Computational Thinking in Elementary School: Analysis of Teacher Readiness and Implementation Strategy in the Indonesian Context

Fitri Kania; Asep Dikdik

doi:10.22460/jiml.v8i4.29866

Authors

Fitri Kania Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia
Asep Dikdik Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0009-0001-2653-0742

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22460/jiml.v8i4.29866

Keywords:

Computational Thinking , Teacher Readiness , Curriculum Implementation , Elementary School , Teacher Expertise

Abstract

Computational thinking (CT) has been recognized globally as a fundamental 21st-century competency essential for elementary students. However, research analyzing teacher readiness and implementation experiences in the Indonesian context remains limited. This research aims to analyze how teachers with different expertise levels understand, implement, and perceive computational thinking instruction at grades 3-4 in Indonesian elementary schools. This study adopted a qualitative phenomenological content analysis approach with 12 semi-structured interview questions administered to three elementary school teachers with varying expertise levels (expert, intermediate, novice). Teachers were selected using purposive sampling from elementary schools in Bandung. The interview data were analyzed systematically using ATLAS.ti 24 software, generating 36 individual codes across five major themes: conceptual understanding, teaching strategies, implementation challenges, perception of effectiveness, and professional development needs. The findings reveal significant expertise stratification among teachers, with distinct patterns of CT understanding and implementation approaches. All three teachers demonstrated genuine commitment to student learning and acknowledged that professional development training alone is insufficient without institutional support. Expert teachers showed comprehensive understanding, intermediate teachers demonstrated practical adaptation, and novice teachers showed foundational approaches with positive agency. This research provides evidence-based insights into teacher readiness essential for formulating systemic recommendations. Successful CT implementation requires differentiated professional development, structured mentoring systems, institutional support mechanisms, and long-term policy commitments.

References

Ahmad, N., & Farley, H. (2020). Digital transformation and sustainability in STEM education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(3), 543-559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09443-x

Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2020). Developing representational fluency in teaching computational thinking. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1519-1537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09770-9

Balanskat, A., & Punie, Y. (2021). Mainstreaming computational thinking in European schools: Designs, practices, and policies. Policy Brief. Joint Research Centre, European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2760/126278

Bazeley, P. (2021). Integrating analyses in mixed methods research. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802571

Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Dettori, G., Ferrari, A., Engelhardt, K., Kampylis, P., & Punie, Y. (2022). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education: Implications for policy and practice. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC). https://doi.org/10.2760/104994

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589-597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

Bryman, A. (2021). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Cahyadi, A., Harsya, H., & Syukur, A. (2021). Educational technology framework for Indonesian schools: Integration of digital literacy and local wisdom. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4567-4585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10515-3

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2021). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2023). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/Effective_Teacher_Professional_Development_REPORT.pdf

DeJonckheere, M., & Vaughn, L. M. (2020). Semi-structured interviewing in primary care research: A balance of relationship and rigour. Family Medicine and Community Health, 8(2), e000057. https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2019-000057

Doleck, T., Bazelais, P., & Lemay, D. J. (2020). Algorithmic problem-solving, fundamental programming concepts, and success in introductory programming. Computers & Education, 146, 103751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103751

Enriquez, M. A. S. (2021). Students' online learning challenges during the pandemic and how they cope with them: The case of the Philippines. Education and Information Technologies, 25(4), 2595-2611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10589-x

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbruch, A. T. (2020). Teacher perspectives on the design of online professional development environments. Tech Trends, 64(5), 716-725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00505-6

Eshach, H., & Bitterman, H. (2020). Science literacy in elementary schools: Attitudes, beliefs and self-efficacy of teachers. Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 18-25.

Friese, S. (2023). ATLAS.ti 24: User Guide. ATLAS.ti Scientific Software. https://atlasti.com/guides/atlasti-user-guide

Fullan, M. (2021). Nuance: Why some leaders succeed and others fail. Corwin Press.

García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Mendes, A. J. (2020). Exploring the computational thinking effects in pre-university education. Computers & Education, 144, 103607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103607

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2021). Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come. Computer Science Education, 31(3), 276-292. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2021.1925696

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2020). The paradigm dialog. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 17-45). SAGE Publications.

Guzey, S. S., Harlin, N., & Moore, T. J. (2020). Computational thinking in elementary classrooms: Designing an STEM professional development program. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00255-y

Harper, M., & Cole, P. (2021). Member checking: Can benefits be gained similar to group therapy? The Qualitative Report, 17(2), 510-517.

Heriyanto, H., & Supratman, S. (2023). Barriers and opportunities of computational thinking implementation in Indonesian primary schools. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 26(1), 45-62. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27218929

Khandkar, S. H. (2020). Open coding. University of Calgary, 23, 2009-2023.

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2021). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303

Konopásek, Z., & Krejčí, J. (2020). Making thinking visible with ATLAS.ti: Computer-assisted qualitative analysis as textual practices. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection (pp. 405-421).

Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2021). A validity and reliability study of the Computational Thinking Scales (CTS). Computers & Education, 126, 107-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.007

Lesseig, K., Slavit, D., Holmlund Nelson, T., Lowell, A. L., & Grant, I. (2021). Using teacher design teams to support learning from classroom data. Computers & Education, 103, 85-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.011

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2021). The constructivist credo. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315173252

Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2020). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 107, 105686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.105686

Maloney, J. H., Resnick, M., Sun, Y., Burd, L., & Silverman, B. (2021). Scratch: A sneak preview. In Second International Conference on Creating, Connecting and Collaborating through Computing. IEEE.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2021). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2020). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Moustakas, C. E. (2019). Phenomenological research methods. SAGE Publications.

Mouza, C., Karchegi, K., & Cheng, H. N. Z. (2020). Early childhood teachers' development of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 11(1), 4-29.

Munadi, S., Senen, S. H., & Sopandi, W. (2020). The effectiveness of STEM education on students' critical thinking skills and understanding. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 12(3), 291-302.

NCTM. (2020). Catalyzing change in high school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. https://www.nctm.org/catalyzing-change/

Nouri, J., Spindler, M., Fors, U., & Weltner, M. (2020). Computational thinking in health sciences education. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 159-165).

Park, S. Y., Nam, M. W., & Cha, S. B. (2021). University students' behavioral intention to use mobile learning: Measuring an extended UTAUT model. Educational Technology International, 12(1), 1-24.

Patton, M. Q. (2021). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2020). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029001004

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2021). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2020). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to understanding teachers' adoption of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 128, 13-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009

Schreier, M. (2021). Qualitative content analysis in practice (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529657357

Selwyn, N. (2021). Digital technology and education: The hype cycle and the revolution that didn't happen. British Journal of Educational Studies, 69(2), 113-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2021.1869324

Selwyn, N., & Macleod, K. (2020). Artificial intelligence and education: Critical perspectives on learning, teaching and technology. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1686017

Silver, C., & Woolf, N. H. (2020). Focusing on data: Using ATLAS.ti and MAXQDA for research. In ATLAS.ti and MAXQDA User Conference Proceedings.

Smith, B., & McGannon, K. R. (2021). Developing quality criteria for action research: Participatory and relational considerations. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 40(3), 118-126.

Sudarma, I. K., Nada, I. N., & Sentosa, I. K. (2022). Computational thinking implementation in elementary school: Mapping teacher competencies and training needs. Education Sciences, 12(9), 610. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12090610

Tjhin, R., Raharjo, S., & Kurahman, M. T. (2023). Pedagogical knowledge and experiences of Indonesian primary school teachers in implementing STEM. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains, 11(2), 145-158.

Tondeur, J., Forkosh-Barton, A., Prestridge, S., Albion, P., & Edirisinghe, S. (2021). Responding to the challenges of practicum in the age of COVID-19. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(2), 272-283. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1755205

UNESCO. (2021). Artificial intelligence and education: Guidance on generative AI and education. UNESCO Publishing. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/artificial-intelligence-and-education

van Manen, M. (2020). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Routledge.

Voogt, J., Pieters, J. M., & Handelzalts, A. (2021). Teacher design teams: A vehicle for professional development and innovation. Journal of Educational Change, 22(1), 43-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09391-2

Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2021). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5

Wing, J. M. (2020). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717-3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118

Yadav, A., Gretter, S., Good, J., & McLean, T. (2020). Computational thinking in teacher education. In Emerging Research, Practice, and Policy on Computational Thinking (pp. 205-220). Springer, Cham.