ACM Inroads: Archive

In response to criticism from learned societies, the ministry of education in England developed a national, virtual center to support schools and teachers implementing the mandatory computing curriculum. As many nations are facing similar challenges around K–12 computing education, the outputs and lessons from this initiative may be relevant to others around the world.

Introduction

In countries around the world, we have witnessed a shift in recent years from teaching basic digital skills in school toward a curriculum comprising more computer science (CS) concepts, including programming. This is in recognition of the rapid and extensive technological advances that necessitate a highly skilled workforce with advanced computational skills. However, we still have some way to go before CS is a subject taught to all children. A 2021 report by the Brookings Institution, a US think tank, reported that out of 219 countries they researched, 44 mandate that schools offer it as an elective or required course, 15 offer CS in select schools and some sub-national jurisdictions (states, provinces, etc.), and 160 (73%) are only piloting CS education programs or had no available evidence of in-school CS education [51]. The report demonstrates that there is a strong relationship between a country's income and its access to computing education: in 2021, 43% of students in high-income, 62% in upper-middle-income, 5% in lower-middle-income countries, but no students in low-income countries had access to compulsory computer science in primary and/or secondary education [51].

A more recent European Commission report demonstrated that almost all of its 37 investigated countries had introduced K–12 computing education in some form, with around half providing informatics as a discrete and mandatory subject within secondary education (Grades 6–12) [16]. Indeed, some countries in Europe, including Poland and Lithuania, have a decades-long history of the teaching of informatics. In the United States, computing education efforts are widespread, with initiatives at federal and state levels reported annually by Code.org and partners [11]. In Canada, several provinces have implemented computing education in school, emphasizing coding and computational thinking skills [18]. In Latin America, the situation is quite varied but developing positively [49] — Uruguay, for example, has had mandatory informatics since 2012. There have been many developments in Southeast and East Asia; for example, South Korea introduced computer programming as part of its mandatory secondary school curriculum in 2018. In Africa, Kenya has become the first African country to incorporate coding as a subject in primary and secondary schools under the new competency-based curriculum [50]. With many other countries also introducing CS, it is clear that the global movement towards curriculum change is gaining pace.

Developing computing/CS¹ in a country or state requires several policy actions. The aforementioned Brookings report [51] identified seven policy actions that a country should undertake to bring computer science to young people. Three of these are related to the development of curriculum and programs to teach ICT and CS, and two to the provision of in-service and pre-service teacher education. In-service professional development (PD) for existing teachers is obviously crucial. Teachers in some areas of the world may not be fully prepared even to use digital technology as a tool themselves [50], which will add barriers to them learning to teach computing. One study noted lower CS self-esteem amongst female teachers and primary teachers highlighting the need for supportive PD [53].

The last two policy actions recommended by Brooking promote the "availability of a specialized center or institution focused on CS education research and training; and … access to regular funding allocated to CS education by the legislative branch of government." [51]. England is one of the few countries studied by Brookings that had implemented all these policy actions, including the development of a national center and access to regular government funding. Specifically, England has established the National Centre for Computing Education, a government-funded national center focused on supporting computing teachers in England. In this article, we look at how this national center has been implemented, drawing out the implications for other countries, while reflecting on continuing challenges facing K–12 computing education around the world. We will first look at related work on teacher professional development in CS, then consider the context in England, and discuss the frame of reference that has been set up around content, progression and pedagogy, followed by the actual PD offer to teachers. The goal of the article is to provide takeaways for other countries embarking on a similar journey.

Related Work: K-12 Computing Teacher Professional Development

A variety of models of computing professional development (PD) have been implemented. In a review of 21 CS-specific PD studies across the US in 2015, Menekse highlighted that many were short summer programs, some as short as one week, with a lack of active learning evident [31]. However, K–12 computing PD courses can take many different forms—for example, online MOOC (massive open online course)-style PD [39,56], remotely-delivered but asynchronous courses [33], or face-to-face courses of various lengths [32]. Yet, equating PD with training alone risks forgetting many other approaches to professional learning that may impact teachers' confidence and classroom practice. In their review of 41 CS PD programs, Ni, Bausch and Benjamin focused on PD that draws on professional learning communities (PLCs) [37]. They found that 16 of the 41 programs they reviewed had some element of a PLC or community of practice (CoP), which aligns with a body of research that points to the fact that teachers benefit from the opportunity to connect through professional communities and collaborate (e.g. [6,13,26]).

Yet other approaches to PD that have been explored in the CS PD literature include working toward relevant qualifications [20,42], mentoring others or being mentored at school [44], peer coaching [8], co-designing activities [22] and action research [4]. Teachers may not wish to participate in only one form of PD, and the notion of a PD 'ecosystem' [17], whereby a range of different informal and formal learning opportunities are available to teachers, is a valuable way of offering networking, collaboration and support, in addition to more delivery-focused courses based around CS content or pedagogical content knowledge (PCK).

Combining CS workshops with classroom practice is one approach that emphasises putting into practice what is learned in more delivery-focused sessions and aligns with education research conducted as long ago as the 1970s and 1980s [24]. For example, a study of 106 CS teachers in Argentina involved PD designed around 50 hours of classes together with 10 compulsory hours of supported classroom practice [30], although researchers reflected that the amount of practice time was not sufficient for teachers with no prior CS experience. Another PD program with 40 primary school teachers in Germany modelled activities for pupils, and then teachers implemented what they had learned in the classroom while keeping in close contact with the program for several months [21]. Yet another example was a study whereby undergraduate CS students provided classroom support for teachers who had attended a one-week summer camp in the US [32]; results showed the continued PD provided by the situated classroom support was more effective than attending the summer institute alone. These approaches highlight the importance of classroom practice in applying and often adapting pedagogical approaches which may have been modelled or introduced in the PD; this encourages teacher agency as well as increased confidence.

Researchers have sought to explore features of CS PD which are effective for different groups of teachers. A two-year study on CS teachers and online PD classified teachers by their experience in teaching and CS teaching [39]. While teachers had a variety of opportunities for online PD, the study showed that experienced CS teachers felt they didn't need PD, novice CS teachers needed PCK-related PD, and non-specialist teachers needed subject knowledge training. They concluded that it is vital to accurately determine and understand teachers' backgrounds when planning PD [39]. In contrast, another study of online PD found that teachers consistently identified three aspects of PD as important: exchanging curriculum ideas, professional collaboration and networking, and learning CS content [31].

In this article, we specifically focus on computing PD in the context of England, as illustrated by the provision of a purposive, government-led, national center.

Computing in England

In the UK, education policy is devolved from the UK government to each of its four constituent nations (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), as shown in Figure 1. The Department for Education (DfE) is the name of the education ministry for schools in England only, and the NCCE and its activities specifically focus on education policy and practice in England. Approximately 84% of the UK's population lives in England, which is probably why the UK and England often mistakenly become conflated in the story of computing in England.

• Some History

Computing in England was by no means new when the new curriculum was implemented in September 2014. Qualifications in computing for 16–18-year-olds have been in existence in England since at least 1970 [10]. In 1988, it was reported that 78% of schools were offering computer studies as a qualification for 14–16-year-olds [55]. However, with the advent of personal computers, the content of the curriculum then shifted to the application and use of computers, and in 1998, Information and Communications Technology (ICT) became a mandatory part of the school curriculum for all children. By 2010, concerns were expressed about the technical level being presented to children, with complaints that all that children were learning was word processing and spreadsheet skills. The Royal Society report of 2012 [47] recommended that "every child should have the opportunity to learn Computing at school, including exposure to Computer Science as a rigorous academic discipline" [47] and the government's shift was announced hot on the heels of the publication of this influential report.

In September 2014, changes to England's national curriculum for computing were implemented [25], including the removal of the subject formerly known as Information and Communication Technology (ICT) which was replaced by Computing. Computing was described as having three elements: information technology, digital literacy, and computer science [47], although this division is arguably now outdated. As teachers had already been teaching ICT, the major new elements of the subject for teachers related to computer science topics such as programming, networks, and computer architecture. In response to the change, thousands of teachers have had to develop subject knowledge, new teaching strategies, assessment support and, above all, confidence.

• Development of a National, Specialized Center

The curriculum was introduced with only a moderate amount of investment in teacher PD (£1m p.a.) [15], based around 10 Regional Centres in universities, and a program of 'master teachers' who provided peer support [45]. A second Royal Society report in 2017 [46] was critical of the progress in the implementation of the computing curriculum and made several recommendations around a renewed focus on teacher professional development. Recommendation 9 of the report [46] reads:

Governments and industry need to play an active role in improving continuing professional development (CPD) for computing teachers, as exemplified by the Network of Excellence. Investment in a national network needs at least a tenfold increase to expand the reach, and to have rigorous evaluation measures in place to strengthen the offer of such networks. Importantly, financial support should be made available to schools to release staff to attend professional development opportunities.

Thus, in November 2018, the Department for Education invested £84 million in the National Centre for Computing Education (NCCE),² which was contracted to provide a four-year program for the development of teacher training and student resources in computing. This four-year contract was extended in its final year and has now been renewed for an additional three years. The establishment of the NCCE represented one of the most substantial moves toward educating all children in the discipline of computing in the world. The Centre was given far-reaching goals to achieve, including the provision of free, quality-assured curriculum-linked resources, online PD, and a network of computing hubs to lead the delivery of computing PD in local areas.

The NCCE was run until 2023 by a consortium of three organizations (STEM Learning, BCS, and Raspberry Pi Foundation) that came together as a central team to deliver the contract. Regionally, a set of 34 school-led hubs, known as Computing Hubs, were recruited in different areas of the country [36], each responsible for delivering the goals of the NCCE within their locality.

Framing K-12 Computing Education: Curriculum, Progression and Pedagogy

We now move to the work conducted by the NCCE, which included the development of curriculum materials. The ACM Computing Curriculum Task Force 2020 has set out a curriculum for computing taught at the university level that any country can adopt [9]. At the K-12 level, the US published comprehensive standards for computer science in 2003 (revised in 2011 and 2017), but the curriculum proposed for England in 2014 [15] was very short and lacked detail. In England at least, this raises questions about what should be taught and appropriate teaching strategies. There are many differences between countries in the answers to these questions, which may cause some difficulty for a country starting to establish a new curriculum in CS. In England, the NCCE needed to consider these questions before designing its national PD offer.

The Computing 'program of study' prescribed in England [14], detailing what should be taught from ages 5–16, is concise: it is mandatory for all children in state-funded education to study it. Its brevity gives much room for interpretation. For young people aged 14–18 studying elective courses in CS, there is less room for interpretation as the subject matter is stipulated in detail and assessed through national examinations.

To elaborate on the short program of study, the initial work of the center was focused on developing three key outputs:

A taxonomy providing parameters for the subject content
A curriculum journey that defined progression
A set of pedagogical principles for teaching computing at K-12

This work was conducted by the Raspberry Pi Foundation, one of the constituent organizations leading the NCCE consortium. Each output is described below.

• The Taxonomy

The subject 'Computing' (with a capitalized 'C' when used in England as a subject name) and the program of study that defines it [14] includes aspects of networks, data, computer systems, ethics as well as programming and algorithms; it also includes safety and security and being a responsible user of technology.

One of the first efforts toward expanding the brief program of study into a comprehensive curriculum in 2018 was the creation of a 10-topic taxonomy embracing all aspects of school computing for pupils aged 5–18. The taxonomy was iteratively developed through an examination of both the national curriculum documents and the content-assessed qualifications (known as 'GCSE' and 'A-Level' in England). The 10 topics agreed on were:

Computing systems
Networks
Creating media
Algorithms and data structures
Programming
Data and information
Impact of technology
Design and development
Safety and security
Effective use of tools

In 2022, Artificial Intelligence was added to the taxonomy, although not explicitly included in the curriculum in England, resulting in 11 topics overall.

Once the topics were established, the structure of the curriculum was organized by considering which of the 10 topics should thread through other topics. It was decided the impact of technology, design and development, safety and security, and effective use of tools were 'threads' that should be woven through other topics and not taught as stand-alone units of work. With Artificial Intelligence added, the final taxonomy consists of 11 topics and can be seen in Figure 2.

• The Curriculum Journey

Children learn over time, and when developing a sequenced curriculum for computing, we still have much to learn about the stages in which learning takes place, and how material should be sequenced. This leads us to 'progression' or 'learning progressions', which have been discussed extensively in mathematics and science education, but less so in computing. The US National Research Council defines learning progressions as "descriptions of the successively sophisticated ways of thinking about a topic that can follow one another as children learn about and investigate a topic over a broad span of time" [34].

The work conducted in this area to accompany detailed curriculum development was at three distinct levels:

A 'coarse' overarching curriculum journey for computing from 5–18 (Figure 3).
A more detailed progression of learning goals for specific subjects for a) programming, b) data and information, and c) computer systems and networks (Figure 4 shows a small extract of computer systems and networks topic).
A finely grained set of 84 individual 'learning graphs, developed for each unit of work, showing learning progressions from one learning objective to another. One example is shown in Figure 5.

• Pedagogical Principles

A review of pedagogical approaches for teaching computing was carried out at the outset of the program [54], alongside consultations with teachers, researchers and other stakeholders on key pedagogical principles that resonated in the classroom. The review covered much of the recent research in computing education pedagogy that could be applied to the K–12 context. This included: classroom strategies, such as worked examples, tracing code and peer instruction; context and environments such as physical computing and unplugged approaches; and ways to support learners, including work on classroom talk and alternate conceptions. This led to the development of a set of 12 pedagogical principles for computing that teachers could access and read, an easy-to-access poster, and the publication of the review detailing the underlying research these principles drew on [54]. The poster version of the 12 pedagogical principles is shown in Figure 6.

The development of a high-level taxonomy and layers of progression has provided a framework for developing a set of lesson plans and resources that will be described in the next section. The work on pedagogy adds guidance on ways of teaching to this framework. It draws on research in the field and informs the development of resources for teachers, including professional development.

• Governance and Oversight

As part of the governance of the NCCE, a Teaching and Learning Committee (TLC) had the responsibility for the quality assurance of materials, ensuring a process of piloting new materials and reviewing existing ones. All resources were reviewed and updated as needed on an annual basis. A Subject Practitioner Panel made up of teachers was also consulted on resource development and appropriateness of materials at regular intervals.

The actual resources and PD are described next.

PD Available for Teachers

The existence of a government-funded national center has meant that resources and extensive provision of PD could be developed and rolled out across the whole country. These are built on the framework of content and pedagogy described previously. The program offered by the NCCE consists of a range of types of PD, for different audiences and using different approaches, as well as comprehensive resources for teaching, and a community of practice. This exemplifies a broad and holistic perspective on PD [17,43] beyond just courses and workshops. Within the NCCE, PD includes the following:

training in the form of courses and workshops (described here as traditional PD)
adaptable curriculum resources
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) resources
communities of practice
accreditation for individuals (certification)
accreditation for schools (quality mark)

Figure 7 shows the author's interpretation of the NCCE offer to teachers and schools.

• Traditional PD: Courses and Workshops

To deliver the PD offer, 34 school hubs were created [36], acting as primary deliverers of the training offer, together with a central team that creates training resources, trains the trainers/facilitators, and also offers courses. School hubs have concrete deliverables relating to the number of teachers they engage with face-to-face and remote synchronous PD opportunities. The training offered to teachers is grouped by audience, with a wide variety of courses developed for primary (K–5) and secondary (Grades 6–12) teachers, with various pathways to assist teachers at various stages of their computing careers. In addition, over 30 online (asynchronous) PD courses, which teachers could take over 3–4 weeks, were developed on a range of topics, including programming, mathematics and logic, pedagogy, physical computing, data representation and security. Synchronous (remote and online) courses on offer cover subject matter as well as PCK. Most face-to-face courses last for a day or a few hours, stretching to longer for those with a residential component. Examples of course titles can be seen in Table 1.³

Facilitator training is also available for teachers to learn to deliver PD, leading to a facilitator certificate. In addition, a team of Subject Matter Experts, employed by the NCCE, offer visits to schools and individual guidance on what parts of the offer might be appropriate to a school.

• Accreditation

For the individual: Teachers need recognition for their efforts to move from a non-specialist to specialist teacher of computing in school. Three types of certifications have been made available through the NCCE: a primary certificate, a secondary certificate and a CS Accelerator certification for teachers of the 'GCSE in Computer Science.' The latter is examined by a test in computer science. All certificates require attendance at a range of PD, and engagement with the resources and community.

For the school: The NCCE has developed a quality mark for schools that are providers of high-quality computing education. The Computing Quality Framework for schools comprises a set of seven different areas in which schools should excel to receive accreditation, including leadership and vision around computing education, teaching and learning, staff development, careers education, and equity, diversity and inclusion. According to the NCCE's 2022 Impact report, 1,300 school leaders have committed to working toward this accreditation [35].

• Curriculum Resources

In England, phases of school education are divided into 'key stages.' A comprehensive curriculum was derived from the taxonomy (Figure 2), including over 500 hours of K–10 (the first four key stages) lessons. A key stage is broken into years of work, then into units, and then lessons, with learning graphs developed for each unit of work. For a one-hour lesson, a lesson plan, plus presentations, assessment and homework tasks are provided, with a learning graph (see Figure 5) and teacher guide for each unit. Developing material for the curriculum included close attention to progression, as illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Each stop on the journey shown in Figure 3 links to specific taxonomy topics. Teacher guides were developed that explain the approaches taken and provide links to pedagogy recommendations. All resources are editable so that teachers can modify them to suit their students and contexts. Material for Grades 11–12 (later extended to Grades 9–10) was developed through a separate learning platform called Isaac Computer Science [54].

Specific resources for computing that schools may find hard to access are physical computing resources. Previous research has indicated that being able to learn from working directly with devices such as the BBC micro:bit and the Raspberry Pi can be very engaging, and that this engagement can lead to more learning [23]. In a world where software and resources can be obtained free of charge, there will always be a cost associated with physical computing devices. An early part of the NCCE design was to be able to put together a kit that can be loaned to schools for use in computing lessons. This included equipment, lesson resources and training for teachers. A class kit was put together, with different devices and resources for primary-aged (elementary), lower secondary (middle) and upper secondary (high school) students. The school hubs manage schemes whereby schools can loan the kits for a few months while they deliver specific units of work that use them, and then return them. Figure 8 shows an extract from a unit of work using the BBC micro:bit.

• Pedagogy Resources

Another area that was a focus within the NCCE was the provision of summaries of research findings to teachers in ways that they could absorb quickly, as indicated by work on translational research within teacher education [40,52]. To achieve this, 'Quick Reads' were developed on a range of different topics, including cognitive load, peer instruction, PRIMM (predict-run-investigate-modify-make), semantic wave theory, and more. (Figure 9 shows part of a Quick Read on pair programming). A Quick Read is a 2-page handout including an exposition of the concept, a summary of relevant research, and pointers for further investigation. Each Quick Read uses diagrams and bullet-point summaries to explain the concepts in an accessible way.

Other pedagogy resources included a 'Big Book' expanding on the pedagogy resources, a podcast for teachers, and a newsletter focused on recent research.

• Communities of Practice

Computing at School (CAS) is a grass-roots community of practice, established in 2008 [5], where computing teachers can support each other, share experiences, and contribute resources. The CAS community is underpinned by the principles of situated learning theory [44] and "models an innovative approach to professional learning for computing teachers based on community and peer support" [37]. Until 2023, when the leadership of the NCCE changed, CAS was responsible for community development and teacher support as part of the NCCE. This involved local in-person meetings, which switched to being online during the coronavirus pandemic, and a website where teachers could upload their own resources for sharing with others. As Ni, Bausch, and Benjamin have highlighted [37], professional learning communities (PLCs) and CoPs are valuable in helping to develop teacher identity. Within the CAS CoP, there are many smaller PLCs which may be categorized by geography (local teachers coming together), interest (for example, assessment, research, or physical computing) or stages of learning (for example, primary, secondary). Within the NCCE, PLCs for teachers are also provided through the school-led Hubs, some of which have run regional conferences for teachers in their area to come together and share practice.

In summary, the offer to computing teachers provided by the NCCE goes beyond traditional PD in the form of courses, and extends also to CoPs, models of accreditation, and provision of support in the form of editable resources, thus providing a holistic PD offer.

Impact of the Center

Here we review existing evidence toward the impact of the NCCE. Any government-led initiative brings with it the need for much internal reporting, but there has been limited external reporting on the impact of the NCCE and little published academic work that even mentions the NCCE (exceptions are [2,19,41]). Therefore, reports of the Center's impact are limited to participation and access statistics.

The NCCE has shared just two official impact reports since its inception in 2018—one reporting on 2018–2020 [35] and the second on 2018–2022 [36]. These are publicly available and give numbers of participants engaging with the NCCE in these periods. The reports claim that by 2020, 3,000 secondary and 8,500 primary schools had engaged with the NCCE to some degree, and by 2022, more than 20,000 schools in total. By 2022, over 60,000 educators had attended some PD with the center. To put these numbers in context, there are 24,413 schools in England with 3,458 secondary schools (excluding independent schools) [3]. It is not possible to know exactly how many potential computing educators there are, given the high number of teachers who teach several different subjects, particularly in primary education. Nevertheless, the reported data indicates that the impact of the NCCE has been far-reaching.

To cite more examples from the report, the reach of the NCCE is consistent across all areas of its activity. By the summer of 2022, the Teach Computing Curriculum had been downloaded by 13,500 schools, the CAS network had delivered over 28,000 activities, and the pedagogy-focused 'Quick Reads' had been downloaded 43,000 times [36]. Participants report their impression of impact by answering questionnaires following events, and again sometime later. The NCCE reports that 84% of teachers using the curriculum resources report they have improved the quality of their teaching, 94% of those attending CAS events said that they had more confidence in their role, and 73% of teachers taking part in the secondary certificate known as the CS Accelerator said it had already had an impact on their students [36]. However, a detailed breakdown of teacher demographics or experience is not available in this high-level report, and neither is the raw data from which these statistics are derived. In total, the NCCE reported that it had reached approximately five million students in England, of which 700,000 were from areas of high social disadvantage [36], which are discrete areas identified by the government as having low social mobility.

An independent study investigated teachers' general perspectives on computing education in the UK and Ireland with 329 teachers from England completing a national survey [28]. Within the questionnaire were questions about regional PD opportunities. Teachers were asked which of the NCCE programs they had engaged with, and in case they had not, whether they 'would like to,' or 'had no need to'. Summary data from this question is shown in Figure 10. From this sample of teachers in England, 75% have used the curriculum resources, 61% the online, asynchronous, courses, 58% the pedagogy resources, and 49% have accessed the more traditional offer of face-to-face or remotely delivered synchronous courses. This demonstrates the value of a broad offer and shows that teachers can benefit from the program in different ways. Overall, 88% of those responding had used one or more of the NCCE resources available.

Other data shows an increase in the number of students achieving a GCSE in Computer Science at age 16 from 80,027 in 2019 to 90,558 in 2023 (a 13% increase), which could potentially also show an impact of the NCCE. There is still a wide gender gap at this level, with only 21% of those taking GCSE identifying as female, although females do achieve higher grades [25].

Key Takeaways

Here we review the experiences in England, the model of PD implemented, and opportunities for other regions and nations to learn from this.

• The Value of a Holistic PD Offer

Much research has claimed that attending courses and workshops without some situated learning in classroom practice is not effective in developing teachers' practice [12,24], can be categorized as 'transmissive' rather than 'transformative,' [27] and can imply a deficit model [26]. However, measuring course attendance and the levels of traditional PD (training) has been one of the main ways available to the NCCE to measure its effectiveness. We have demonstrated here, however, that the NCCE does have a broad and holistic PD offer, in the spirit of Falkner et al.'s 'ecosystem' [17], and the results from the independent survey suggest that access to 'always-available' aspects such as online courses and curriculum and pedagogy resources are popular with time-pressed teachers. The takeaway here is the importance of a broad offer of PD that teachers can access in varied ways depending on their needs, circumstances, and experience.

• Using High-Level Taxonomies to Compare Global Approaches

The published computing program of study for England has broad overall aims, for example: 'All pupils can understand and apply the fundamental principles and concepts of computer science, including abstraction, logic, algorithms and data representation.' [14] The development of a taxonomy, which was then developed systematically into a full curriculum for children aged 5–16, has brought clarity and specificity to what is taught in England.

The taxonomy offers a high-level view of specific areas of content that can be incorporated into schemes of work and lesson resources. It can also serve as a point of comparison with similar high-level frameworks in the US and Europe. In Table 2, the NCCE taxonomy is compared to the 11-strand Informatics Framework for Europe [7] and the five concepts in the USA's K–12 CS framework [38]. The commonalities evident between these three high-level frameworks of computing content at K–12 are shaded in Table 2 and highlight a shared understanding of what should be taught at the K–12 level. Further research and policy work would be useful to develop this understanding of core content.

• Resources Can be Used Beyond England

Although the NCCE is internally focused on England and its schools and teachers, some of the outputs described in the earlier section on taxonomy, progression and pedagogy might make a global contribution. In terms of pedagogy, the principles for computing education in England have already been received well elsewhere, and the resources can be downloaded freely. Indeed, the 12 pedagogical principles were shared at a recent CSTA conference keynote, and the CSTA Autumn Summit was based around them. The Raspberry Pi Foundation's Hello World magazine produced a 'Big Book of Pedagogy' for teachers, based around the 12 principles, and ad hoc reports suggest that this has been used by many teachers globally to help them reflect on their teaching.

The NCCE's work on progression, from the high-level journey to the detailed learning graphs, is yet to be thoroughly tested through a research program, but this provides an opportunity for any computing education researcher interested in the learning journey. It would be easy to adapt to different jurisdictions, for example by changing the names of teaching levels.

Much research has claimed that attending courses and workshops without some situated learning in classroom practice is not effective in developing teachers' practice … can be categorized as 'transmissive' rather than 'transformative' …, and can imply a deficit model …

Curriculum resources for teaching developed through the NCCE are editable and freely available. These could be used as stand-alone units of work depending on a country's curriculum. Overall, there are a huge number of resources now available that could be adapted for use in other national contexts.

• Top-Down or Bottom-Up?

The K–12 computing education work in England can also inspire discussion about whether a top-down or bottom-up approach is most effective for implementing computing education. Chronologically, the earlier activity in England's journey was bottom-up: from the development of CAS in 2008 with an advocacy role [5], through the growth of a grassroots CoP [44], through to an implemented PD program based on teacher peer support [45].

The NCCE, however, is a time-limited government-funded programme, delivering professional development to teachers, and working to ambitious key performance indicators around reach and participation. Its activity is essentially top-down. The government investment has been essential to enable large numbers of teachers to access high-quality PD and supports the fact that there is a mandatory computing entitlement for all children from the primary level. With the NCCE focused on reach, initiatives such as CAS—not part of the NCCE since April 2023 and now independent of government funding—provide long-term professional networks and specialist groups focusing on interests such as physical computing, AI or research. It also enables teachers to share their own resources with the community. Thus, any organization such as the NCCE needs to be part of a wider ecosystem. As well as leadership from the ministry of education, we need networks of teachers, researchers, resource developers, and teacher educators, working together to facilitate teacher agency and critical inquiry. We need both top-down and bottom-up.

• Playing the Long Game

One of the challenges for the NCCE was initially to reach primary (K-5) educators who have to cover many different subject areas and may struggle to find time to attend subject-specific PD as a non-specialist. Many PD courses have been developed to help primary teachers take their first steps with computing, and the extent to which these have addressed the issue has not been reported. At some point teachers and parents will have studied computing in school themselves, and it will seem more familiar, but with the subject introduced only in 2014, we are not at that point yet. A lesson for policy makers is that the process of introducing a new subject takes time to bed in, and longer than we may at first anticipate.

A longer-term issue relates to gender balance in computing. While a mandatory computing curriculum should facilitate equity over time, it appears that once the subject becomes elective, gender balance remains an issue for computing [25]. Female relative underperformance and uptake in computer science at age 14 is linked to a wide variety of factors which may link to curriculum content [25]. However, gender balance remains one of the challenges for the second phase of the NCCE, which began in April 2023 with a significant focus on delivering PD that focuses on more gender-balanced uptake in post-14 qualifications.

• The Need for Research

England had the opportunity to investigate many aspects of the teaching and learning of computing in some depth over several years. Introducing Computing into the curriculum in England in 2014 was a large-scale national experiment, predating many other countries taking the same step. Making a subject mandatory in school for all children from a young age offers 'equality of opportunity' [29], as elective computing and self-selection often reduce diversity, despite our best efforts. Despite the opportunity to investigate the impact of this national experiment [41], research into the impact of mandatory computing on children's outcomes and aspirations over time has not been a government priority, nor included in the remit of the NCCE. Neither has investigating what type of professional development for computing is most effective on learning outcomes. This is unfortunate and reflects the low priority given to research in K–12 computing education in the UK by national funders. More research is needed to investigate the impact over time of this substantial curriculum change and government investment [2], so that other jurisdictions can build any insights into their own policy decisions. We need to further understand the barriers to and challenges of reaching all schools in a country, how to better support primary school educators, and how to support computing education in an environment where many teachers are leaving the profession [1], and we are not meeting targets to recruit new ones [48]. Policymakers in other countries planning such a venture should invest in robust evaluation programs, in order that data can be collected rigorously on the impact of national efforts. These issues of policy and practice will resonate with other nations with similar goals.

Conclusion

The NCCE is a national government-funded program to train a nation of teachers to teach computing to all children. It models a holistic approach to professional development for teachers and demonstrates what a relatively small country can achieve with directed funding for initiatives at scale.

A longer-term issue relates to gender balance in computing. While a mandatory computing curriculum should facilitate equity over time, it appears that once the subject becomes elective, gender balance remains an issue for computing.

With England an early adopter of mandatory computing in the curriculum, there may be some debate as to whether the curriculum implemented in 2014, with qualifications introduced in 2015, has stood the test of time, or needs an update. For example, how can we introduce data-driven approaches to programming and AI literacy? The progress of the NCCE described in this article relates to the period 2018–2023 when the NCCE was run by a consortium of three complementary organizations. From 2023, a second phase of the NCCE is being implemented by a single organization, and further impact reports may ensue from that organization over time.

Mandatory computing in England has now been in place for a decade. Although there may still be challenges in operationalizing the provision of PD for teachers, great progress has been made. While there is a need for a more detailed understanding of the impact, the overall direction is positive. Before too long, young adults will be emerging from the education system having learned computing throughout their formative years, putting computing education on par with other subjects, such as mathematics, history, geography and science.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to James Robinson of the Raspberry Pi Foundation for his contributions, and to all the colleagues, too numerous to mention, that worked on various aspects of the NCCE described in this article between 2018 and 2023.

References

1. Adams, R. Record numbers of teachers in England quitting profession, figures show, The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jun/08/teachers-england-schools-figures-department-education-survey; accessed 2024 Jan 18.

2. Becker, B.A., Bradley, S., Maguire, J., Black, M., Crick, T., Saqr, M., Sentance, S. and Quille, K. Computing Education Research in the UK & Ireland. In Apiola, M., López-Pernas, S., and Saqr, M. (eds.) Past Present and Future of Computing Education Research : A Global Perspective. (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2023), 421–479, doi:10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_19.

3. British Education Statistics Association. Key UK Education. Statistics. https://www.besa.org.uk/key-uk-education-statistics/; accessed 2024 Jan 24.

4. Brandes, O. and Armoni, M. Using Action Research to Distill Research-Based Segments of Pedagogical Content Knowledge of K-12 Computer Science Teachers. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2019), 485–491 doi:10.1145/3304221.3319773.

5. Brown, N., Kölling, M., Crick, T., Jones, S.P., Humphreys, S. and Sentance, S. Bringing Computer Science Back Into Schools: Lessons from the UK. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2013) (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2013, 485–491).

6. Butler, D.L., Lauscher, H.N., Jarvis-Selinger, S. and Beckingham B. Collaboration and self-regulation in teachers' professional development. Teacher and Teacher Education. 20, 5, (2004), 435–455; doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.04.003.

7. Caspersen, M., Gal-Ezer, J., McGettrick, A. and Nardelli, E. Informatics Education for School: A European Initiative. ACM Inroads. 14, 1 (2023), 49–53'; doi:10.1145/3583088.

8. Cateté, V., Alvarez, L., Isvik, A., Milliken, A., Hill, M. and Barnes, T. Aligning Theory and Practice in Teacher Professional Development for Computer Science. In Proceedings of the 20th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2020), 1–11; doi:10.1145/3428029.3428560.

9. CC2020 Task Force Computing Curricula 2020. Paradigms for Global Computing Education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2020).

10. Clark, M.A.C. and Boyle, R.D. Computer Science in English High Schools: We Lost the S, Now the C Is Going. In Proceedings of the International Conference in Informatics in Secondary Schools - Evolution and Perspectives (ISSEP 2006) (2006); doi:10.1007/11915355_8.

11. Code.org, CSTA and ECEP Alliance. 2023 State of Computer Science Report. Code.org (2023). https://advocacy.code.org/stateofcs; accessed 2024 Jan 07.

12. Cordingley, P. Why is evidence about teachers' professional learning and continuing professional development observed more in the breach than reality? Why has it not stuck? In: McLaughlin, C., Cordingley, P., McLellan, R., and Baumfield, V. (eds.) Making a Difference: Turning Teacher Learning Inside Out (Cambridge Education Research) Making a Difference: Turning Teacher Learning Inside Out (Cambridge Education Research). Cambridge University Press, 2015), 53–76.

13. Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Rundell, B. and Evans, D. The impact of collaborative CPD on classroom teaching and learning: how does collaborative continuing professional development (CPD) for teachers of the 5–16 age range affect teaching and learning? Social Research Unit, Institute of Education (2003). Available at http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Portals/0/PDF%20reviews%20and%20summaries/CPD_rv1.pdf; accessed 2024 Jan 18.

14. Department for Education. National Curriculum for England: Computing programme of study. Department for Education, London, England (2013); https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study; accessed 2024 Jan 18.

15. Department for Education. Teaching the new computing curriculum, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/teaching-the-new-computing-curriculum, (2013); accessed 2024 Mar 01.

16. European Education and Culture Executive Agency (European Commission). Informatics education at school in Europe. Publications Office of the European Union (2022). https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/publications/informatics-education-school-europe; accessed 2024 Jan 24.

17. Falkner, K., Vivian, R. and Williams, S.-A. An ecosystem approach to teacher professional development within computer science. Computer Science Education 28, 4, (2018), 303–344; doi:10.1080/08993408.2018.1522858.

18. Floyd, S. The Past, Present, and Future Direction of Computer Science Curriculum in K-12 Education. The University of Western Ontario (Canada) (2022). Unpublished doctoral thesis; https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11111&context=etd; accessed 2024 Mar 01.

19. Fowler, B. and Vegas, E. How England Implemented Its Computer Science Education Program. Center for Universal Education at The Brookings Institution (2021). Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-england-implemented-its-computer-science-education-program. Accessed 2023 October 31.

20. Gal-Ezer, J. and Zur, E. What (else) should CS educators know? revisited. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSE '13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY USA, 83–86. doi:10.1145/2532748.2532757.

21. Geldreich, K., Talbot, M. and Hubwieser, P. Off to new shores: preparing primary school teachers for teaching algorithmics and programming. In: Proceedings of the 13th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2018), pp. 1–6; doi:10.1145/3265757.3265783.

22. Grover, S., Cateté, V., Barnes, T., Hill, M., Ledeczi, A. and Broll, B. FIRST Principles to Design for Online, Synchronous High School CS Teacher Training and Curriculum Co-Design. In: Proceedings of the 20th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. pp. 1–5 Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2020); doi:10.1145/3428029.3428059.

23. Hodges, S., Sentance, S., Finney, J. and Ball, T. Physical Computing: A Key Element of Modern Computer Science Education. Computer. 53, 4, 20–30 (2020). doi:10.1109/MC.2019.2935058.

24. Joyce, B. and Showers, B. Improving Inservice Training: The Messages of Research. Education Leadership. 37, 5 (1980), 379–85.

25. Kemp, P.E.J., Wong, B. and Berry, M.G. Female Performance and Participation in Computer Science: A National Picture. ACM Transactions on Computing Education. 20, 1 (2020), 1–28, doi:10.1145/3366016.

26. Kennedy, A. Models of Continuing Professional Development: a framework for analysis. Journal of in-service education. 31, 2, (2005), 235–250.

27. Kennedy, A. Understanding continuing professional development: the need for theory to impact on policy and practice. Professional Development in Education. 40, 5 (2014), 688–697, doi:10.1080/19415257.2014.955122.

28. Kirby, D. UK and Ireland Computing Teachers' Survey: results published. https://computingeducationresearch.org/uk-and-ireland-computing-teachers-survey-results-published/. 24th April 2023. Raspberry Pi Computing Education Research Centre; accessed 2023 July 31.

29. Levinson, M., Geron, T. and Brighouse, H. Conceptions of Educational Equity. AERA Open. 8, 23328584221121344 (2022). doi:10.1177/23328584221121344.

30. Martinez, M.C., Gomez, M.J., Moresi, M. and Benotti, L. Lessons Learned on Computer Science Teachers Professional Development. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 77–8; doi:10.1145/2899415.2899460.

31. Menekse, M. Computer science teacher professional development in the United States: a review of studies published between 2004 and 2014. Computer Science Education. 25, 4, (2015), 325–350; doi:10.1080/08993408.2015.1111645.

32. Mouza, C., Codding, D. and Pollock, L. Investigating the impact of research-based professional development on teacher learning and classroom practice: Findings from computer science education. Computers and Education. 186, 104530 (2022), doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104530.

33. Mouza, C., Mead, H., Alkhateeb, B. and Pollock, L. A. Virtual Professional Development Program for Computer Science Education During COVID-19. TechTrends. 66, 3 (2022), 436–449, doi:10.1007/s11528-022-00731-y.

34. National Research Council. Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. (2007). doi:10.17226/11625.

35. NCCE. NCCE Impact Report 2018–2022. National Centre for Computing Education (2022). Available at https://static.teachcomputing.org/NCCE-Impact-report-2022.pdf. Accessed 2023 July 25

36. NCCE. NCCE Impact Report 2020. National Centre for Computing Education (2020). Available at https://static.teachcomputing.org/NCCE_Impact_Report_Final.pdf. Accessed 2023 July 25

37. Ni, L., Bausch and G., Benjamin, R. Computer science teacher professional development and professional learning communities: a review of the research literature. Computer Science Education. 33, 1, 29–60 (2023). doi:10.1080/08993408.2021.1993666.

38. Parker, M.C. and DeLyser, L.A. Concepts and Practices: Designing and Developing A Modern K-12 CS Framework. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. pp. 453–458 Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2017); doi:10.1145/3017680.3017778.

39. Qian, Y., Hambrusch, S., Yadav, A. and Gretter, S. Who Needs What: Recommendations for Designing Effective Online Professional Development for Computer Science Teachers. Journal of Research of Technology in Education. 50, 2 (2018), 164–181; doi:10.1080/15391523.2018.1433565.

40. Rycroft-Smith, L. Knowledge brokering to bridge the research-practice gap in education: Where are we now? Review of Education. 10, 1, e3341 (BERA, 2022); doi:10.1002/rev3.3341.

41. Sentance, S. Moving to mainstream: developing computing for all. In: Proceedings of the 14th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. ACM, Glasgow Scotland UK (2019), 1–2; doi:10.1145/3361721.3362117.

42. Sentance, S. and Csizmadia, A. Professional Recognition Matters: Certification for In-service Computer Science Teachers. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, Seattle, Washington, USA (2017), 537–542; doi:10.1145/3017680.3017752.

43. Sentance, S., Dorling, M. and McNicol, A. Computer science in secondary schools in the UK: Ways to empower teachers. In: International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives. pp. 15–30 Springer (2013).

44. Sentance, S. and Humphreys, S. Understanding professional learning for Computing teachers from the perspective of situated learning. Computer Science Education. 28, 4, 345–370 (2018). doi:10.1080/08993408.2018.1525233.

45. Sentance, S. and Humphreys, S., Dorling, M. The Network of Teaching Excellence in Computer Science and Master Teachers. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 80–88; doi: 10.1145/2670757.2670789

46. The Royal Society. After The Reboot: Computing education in UK Schools. The Royal Society, London (2017); https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/computing-education; accessed 2023 Sep 13'

47. The Royal Society. Shut Down or Restart? The way forward for Computing in UK Schools. (2012). Available at https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/computing-in-schools/report/; accessed 2023 Sep 13.

48. UK Government. Initial Teacher Training Census, Academic year 2023/24; https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/initial-teacher-training-census/2023-24; accessed 2024 March 11.

49. UNESCO. Computer science as a curriculum subject in Latin America. UNESCO (2023); available at https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386093; accessed 2024 Jan 14.

50. UNESCO. Technology in Education: A tool in whose terms. Global Education Monitoring (GEM) Report. UNESCO (2023). Available at: https://www.unesco.org/gem-report/en/technology; accessed 2024 May 17.

51. Vegas, E., Hansen, M. and Fowler, B. Building skills for life. How to expand and improve computer science education around the world, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Building_skills_for_life.pdf, (2021); accessed 2023 Jul 25.

52. la Velle, L. Translational research and knowledge mobilization in teacher education: towards a 'clinical', evidence-based profession? Journal of Education for Teaching. 41, 5, 460–463 (2015); doi:10.1080/02607476.2015.1105534.

53. Vivian, R., Quille, K., McGill, M.M., Falkner, K., Sentance, S., Barksdale, S., Busuttil, L., Cole, E., Liebe, C. and Maiorana, F., An International Pilot Study of K-12 Teachers' Computer Science Self-esteem. In Proceedings; of the 2020 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 117–123). (2020).

54. Waite, J. and Sentance, S. Teaching programming in schools: A review of approaches and strategies. Raspberry Pi Found. (2021); https://www.raspberrypi.org/app/uploads/2021/11/Teaching-programming-in-schools-pedagogy-review-Raspberry-Pi-Foundation.pdf; accessed 2023 Mar 13.

55. Wellington, J.J. Computer education in secondary schools: an electronic survey. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning; 4, 1, (1988), 22–33; doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.1988.tb00090.x.

56. Yurkofsky, M.M., Blum-Smith, S., and Brennan, K. Expanding outcomes: Exploring varied conceptions of teacher learning in an online professional development experience. Teachers and Teacher Education. 82 (2019), 1–13, doi:10.1016/j.tate.2019.03.002.

Author

Sue Sentance
University of Cambridge
Raspberry Pi Computing Education Research Centre
Department of Computer Science and Technology
15 JJ Thomson Avenue
Cambridge CB3 0FD

Footnotes

1. For the purposes of this article, computing and CS are used interchangeably, but 'Computing' is the term used in England to describe the subject taught to children aged 5–14

2. The UK Treasury pledged £100m including the devolved nations, of which England received £84m

3. This article covers the NCCE's operations to March 2023; new courses are added regularly, and the current offer can be viewed on the Center's website at http://teachcomputing.org

Figures

Figure 1. Map of the four countries that make up the UK (source: https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/social-work-law-and-uk-regulation/content-section-2 ).