collaboration as being between the student and the teacher also called the ideal form
(Gredler, 2005).
Papert as stated previously is a key theorist when looking at computers and programming.
His early work with Piaget helped influence his thinking about children becoming builders of
their knowledge. Carrying this metaphor of the children as builders even further he thought of

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

14

them as like other builders, children appropriate to their own use materials they find about
them (Papert, 1980, p. 19). And when looking in particular at coding and programming being
such an open tool with broad applications it makes sense that he would go on to develop a
language called LOGO for children to build with.
For constructivism, the child is influenced by direct experiences from the environment
and social interactions with others. These experiences help to form the childs schema which is
constantly changing and evolving, but like an adult, a child will not just accept what is being told
to them but must process and compare the experiences. If a new and better perspective or theory
replaces the old one, then the child will evolve a new construction of the culture and objects in
that environment they find themselves in (Ackermann, 2001). The cognitive development that
happens as a result of overturning the older schema happens according to Vygotsky in connection
with the childs social and emotional experiences as well (Gance, 2002). Ackermann views the
importance for teaching and learning as being threefold. First, teaching is always indirect,
meaning students dont just accept new information but must interpret it. Second, the
transmission model. . . wont do, information is not a one-way process in which the learner is
given the knowledge to memorize and retain. And third, A theory of learning that ignores
resistances to learning misses the point, meaning children have good reason not to abandon
their previously held knowledge (Ackermann, 2001, p. 3). Constructionism then takes the
internal processes of gaining knowledge and cognitive development and emphasizes the
importance of externalizing what is learned through building externally through physical
materials a representation and application of the words and understanding for the child. This
allows them to to construct new relationships with knowledge in the process (Kafai, 2006, p.
38). As Ackermann states, Papert helps us see how ideas get formed and transformed when
expressed through different media, when actualized in particular contexts, when worked out by
individual minds (Ackermann, 2001, p. 4).
In this type of classroom, the teacher becomes more of a facilitator rather than a dispenser
of knowledge. The teachers role is, from the constructivist standpoint, to help the individual
begin to connect their schema with new experiences. And in this instance help guide the
students experience of coding and to help guide these experiences un-forcefully in an
appropriate direction for the learner. The students become the main focus in the classroom and
under Vygotskys perspective the social and cultural environment are the primary means by

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

15

which knowledge is constructed and dispensed and where people create meaning through their
interactions with one another (Schreiber & Valle, 2013, p. 4). And with the emphasis on culture
it is important for the teacher to help ensure that the activities are meaningful and authentic to a
larger social context than just another school activity (J. S. Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989).
Lastly, to be an effective constructivist teacher who utilizes technology, in particular to teach
computer programming, it is important that the teacher themselves are familiar with computers
and different tools as a lack of being comfortable with technology has been shown to have an
effect on how often the students are given access to computers (Gilakjani, Lai-Mei, & Ismail,
2013).

Instructional Strategies and Justification. Besides attempting to model

Constructivist based learning activities for teachers to then draw upon for their own classroom,
there are several instructional strategies that will be utilized to reduce cognitive load, promote
learning transfer to long-term memory, and reduce interference in presenting key concepts. All
these principles are intended to transmit information to the learners in the clearest fashion with
the focus on cognitive load for the content to be learned. The first principle to be considered will
be the multimedia principle to help the students see the words involved but also using
screenshots and graphics to help them understand the interfaces they need to navigate. The
second principle will be the modality principle so that there will be audio based information to be
connected with the visual use of graphics and to again minimize the cognitive load. Another
principle will be the redundancy principle which will limit the use of audio and onscreen words
depending on if the vocabulary that will be introduced will need to be further accessed by the
students. The last principle to be considered will be the personalization principle. With learners
at the elementary school level the use of a coach and companion to the content will help the
students feel more connected and vested in learning the programming concepts involved. There
will be other instructional theories considered but these the main instructional principles
considered at this point of time (Clark and Mayer 2011).
Because the Cupertino School board has adopted what can be considered Constructivist
concepts the use of these student centered strategies will be important to show the teachers how
they relate to a more effective understanding on the part of students for computer science
concepts and coding. There are several basic strategies that can be used by a teacher in the
classroom to utilize the learning theory. The best approach involves authenticity, choice, and

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

16

student voice. The importance of authenticity is to give more significance to what the students
are trying to learn. Too often activities are for a standard but a child that is constructing
knowledge in the context of cultural information should be learning something that is applicable
to their culture. Choice is also very important because within the multicultural environment that
are found now in many classrooms, there is no single path or set of objects that will help all
students and support their knowledge acquisition. Lastly, student voice is critical to not only
help the student better form their own understanding but also the other students in the social
environment that the learning is taking place in. To put it succinctly, the best activities are those
that offer, A significant problem tackled by small groups of students promotes involvement,
curiosity, and heightened motivation (Toy, 2013, p. 37). Ultimately the types of strategies
employed involve trying to create a transformation of the learners previous held schema to a new
understanding as expressed in the social context of the learner (Toy, 2013, p. 21). The challenge
will be to guide teachers to a greater understanding in how to connect up these key ideas when
they attempt to construct their own activity with their students.
Finally, in regards to structural steps to help guide the design, development, and creation
of the learning modules Merrills First Principles of instruction will be particularly helpful. I
think in trying to help teachers come away with the desire to create a concrete activity for their
students while at the same time introducing and asking for an understanding abstract concepts
the shift between these two polar opposites that using Merrill will help ensure that the
application and implementation of an activity in the classroom will be more likely.

Analysis of Tasks/Content. The learning modules were intended to work in a linear

fashion but also give the user some freedom to access or bypass content depending on their
needs. The first module called Scope and Sequence introduces a set of example concepts related
to computer science in which a learner can choose their grade level and look up what skills are
developmentally appropriate. The second module is Tools and this introduces some basic
concepts related to computer coding and then looks at different apps and robotics that can be
used to teach coding. The third module is on computational thinking and looks broadly at what
this is and then goes through the four concepts both as characteristics and then as attitudes. Both
of these descriptions are necessary to see how problem solving is approached with students. The
module ends with specific descriptions of decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction, and
algorithm. Each section includes a video to solidify the learners understanding. The last main

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

17

module is lessons and the learner is taken through coding examples within the areas of language
arts, math, and science. The lessons module ends with a challenge for the teacher to create a
lesson and share it with the author.
Using Merrills First Principles of Instruction as an organizational model, the modules
can be looked at through a different lens to see their interconnectedness and approaches to
instruction and information, here are several examples broken down into each of the four
principles.
Activation/Background. The learning module is broken down into four main sub
modules, scope and sequence, tools, computational thinking, and lessons. There are two other
areas accessible on the home page, glossary, and resources, however these are not part of the
sequenced lessons.

Figure 3. Home page of learning module.

The intent is that the teacher should move through the learning modules with the
assumption that the user will move on the home page from left to right. Most teachers typically
over time use the standards they are working from to begin their lesson or planning design and so
Scope and Sequence is the first item next to the Home button. The first submodule follows a
repeated organization, throughout the submodules, in that the user is given choices to either play

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

18

the slide and explore the main subtopics related to the content of that submodule or continue to
receive a more linear experience of the content.

Figure 3. Scope and Sequence slide.

The depth of experience and needed background are differentiated by the choices the user
takes. If the user at this point clicks on the continue button there is a set of narrated slides
explaining how to use the scope and sequence document which is the primary learning
experience of this submodule. If the user chooses the play slide button, then an avatar which
repeats throughout the modules appears and explains with audio the main four focusses of this
learning sub module and some information to consider.

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

19

Figure 4. Avatar explaining the content and focus of the submodule.

For some users, this may be enough information to move forward to the further
instructional parts. For others, that continue to need more information, and want to further build
their background knowledge, there are each of the four content focusses for this module which
can provide further information.

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

20

Figure 5. Explanatory boxes for each of the four main topics.

This sequence of three ways that the user can access and move forward through the
submodule is repeated for both the tools and computational thinking modules. These modules
attempted to differentiate the types of background activation that a teacher might need and give
choices based on the level of prior knowledge and understand. Within the school district there are
examples of teachers coming from the technology companies which surround the area and have
extensive background, and there are senior teachers who still find utilizing computer and
learning with students intimidating.
Demonstration. There are numerous examples of coding applications and computational
thinking concepts that are presented to the learner through either narration with visual examples
or through video examples. The first example involves the instruction behind computational
thinking. There is an introductory slide with narration and then a video.

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

21

Figure 6. Video explaining the importance of computational thinking

Afterwards each of the four types of computational thinking concepts is further explained
with narration and text. Each section gives a brief explanation of how the concept relates to
elementary age children.

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

22

Figure 7. How decomposition relates to young children.

The narration then moves to an adult need for further analysis of in this instance
decomposition.

Figure 8. Further details on decomposition.

And to end the sequence there is an edited video which builds on the concepts presented
and gives several real-world examples for a teacher to have a better understanding of the
concepts.
Application. Several key slides in the tools module try and offer an introduction of what
real world coding might look like with the learners students. In the first example the learner is
asked to record a sequence of steps which then will program a yellow box to move on the screen.
This use of directions and programming a set of steps to make a robot or onscreen object move is
a very common way to introduce coding to younger students as well as the concepts of
computational thinking involving algorithms.

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

23

Figure 6. The user is asked to program a yellow box to move.

Later the learner is asked to take this simple example of programming the yellow square
to a more sophisticated example using a drag and drop example. In the next example the learner
is asked to look at set of boxes that must be navigated by what is called a Bee Bot to move to the
flower.

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

24

Figure 7. A more complex example of programming an object to move.

The user must move the correct direction arrows to the numbered boxes which represent
the sequence or algorithm the bee would move in to get to the flower. These two example
represent an experiencing of programing for the teacher so that they can understand the most
rudimentary example of what coding looks like for a younger student. There are further videos
which show teachers what a more sophisticated example of coding might look like in the
classroom, but these examples are the most interactive involving the user to perform a task
related to coding.

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

25

Integration. Throughout all the modules there are drag and drop activities as well as
slides with questions that involve two choice selections. These activities give immediate
feedback and push the learner to reflect on the content they have learned. The end of the learning
module involves a challenge for the teacher to create some sort of lesson or coding activity and
to email the documented results to the author of the learning module.

Figure 8. Challenge to choose an activity with students.

Tasks and Content. Each of the main topics always offers a multi-sensory experience for
the user while giving options for bypassing content or drilling down further into the content.
Each of the modules also references concepts or content that relates to the focus of that module
but is given a greater level of detail at a later time. This approach, spirals through the two core
ideas involving coding and computational thinking. In particular, the primary focus is on
computational thinking and how it relates to computer science and coding. There are four
instances in which computational thinking appears outside of the module devoted to it. The first
instance is within the scope and sequence module as the learner sees and hears for the first time
how computational thinking relates to other focuses. In the tools section, the process that is asked
for the learner to do the coding drag and drop activity touches upon the four computational
concepts. The slide words them in a more informal manner, so that the problem solving process

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

26

is shifted toward but does not include the specific vocabulary that will be introduced later on.
The final example involves the challenge activity at the end of the module which again goes over
the appropriate vocabulary and asks the teacher to make sure to incorporate the concepts into the
learning activity the teachers devise for their students.

Media Components. The final capstone was delivered via the internet and uploaded
to a server. Media that was utilized included author generated screen captures of apps and
original photos. Premade buttons for navigation and master slide templates were from the
eLearning Brothers. All narration was provided by the author. Videos were downloaded and
edited to be shortened for many of the topics. Instances in which outside photos or videos were
needed were sourced on each slide as well as in several instances being shared on the references
slide.

Challenges. One of the greatest challenges was coming up with a way to differentiate
content when the learning modules were in development. The initial analysis had shown that for
many teachers, coming away with an awareness of what coding looks like in the classroom was
to be a good first step, and for other teachers that are ready, asking them to apply what they have
learned was to be the goal. The ability to differentiate for all types of teachers was not possible
within the scope of this project. Fortunately, most of the apps and websites that can be used to
teach programming are free to use and download. Also, making sure all the teachers needs were
met involved looking at hardware, since a real limitation for some teachers will come about
through either a lack of computers or tablets or the teachers inability to adapt to the needs for
teaching with technology. The research shows that the more a teacher is willing to teach from a
constructivist viewpoint the more successful the children will be in learning coding and
computational thinking skills. Another issue after thinking about the initial analysis was trying to
ask teachers to create activities for students who have varying levels of knowledge and
experience in coding either through previous classrooms doing hour of code or summer camps
and also meeting the needs of students who have no coding experience whatsoever.
The design of the learning modules was a relatively slow process. New ways to try and
adhere to Constructivist principles while still capturing data from the teachers to show that the
instruction had made a difference, involved too many compromises due to trying to develop what
had been originally designed.

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

27

Another challenge involving the development involved trying to acquire the technical
knowledge necessary to create the modules while learning how to use more advanced
programming techniques. A great deal of time was spent trying to find appropriate training
websites and videos which addressed what needed to be created and were close enough to the
concepts of the original design ideas.

Breakthroughs. The types of breakthroughs that occurred happened at two levels. The
first level had to do with the tool to create the content, which was Adobe Captivate. Previous
projects had become cumbersome and difficult to manage due to the reliance exclusively on the
timeline to create content slides. A better understanding of advanced actions seemed like a good
strategy to help the structure and direction the learning module would go in. By utilizing the
advanced actions and variables together there was a great reduction in the number of slides that
needed to be edited and managed and also there was a greater degree over control of when
content would appear. Normally the narration on slides begins immediately when the slide comes
up, instead the user was allowed to choose whether to play the narration or view text pop ups, or
to exit the slide. Another area that advanced actions played a factor was in the two-part question
slides. By passing on a variable, which message prompt would appear could be enabled through
one slide rather than multiple ones. All these understandings will serve to help create more
sophisticated interactions on later Captivate projects. The second breakthrough occurred with the
content created for the learning module. A better understanding of the underlying concepts, in
particular computational thinking, had a great impact on the emphasis of the original timeline
and content plans. Given more time the learning module would have continued to elevate the
importance of this type of problem solving process and coding would have become one of
several means of students showing evidence of its use.

Methods and Procedure.

When creating the online module and the analysis stage, the author began with
background knowledge to inform the beginning timeline and focusses of the project. An initial
conversation with a science director in the district provided the initial impetus and later district
surveys among teachers on technology usage indicated a strong enough interest in coding to
proceed. The missing information to provide a more research based understanding on the topic of
coding and elementary students was provided in the MIST program. Several of the research
papers for the MIST program looked more closely at elements that would be part of the final

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

28

capstone. For example, one initial paper for IST 522, examined Minecraft Edu, which allows for
open ended creations on the part of students, to fulfill a Common Core based language arts
activity. Several key aspects for learning theories that were pertinent started with looking at early
research into game based computer activities and their efficacy for learning content. When
looking at possible coding solutions for the capstone project this distinction between a game
based activity and a more open type of content creation tool helped solidify the authors focus on
what to share with teachers. Another research paper, this one for IST 520, looked specifically at
using coding and programming at the elementary school level. The focus on major theorists
related to using computers for learning with younger students provided information not only as
to where the use of technology falls in the Constructivist learning spectrum, but also, based in the
Cupertino district focus on student centered learning, further justified this method as a highly
relevant and underused approach for students to show evidence of understanding with Common
Core standards. These research experiences were combined with several years of practical
classroom experience using coding and robotics. The direct observational evidence provided a
vast wealth of knowledge to interject into the learning module what might have been more
anecdotal experiences into more research based suggestions for coding solutions. The focus
became to help a teacher new to coding not have to overcome problems and issues related to
hardware and classroom management since the author had had to find a solution for these issues
previously and now had the research to support the content.
The design stage involved looking at simple online tutorials for adult learning and also
websites which provided reference materials for teachers to use. A large amount of time was
spent looking at the Hour of Code website to see how adult and children learning on coding was
introduced and reinforced. Initially a website was considered, but the choice of Adobe Captivate
was based on the need to try and create more of a Constructivist experience and provide as much
hands-on learning as possible. A Google Doc was created for the story board and to color code
and also use a letter and number code to label the slides to be used in Adobe Captivate.
The development stage began putting together content and resources that was collected
and beginning to implement the story board as created in the Google doc. The initial set up was
easy as the labeling process was transferred directly to Adobe Captivate. The initial stages went
smoothly however there were many technical difficulties that had to be overcome at this point.

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

29

Several initially designed slides were abandoned after a solution could not be find on how to
create the sophisticated interactivity that had been intended.
The instructional model when initially finished was much different than the initial
analysis and design models that were chosen. The learning module had shifted to more of an
informational structure rather than an instructional one as originally intended. After an initial
analysis by the capstone advisor Dr. Su, and course instructor Dr. Strong, a major reworking and
adding to of all the sections was undertaken to make the project align more with the original
intent.
The evaluation system that was decided upon was based on the districts normal
procedures for workshops or presentations. The district typically relies upon a Kirkpatrick type
level one or learner reaction evaluation for most training. Simple single question sections are
presented for each sub module and drag and drop activities are also used to test for
understanding. To show the learning effectiveness and usability testing information a separate
Google Form based evaluation was provided to the learning module testers.
Overall the need to shift and move back through multiple stages within the ADDIE
process provided to be difficult to manage and also led to further and compromises so that the
initial final project met the time deadlines but not the learning theories or instructional design as
originally intended. It was only with the granting of extra time and support that the capstone
managed to approximate the original intent.

Deliverables. The project as finished is a web based learning module that is intended to
be completed in about one hours time. It is composed of approximately 45 minutes of narration
and videos with a total of 63 slides. There are four major sub modules that are intended to be
learned in a linear fashion, but the user can by choice or in the to review move forward and
backward through the content. Three of the submodules, computational thinking, scope and
sequence, and tools all begin with a narration with pop up text boxes. They then move through a
set of slides describing the content. They then have a one question slide that covers an important
topic and then go to the drag and drop activity which is focused both on what was learned as well
as reinforcing the vocabulary. The other sub module on lessons only has a narration with further
detail slides and then a question slide but does not have a drag and drop activity.

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

30

Resource.
The resources for this project involved both several software programs to create the
content as well as web based resources to find content and examples to share. There were several
instances in which the author used photos that were created at home for examples of a coding or
robotics tools.
For software and hardware, the resources included:
Adobe Captivate 9
SnagIt 4
Preview 8
Google Docs
Google Forms
iPhone 6s+
Android Avatar creator
eLearning Brother buttons, avatar, and slide templates
Icons purchased through http://www.flaticon.com/
There were several content resources that were used in several instances. One of the
difficulties was that multiple computational thinking modules have been created. The learning
module relied on the partnership between ISTE and CSTA for much of the reference material
used. Several resources were used from computational thinking learning modules on
http://www.curriki.org/ Also Code.org has innumerable examples of different types of coding
activities and lessons for both students and for teacher professional development. Also used for
assistance in creating the advanced actions in Adobe Captivate were Adobeknowhow.com,
Lynda.com, and various short posted suggestions on YouTube and the Adobe forums.

Timeline.
The timeline, as created for the capstone proposal, was followed up to the prototype with
testing and feedback. This had to be postponed in order to rework the capstone to its final form.
Instead the final capstone received approval on November 28th and the testing learning
effectiveness and usability was completed on December 2nd.

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

31

Milestones.
1. Finalizing of artwork styles and color schemes by 9/21/16
2. Final timeline with timings, script, basic sketch of activities by 9/30/16
3. Creation, drawing, and downloading of creative commons content 10/9/16
4. Programming and creation of skeleton major navigation connecting modules 10/16/16
5. Programming of modules including activities with drag and drop 10/23/16
6. Recording of voice or computer creation 10/30/16
7. Workable demo that can be tested 11/14/16
Workable demo was approved on 11/28
8. Prototype testing/feedback of teachers 11/14/16-11/18/16
Revised prototype was tested by teacher on 11/29 12/2
9. Finalizing modules based on feedback and technical issues that have arisen 12/9/16

Evaluation and Testing Report

Formative Evaluation. The formative evaluation was gathered from teachers at
Meyerholz Elementary school as well as instructional service coaches in the Cupertino district
office. The teachers were sent an email with the steps necessary to complete the three parts of the
pre-test, the learning module, and the post-test (See Appendix A). The formative evaluation was
composed of ten questions with the content being drawn from the learning modules. The
questions were either directly drawn from the set of questions that were embedded in each
module or came from the question that was in the drag and drop activity. The intent was to see if
the learning was derived from the background of the teachers or from the reinforced focus of the
single questions or the drag and drop activity (See appendix B). The pretest was taken by 13
teachers and the data showed that the average was 7.31 with a high range of scores with one
question in particular on iPad usage having been answered correctly less than 50% of the time
(See Appendix C). Overall there was no question that was answered 100% correctly and there
were no questions that didnt any of the users answer it correctly (See Appendix D). The results
from the formative evaluation indicated that the questions were referring to information that

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

32

most of the teachers had some familiarity with but also that with a choice of three responses the
teacher had a one in three chance of randomly answering them correctly.

Summative Evaluation. The summative evaluation was composed of the same set of
ten questions and also had a usability questionnaire for the teachers to answer at the end.
Because the test was given remotely through a website there were only seven responses for the
posttest. If the test had been given in a room with a monitor, then it would have been possible to
ensure that all users took both the pre and posttests. The results overall for the duplicative section
of ten question showed an improvement in the mean (See Appendix E). The usability section was
broken down into questions with a rating system and several that asked for a text response (See
Appendix F). The results showed that overall several users thought the design and
implementation was a positive factor however there were a group of users who felt the design
was not helpful (See Appendix G). It seems that there were pretty consistently three users who
looked upon the experience as negative for the number rating section. There were also four users
who answered that their user experience was positive. This seemed to be the same group who
answered the short answer questions as when examining the question on what they didnt like the
majority of answers showed that there was nothing they disliked. Overall the responses to the
questions that required answering had a more positive response then the number section. The
result when comparing the two sections leave the possibility that users may have mistakenly read
the scale wrong. As to suggestions on how to improve the usability there were a variety of
suggestions including shortening the activity. Several suggestions involved changing the
navigation so it was clear how to move through the learning activities.

Data Analysis. There were several conclusions which can be reached by the data that
was captured using the t-test. The research hypothesis was that the teachers would demonstrate a
measureable improvement in understanding what teaching coding means for an elementary
classroom. For the descriptive statistics, the posttest mean score showed a change (mean=9,
standard deviation=1) in comparison to the pre-test (mean=7.28, standard deviation .76) (See
Appendix H). When looking at the inferential statistics portion of the study we see that there
appears to be a statistical significance in the scores.

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

33

Figure 9. T-Test for pretest and posttest for learning module on coding
The t Stat score is much larger than either of the t Critical scores, either for the one-tail or the
two-tail values. The scores appear to validate the hypothesis that there was a statistically
significant improvement in the scores of teachers learning about coding in the classroom. There
also appears when looking at the time stamp for when the pretest was taken some instances of
using the learning materials when the posttest was taken. For some sets of scores there may not
have been enough time for significant learning to happen. There may be several instances in
which the teachers may have used multiple tabs to look back and review materials when they
were taking the posttest.

Conclusion
There are several conclusions which can be made at the end of the project. The first
conclusion is that this type of training was suitable for some of the teachers and not for the
others. The first key difference in teachers has to do with the fact that the research shows that
classrooms organized with a Constructivist approach tend to see more successful technology
integration. While the district has mandated that classrooms need to be more student centered
and offer students more choice and a chance to express themselves, there is currently several
directives such as writers workshop, math workshop, readers workshop, Next Generation
Science Standards implementation, that preclude teachers being able to whole heartedly devote

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

34

their approach to such a time intensive classroom approach. Constructivist approaches which
Seymour Papert showed were very suitable for computers and coding also require time for
students to develop their thinking and present it with programming. Teachers have indicated that
many of them do the Hour of Code in December but dont do much else with their students due
to time constraints. Also for the training, if looking at the time on task for the learning module,
which can be calculated by looking at the time of completion of the pretest and the posttest,
indicates that many teachers spent an average of 20 minutes on the learning module. There were
also several suggestions that the module was too long from the usability survey. Teachers appear
to be either skipping to sections they are interested in or dont want this level of explaining
coding and how it is connected to computational thinking. There is certainly justification in
looking at excluding information that is not relevant or finding a better way to have teachers take
ownership in their classroom of computer science concepts such as computational thinking.
While the original design did focus more on coding, the new computer science framework which
will inform the California framework which will be in draft form by 2018 has computational
thinking concepts inform most of the concepts presented.

Current Limitations and Future Implementation. There are certainly

limitations to the learning module as it is now presented. There are interactions that Adobe
Captivate has some limitations with as a tradeoff in not forcing the developer to have to write
code to accomplish the tasks. This means that the learning modules can be more quickly created
but also limits the freedom of what can be done. There are certainly reasons to use this module in
a synchronous session so that individual answers can be answered and addressed as teacher gain
a better understanding of what coding can look like in their classrooms. As of this final report an
evaluation is being performed at the district office to look at the viability of using this training
with teachers. The window of opportunity as to when this training would have been the most
relevant has closed. This is partially a fact that time as passed but also the fact that the district
has chosen to being to ask teachers to being incorporating the NGSS or Next Generation Science
Standards sooner than was originally intended when the initial analysis and design of the
learning module was happening.

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

35
References

Brown, D. L. (1996). Kids, computers, and constructivism. Journal of Instructional Psychology,

23(3), 189.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven
guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley & Sons.
Gance, S. (2002). Are constructivism and computer-based learning environments incompatible?
Interface: The Journal of Education, Community and Values, 2(3). Retrieved from
http://commons.pacificu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=inter02
Hansen, A. K., Dwyer, H. A., Hill, C., Iveland, A., Martinez, T., Harlow, D., & Franklin, D.
(2015). Interactive Design by Children: A Construct Map for Programming. In Proceedings
of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 267270).
New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Playing and making games for learning instructionist and constructionist
perspectives for game studies. Games and Culture, 1(1), 3640.
Karadeniz, ., Samur, Y., & zden, M. Y. (n.d.). Playing with Algorithms to Learn
Programming: A Case Study on 5 Years Old Children. Icita.org. Retrieved from
http://www.icita.org/2014/papers/tr-Karadeniz.pdf
Lee, M. S. C. (2015). Teaching Tools, Teachers Rules: ScratchJr in the Classroom. TUFTS
UNIVERSITY. Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/15/89/1589471.html
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking
through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 5161.

Mahadevan, A., Freeman, J., & Magerko, B. (2016). An interactive, graphical coding
environment for EarSketch online using Blockly and Web Audio API. In Proceedings of the
2nd Web Audio Conference (WAC-2016), Atlanta. smartech.gatech.edu. Retrieved from
https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/54581
Palak, D., & Walls, R. T. (2009). Teachers beliefs and technology practices: A mixed-methods
approach. Water Science and Technology: A Journal of the International Association on
Water Pollution Research. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782537

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

36

Portelance, D. J., Strawhacker, A. L., & Bers, M. U. (2015). Constructing the ScratchJr
programming language in the early childhood classroom. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education, 116.
(n.d.). Retrieved September 11, 2016, from http://schools.latimes.com/2013-apiscores/ranking/page/1/

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

37

Appendices
Appendix A: Notice for help to take learning module assessments.

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

38

Appendix B: Formative Assessment

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

39

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

40

Appendix C: Overall response data for pretest

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

41

Appendix D: Break down of results per question for pretest

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

42

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

43

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

44

7 responses

SUMMARY
INDIVIDUAL
Accepting responses
Post-Test
for
Professional Development on Coding RESPONSES
for Teachers
QUESTIONS
7

Appendix E: Overall test results for Posttest

Insights
Average
8.57 / 10 points

Median
9 / 10 points

Range
7 - 10 points

Total points distribution

#ofrespondents

4
3
2
1
0

5
6
Pointsscored

Frequently missed questions

Coding and programming are best taught through an iPad.

Name

10

Correct responses
2/ 7

(1 response)

Ann Mitchell

https://docs.google.com/a/csumb.edu/forms/d/1biTehFjzYyABPlcToOR1P97mE4s6QPeggR5URF_QJPo/edit#responses

1/9

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

45

Appendix F: Usability portion of Posttest

12/7/2016

Post-Test for Professional Development on Coding for Teachers

13. Thedifferentpartsofthecodingtrainingwereclear
Markonlyoneoval.
1

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

14. Theinstructionsinthecodingtrainingwasclear
Markonlyoneoval.
1

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

15. Howtomoveornavigatethroughthecodingtrainingwasclear.
Markonlyoneoval.
1

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

16. Ilikedthelayoutanddesignofthelearningmodules.
Markonlyoneoval.
1

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

17. Thegraphics,pictures,andvideowereinformative.
Markonlyoneoval.
1

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

18. Thenarrationaddedtothelearningexperience.
Markonlyoneoval.
1

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

19. Theoveralllearningexperiencewasenjoyable.
Markonlyoneoval.
1
Strongly disagree

5
Strongly agree

https://docs.google.com/a/csumb.edu/forms/d/1biTehFjzYyABPlcToOR1P97mE4s6QPeggR5URF_QJPo/edit

3/4

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

46

12/7/2016

Post-Test for Professional Development on Coding for Teachers

20. Theoveralllearningmoduleswereofeducationalvalue.
Markonlyoneoval.
1

Strongly disagree

5
Strongly agree

21. Whatdidyoulikeaboutthecodingtraining.

22. Whatdidyoudislikeaboutthecodingtraining.

23. Howcouldthecodingtrainingbeimproved.

Powered by

https://docs.google.com/a/csumb.edu/forms/d/1biTehFjzYyABPlcToOR1P97mE4s6QPeggR5URF_QJPo/edit

4/4

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

47

Appendix G: Usability test results

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

48

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

49

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

50

CS PD for ELementary Teachers

51

Appendix H: Compare Means T-Test