Lukas Höper and Carsten Schulte are part of a larger team who are investigating how to teach school students about data science and Big Data.

Carsten explained that Germany’s informatics (computing) curriculum includes a competency area known as Informatics, People and Society (IPS), which explores the interrelationships between technology, individuals, and society, and how computation influences and is influenced by social, ethical, and cultural factors. However, research has suggested that teachers face several problems in delivering this topic, including:

• Lack of subject knowledge 
• Lack of teaching material
• Lack of integration with other topics in informatics lessons
• A perception that IPS is the responsibility of other subjects

Some of the findings of that 2007 research were mirrored in a more recent local study in 2025, which found that although there have been some gains in subject knowledge in the interval period, the problems of a lack of teaching material and integration with other computer science (CS) topics persist, with IPS increasingly perceived as the responsibility of the informatics subject area alone. Despite this, within the informatics curriculum, IPS is often the first topic to be dropped when educators face time constraints — and concerns with what and how to assess the topic remain. 

In this context, and as part of a larger, longitudinal project to promote data science teaching in schools called ProDaBi, Carsten and Lukas have been developing, implementing, and evaluating concepts and materials on the topics of data science and AI. Lukas explained the importance of students developing data awareness in the context of the digital systems they use in their everyday lives, such as search engines, streaming services, social media apps, digital assistants, and chatbots, and emphasised the difference between being a user of these systems and a data-aware user. Using the example of image recognition and ‘I am not a robot’ Captcha services, Lukas explained how young people need to develop a data-aware perspective of the secondary purposes of the data collected by these (and other) systems, as well as the more obvious, primary purposes. 

Lukas went on to illustrate the human interaction system model, which presents a continuum of possible different roles, from the student as the user of digital artefacts to the student as the designer of digital artefacts. 

To become data-aware users of digital artefacts, students need to be able to understand and reflect on those digital artefacts. Only then can they proceed to become responsible designers of digital artefacts. However, when surveyed, some students were only moderately interested in engaging with the inner workings of the digital technologies they use in their everyday lives. Many students prefer to use the systems and are less interested in how they process data. 

The explanatory model approach in computing education

Lukas explained how students often become more interested in data-driven technologies when learning about them with explanatory models. Such models can foster data awareness, giving students a different perspective of data-driven technologies and helping them become more empowered users of them. 

To illustrate, Lukas gave the example of an explanatory model about the role of data in digital systems. Such a model can be used to introduce the idea that data is explicitly and implicitly collected in the interaction between the user and the technology, and used for primary and secondary purposes. 

Lukas then introduced two teaching units that were developed for use with middle school children to evaluate the success of the explanatory model approach in computing education. The first unit explores location data collected by mobile phone networks and the second features recommendation systems used by movie streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime.

Taking the second unit as their focus, Lukas and Carsten outlined the four parts of the explanatory model approach: 

Part 1

The teaching unit begins by introducing recommendation systems and asking students to think about what a streaming service is, how a personalised start page is constructed, and how personal recommendations might be generated. Students then complete an unplugged activity to simulate the process of making movie recommendations for a peer:

Task 1: Students write down movie recommendations for another student. 

Task 2: They then ask each other questions (they collect data). 

Task 3: They write down revised movie recommendations.

Task 4: They share and evaluate their recommendations.  

Task 5: Together they reflect on which collected data was helpful in this exercise and what kind of data a recommendation system might collect. This reflection introduces the concepts of explicit and implicit data collection. 

Part 2

In part 2, students are given a prepared Jupyter Notebook, which allows them to explore a simulation of a recommendation system. Students rate movies and receive personal recommendations. They reconstruct a data model about users, using the idea of collaborative filtering with the k-nearest neighbours algorithm (see Figure 3). 

Part 3

In part 3, the concepts of primary and secondary purposes for data collection are introduced. Students discuss examples of secondary purposes such as personalised paywalls for movies that can be purchased, and subscriptions based on the predictions of future behaviour. The discussion includes various topics about individual and societal issues (e.g. filter bubbles, behaviour engineering, information asymmetry, and responsible development of data-driven technologies). 

Part 4

Finally, students use the explanatory model as an ‘analytical lens’. They choose other examples from their everyday lives of technologies that implement recommendation systems and analyse these examples, assessing the data practices involved. Students present their results in class and discuss their role in these situations and possible actions they can take to become more empowered, data-aware users.

Uses of explanatory models

Using the explanatory model is one approach to make the Informatics, People and Society strand of the German informatics curriculum more engaging for students, and addresses some of the problems teachers identify with delivering this competency area. 

In presenting the idea of the explanatory model, Carsten and Lukas emphasised that the model in use delivers content as well as functioning as a tool to design teaching content. In the example above, we see how the explanatory model introduces the concepts of:

1. Explicit and implicit data collection
2. Primary and secondary purposes of that data 
3. Data models 

The explanatory model framework can also be used as a focus for academic research in computing education. For example, further research is needed to evaluate if explanatory models are appropriate or ‘correct’ models and to determine the extent to which they are useful in computing education. 

In summary, an explanatory model provides a specific perspective on and explanation of particular computing concepts and digital artefacts. In the example given here, the model focuses on the role of data in a recommender system. Explanatory models are representations of concepts, artefacts, and socio-technical systems, but can also serve as tools to support teaching and learning processes and research in computing education. 

The teaching units referred to above are published on www.prodabi.de (in German and English). 

See the background paper to the seminar, called ‘Learning an explanatory model of data-driven technologies can lead to empowered behaviour: A mixed-methods study in K-12 Computing education’.

You can also view the paper describing the development of the explanatory model approach, called ‘New perspectives on the future of Computing education: Teaching and learning explanatory models’.

Join our next seminar

In our current seminar series, we’re exploring teaching about AI and data science. Join us at our next seminar on Tuesday 13 May at 17:00–18:30 BST to hear Henriikka Vartiainen and Matti Tedre (University of Eastern Finland) discuss how to empower students by teaching them how to develop AI and machine learning (ML) apps without code in the classroom.

To sign up and take part in our research seminars, click below:

You can also view the schedule of our upcoming seminars, and catch up on past seminars on our previous seminars and recordings page.

The post Research insights to help learners develop data awareness appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.

Franz started by demonstrating how widespread AI systems and technologies are becoming. He argued that embedding lessons about AI in the classroom presents three challenges: 

1. What to teach (defining AI and learning content)
2. How to teach (i.e. appropriate pedagogies)
3. How to prepare teachers (i.e. effective professional development) 

As various models and frameworks for teaching about AI already exist, Franz’s research aims to address the second and third challenges — there is a notable lack of empirical evidence integrating AI in K–12 settings or teacher professional development (PD) to support teachers.

Using professional development to help prepare teachers

In Bavaria, computer science (CS) has been a compulsory high school subject for over 20 years. However, a recent update has brought compulsory CS lessons (including AI) to Year 11 students (15–16 years old). Competencies targeted in the new curriculum include defining AI, explaining the functionality of different machine learning algorithms, and understanding how artificial neurons work.

To help prepare teachers to effectively teach this new curriculum and about AI, Franz and colleagues derived a set of core competencies to be used along with existing frameworks (e.g. the Five Big Ideas of AI) and the Bavarian curriculum. The PD programme Franz and colleagues developed was shaped by a set of key design principles:

1. Blended learning: A blended format was chosen to address the need for scalability and limited resources and to enable self-directed and active learning 
2. Dual-level pedagogy (or ‘pedagogical double-decker’): Teachers were taught with the same materials to be used in the classroom to aid familiarity
3. Advanced organiser: A broad overview document was created to support teachers learning new topics 
4. Moodle: An online learning platform was used to enable collaboration and communication via a MOOC (massive open online course)

Analysing the effectiveness of the PD programme

Over 300 teachers attended the MOOC, which had an introductory session beforehand and a follow-up workshop. The programme’s effectiveness was evaluated with a pre/post assessment where teachers completed a survey of 15 closed, multiple-choice questions on their AI competencies and knowledge. Pre/post comparisons showed teachers’ scores improved significantly having taken part in the PD. This is surprising as a large proportion of participants achieved high pre-scores, indicating a highly motivated cohort with notable prior experience teaching about AI.

Additionally, a group of teachers (n=9) were invited to give feedback on which aspects of the PD programme they felt contributed to the success of implementing the curriculum in the classroom. They reported that the PD programme supported content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge well, but they required additional support to design suitable learning assessments.

Using action research to aid AI teaching 

A separate strand of Franz’s research focuses on the other key challenge of how to effectively teach about AI. Franz engaged teachers (n=14) in action research, a method whereby teachers engage in classroom-based research projects. The project explored what topic-specific difficulties students faced during the lessons and how teachers adapted their teaching to overcome these challenges.

Findings revealed that students struggled with determining whether AI would benefit certain tasks (e.g. object recognition, text-to-speech) or not (e.g. GPS positioning, sorting data). Franz and colleagues reasoned that students were largely not aware of how AI systems deal with uncertainty and overestimated their capabilities. Therefore, an important step in teaching students about AI is defining ‘what an AI problem is’. 

Similarly, students struggled with distinguishing between rule-based and data-driven approaches, believing in some cases that a trained model becomes ‘rule-based’ or that all data models are data-driven. Students also struggled with certain data science concepts, such as hyperparameter, overfitting and underfitting, and information gain. Franz’s team argue that the chosen tool, Orange Data Mining, did not provide an appropriate scaffold for encountering these concepts. 

Finally, teachers found challenges in bringing real-world examples into the classroom, including the use of reinforcement learning and neural networks. Franz and colleagues reasoned that focusing on the function of neural networks, as opposed to their structure, would aid student understanding. The use of high-quality (i.e. well-prepared) real-world data sets was also suggested as a strategy for bridging theoretical ideas with practical examples. 

Addressing the challenges of teaching AI

Franz’s research provides important insights into the discipline-specific challenges educators face when introducing AI into the classroom. It also underscores the importance of appropriate professional development and age-appropriate and research-informed materials and tools to support students engaging with ideas about AI, data science, and machine learning.

Further reading and resources

If you are interested in reading more about Franz’s work on teacher professional development, you can read his paper on a scalable professional development offer for computer science teachers or you can learn more about his research group here.

Join our next seminar

In our current seminar series, we are exploring teaching about AI and data science. Join us at our next seminar on Tuesday 8 April at 17:00–18:30 BST to hear David Weintrop, Rotem Israel-Fishelson, and Peter F. Moon from the University of Maryland introduce ‘API Can Code’, an interest-driven data science curriculum for high-school students.

To sign up and take part in the seminar, click the button below; we will then send you information about joining. We hope to see you there.

The schedule of our upcoming seminars is online. You can catch up on past seminars on our previous seminars and recordings page.

The post Supporting teachers to integrate AI in K–12 CS education appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.

Leo Porter and Daniel Zingaro have spearheaded this transformation through their groundbreaking undergraduate programming course. Their innovative curriculum integrates GenAI tools to help students tackle complex programming tasks while developing critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

Leo and Daniel presented their work at the Raspberry Pi Foundation research seminar in December 2024. During the seminar, it became clear that much could be learnt from their work, with their insights having particular relevance for teachers in secondary education thinking about using GenAI in their programming classes

Practical applications in the classroom

In 2023, Leo and Daniel introduced GitHub Copilot in their introductory programming  CS1-LLM course at UC San Diego with 550 students. The course included creative, open-ended projects that allowed students to explore their interests while applying the skills they’d learnt. The projects covered the following areas:

• Data science: Students used Kaggle datasets to explore questions related to their fields of study — for example, neuroscience majors analysed stroke data. The projects encouraged interdisciplinary thinking and practical applications of programming.
• Image manipulation: Students worked with the Python Imaging Library (PIL) to create collages and apply filters to images, showcasing their creativity and technical skills.
• Game development: A project focused on designing text-based games encouraged students to break down problems into manageable components while using AI tools to generate and debug code.

Students consistently reported that these projects were not only enjoyable but also responsible for deepening their understanding of programming concepts. A majority (74%) found the projects helpful or extremely helpful for their learning. One student noted that.

“Programming projects were fun and the amount of freedom that was given added to that. The projects also helped me understand how to put everything that we have learned so far into a project that I could be proud of.“

Core skills for programming with Generative AI

Leo and Daniel emphasised that teaching programming with GenAI involves fostering a mix of traditional and AI-specific skills.

Their approach centres on six core competencies:

• Prompting and function design: Students learn to articulate precise prompts for AI tools, honing their ability to describe a function’s purpose, inputs, and outputs, for instance. This clarity improves the output from the AI tool and reinforces students’ understanding of task requirements.
• Code reading and selection: AI tools can produce any number of solutions, and each will be different, requiring students to evaluate the options critically. Students are taught to identify which solution is most likely to solve their problem effectively.
• Code testing and debugging: Students practise open- and closed-box testing, learning to identify edge cases and debug code using tools like doctest and the VS Code debugger.
• Problem decomposition: Breaking down large projects into smaller functions is essential. For instance, when designing a text-based game, students might separate tasks into input handling, game state updates, and rendering functions.
• Leveraging modules: Students explore new programming domains and identify useful libraries through interactions with Copilot. This prepares them to solve problems efficiently and creatively.

Ethical and metacognitive skills: Students engage in discussions about responsible AI use and reflect on the decisions they make when collaborating with AI tools.

Adapting assessments for the AI era

The rise of GenAI has prompted educators to rethink how they assess programming skills. In the CS1-LLM course, traditional take-home assignments were de-emphasised in favour of assessments that focused on process and understanding.

• Quizzes and exams: Students were evaluated on their ability to read, test, and debug code — skills critical for working effectively with AI tools. Final exams included both tasks that required independent coding and tasks that required use of Copilot.
• Creative projects: Students submitted projects alongside a video explanation of their process, emphasising problem decomposition and testing. This approach highlighted the importance of critical thinking over rote memorisation.

Challenges and lessons learnt

While Leo and Daniel reported that the integration of AI tools into their course has been largely successful, it has also introduced challenges. Surveys revealed that some students felt overly dependent on AI tools, expressing concerns about their ability to code independently. Addressing this will require striking a balance between leveraging AI tools and reinforcing foundational skills.

Additionally, ethical concerns around AI use, such as plagiarism and intellectual property, must be addressed. Leo and Daniel incorporated discussions about these issues into their curriculum to ensure students understand the broader implications of working with AI technologies.

A future-oriented approach

Leo and Daniel’s work demonstrates that GenAI can transform programming education, making it more inclusive, engaging, and relevant. Their course attracted a diverse cohort of students, as well as students traditionally underrepresented in computer science — 52% of the students were female and 66% were not majoring in computer science — highlighting the potential of AI-powered learning to broaden participation in computer science.

By embracing this shift, educators can prepare students not just to write code but to also think critically, solve real-world problems, and effectively harness the AI innovations shaping the future of technology.

If you’re an educator interested in using GenAI in your teaching, we recommend checking out Leo and Daniel’s book, Learn AI-Assisted Python Programming, as well as their course resources on GitHub. You may also be interested in our own Experience AI resources, which are designed to help educators navigate the fast-moving world of AI and machine learning technologies.

Join us at our next online seminar on 11 March

Our 2025 seminar series is exploring how we can teach young people about AI technologies and data science. At our next seminar on Tuesday, 11 March at 17:00–18:00 GMT, we’ll hear from Lukas Höper and Carsten Schulte from Paderborn University. They’ll be discussing how to teach school students about data-driven technologies and how to increase students’ awareness of how data is used in their daily lives.

To sign up and take part in the seminar, click the button below — we’ll then send you information about joining. We hope to see you there.

The schedule of our upcoming seminars is online. You can catch up on past seminars on our previous seminars and recordings page.

The post Integrating generative AI into introductory programming classes appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.

An AI literacy framework

From her research, Shuchi has developed a framework for teaching about AI that is structured as four interlocking components, each representing a key area of understanding:

• Basic understanding of AI, which refers to foundational knowledge such as what AI is, types of AI systems, and the capabilities of AI technologies
• Ethics and human–AI relationship, which includes the role of humans in regard to AI, ethical considerations, and public perceptions of AI
• Computational thinking/literacy, which relates to how AI works, including building AI applications and training machine learning models
• Data literacy, which addresses the importance of data, including examining data features, data visualisation, and biases

This framework shows the multifaceted nature of AI literacy, which involves an understanding of both technical aspects and ethical and societal considerations. 

Shuchi emphasised the importance of learning about AI ethics, highlighting the topic of bias. There are many ways that bias can be embedded in applications of AI and machine learning, including through the data sets that are used and the design of machine learning models. Shuchi discussed supporting learners to engage with the topic through exploring bias in facial recognition software, sharing activities and resources to use in the classroom that can prompt meaningful discussion, such as this talk by Joy Buolamwini. She also highlighted the Kapor Foundation’s Responsible AI and Tech Justice: A Guide for K–12 Education, which contains questions that educators can use with learners to help them to carefully consider the ethical implications of AI for themselves and for society. 

Computational thinking and AI

In computer science education, computational thinking is generally associated with traditional rule-based programming — it has often been used to describe the problem-solving approaches and processes associated with writing computer programs following rule-based principles in a structured and logical way. However, with the emergence of machine learning, Shuchi described a need for computational thinking frameworks to be expanded to also encompass data-driven, probabilistic approaches, which are foundational for machine learning. This would support learners’ understanding and ability to work with the models that increasingly influence modern technology.

Example activities from research studies

Shuchi shared that a variety of pedagogies have been used in recent research projects on AI education, ranging from hands-on experiences, such as using APIs for classification, to discussions focusing on ethical aspects. You can find out more about these pedagogies in her award-winning paper Teaching AI to K-12 Learners: Lessons, Issues and Guidance. This plurality of approaches ensures that learners can engage with AI and machine learning in ways that are both accessible and meaningful to them.

Shuchi shared examples of activities from two research projects that she has led:

• CS Frontiers engaged high school students in a number of activities involving using NetsBlox and accessing real-world data sets. For example, in one activity, students participated in data science activities such as creating data visualisations to answer questions about climate change. 
• AI & Cybersecurity for Teens explored approaches to teaching AI and machine learning to 13- to 15-year-olds through the use of cybersecurity scenarios. The project aimed to provide learners with insights into how machine learning models are designed, how they work, and how human decisions influence their development. An example activity guided students through building a classification model to analyse social media accounts to determine whether they may be bot accounts or accounts run by a human.

Closing thoughts

At the end of her talk, Shuchi shared some final thoughts addressing teaching about AI to K–12 learners: 

• AI learning requires contextualisation: Think about the data sets, ethical issues, and examples of AI tools and systems you use to ensure that they are relatable to learners in your context.
• AI should not be a solution in search of a problem: Both teachers and learners need to be educated about AI before they start to use it in the classroom, so that they are informed consumers.

Join our next seminar

In our current seminar series, we are exploring teaching about AI and data science. Join us at our next seminar on Tuesday 11 March at 17:00–18:30 GMT to hear Lukas Höper and Carsten Schulte from Paderborn University discuss supporting middle school students to develop their data awareness. 

To sign up and take part in the seminar, click the button below — we will then send you information about joining. We hope to see you there.

I want to join the next seminarThe schedule of our upcoming seminars is online. You can catch up on past seminars on our previous seminars and recordings page.

The post Teaching about AI in K–12 education: Thoughts from the USA appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.

What jobs will be affected by AL, ML, and data science remains to be seen, but it is increasingly clear that students will need to learn something about these topics. There will be new concepts to be taught, new instructional approaches and assessment techniques to be used, new learning activities to be delivered, and we must not neglect the professional development required to help educators master all of this. 

As AI and data science are incorporated into school curricula and teaching and learning materials worldwide, we ask: What’s the research basis for these curricula, pedagogy, and resource choices?

In 2024, we showcased researchers who are investigating how AI can be leveraged to support the teaching and learning of programming. But in 2025, we look at what should be taught about AI, ML, and data science in schools and how we should teach this. 

Our 2025 seminar speakers — so far!

We are very excited that we have already secured several key researchers in the field. 

On 21 January, Shuchi Grover will kick off the seminar series by giving an important overview of AI in the K–12 landscape, including developing both AI literacy and AI ethics. Shuchi will provide concrete examples and recently developed frameworks to give educators practical insights on the topic.

Our second session will focus on a teacher professional development (PD) programme to support the introduction of AI in Upper Bavarian schools. Franz Jetzinger from the Technical University of Munich will summarise the PD programme and share how teachers implemented the topic in their classroom, including the difficulties they encountered.

Again from Germany, Lukas Höper from Paderborn University, with Carsten Schulte will describe important research on data awareness and introduce a framework that is likely to be key for learning about data-driven technology. The pair will talk about the Data Awareness Framework and how it has been used to help learners explore, evaluate, and be empowered in looking at the role of data in everyday applications.  

Our April seminar will see David Weintrop from the University of Maryland introduce, with his colleagues, a data science curriculum called API Can Code, aimed at high-school students. The group will highlight the strategies needed for integrating data science learning within students’ lived experiences and fostering authentic engagement.

Later in the year, Jesús Moreno-Leon from the University of Seville will help us consider the  thorny but essential question of how we measure AI literacy. Jesús will present an assessment instrument that has been successfully implemented in several research studies involving thousands of primary and secondary education students across Spain, discussing both its strengths and limitations.

What to expect from the seminars

Our seminars are designed to be accessible to anyone interested in the latest research about AI education — whether you’re a teacher, educator, researcher, or simply curious. Each session begins with a presentation from our guest speaker about their latest research findings. We then move into small groups for a short discussion and exchange of ideas before coming back together for a Q&A session with the presenter. 

Attendees of our 2024 series told us that they valued that the talks “explore a relevant topic in an informative way“, the “enthusiasm and inspiration”, and particularly the small-group discussions because they “are always filled with interesting and varied ideas and help to spark my own thoughts”. 

The seminars usually take place on Zoom on the first Tuesday of each month at 17:00–18:30 GMT / 12:00–13:30 ET / 9:00–10:30 PT / 18:00–19:30 CET. 

You can find out more about each seminar and the speakers on our upcoming seminar page. And if you are unable to attend one of our talks, you can watch them from our previous seminar page, where you will also find an archive of all of our previous seminars dating back to 2020.

How to sign up

To attend the seminars, please register here. You will receive an email with the link to join our next Zoom call. Once signed up, you will automatically be notified of upcoming seminars. You can unsubscribe from our seminar notifications at any time.

We hope to see you at a seminar soon!

The post How can we teach students about AI and data science? Join our 2025 seminar series about the topic appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.

In our 50th research seminar, Nicholas Gardella, a PhD candidate at the University of Virginia, shared insights from his research on the effects of AIDEs on beginner programmers’ skills.

Measuring AI’s impact on students

AI tools are becoming a big part of software development, but what does that mean for students learning to code? As tools like GitHub Copilot become more common, it’s crucial to ask: Do these tools help students to learn better and work more effectively, especially when time is tight?

This is precisely what Nicholas’s research aims to identify by examining the impact of AIDEs on four key areas:

• Performance (how well students completed the tasks)
• Workload (the effort required)
• Emotion (their emotional state during the task)
• Self-efficacy (their belief in their own abilities to succeed)

Nicholas conducted his study with 17 undergraduate students from an introductory computer science course, who were mostly first-time programmers, with different genders and backgrounds.

The students completed programming tasks both with and without the assistance of GitHub Copilot. Nicholas selected the tasks from OpenAI’s human evaluation data set, ensuring they represented a range of difficulty levels. He also used a repeated measures design for the study, meaning that each student had the opportunity to program both independently and with AI assistance multiple times. This design helped him to compare individual progress and attitudes towards using AI in programming.

Less workload, more performance and self-efficacy in learning

The results were promising for those advocating AI’s role in education. Nicholas’s research found that participants who used GitHub Copilot performed better overall, completing tasks with less mental workload and effort compared to solo programming.

However, the immediate impact on students’ emotional state and self-confidence was less pronounced. Initially, participants did not report feeling more confident while coding with AI. Over time, though, as they became more familiar with the tool, their confidence in their abilities improved slightly. This indicates that students need time and practice to fully integrate AI into their learning process. Students increasingly attributed their progress not to the AI doing the work for them, but to their own growing proficiency in using the tool effectively. This suggests that with sustained practice, students can gain confidence in their abilities to work with AI, rather than becoming overly reliant on it.

A particularly important takeaway from the talk was the reduction in workload when using AI tools. Novice programmers, who often find programming challenging, reported that AI assistance lightened the workload. This reduced effort could create a more relaxed learning environment, where students feel less overwhelmed and more capable of tackling challenging tasks.

However, while workload decreased, use of the AI tool did not significantly boost emotional satisfaction or happiness during the coding process. Nicholas explained that although students worked more efficiently, using the AI tool did not necessarily make coding a more enjoyable experience. This highlights a key challenge for educators: finding ways to make learning both effective and engaging, even when using advanced tools like AI.

AI as a tool for collaboration, not replacement

Nicholas’s findings raise interesting questions about how AI should be introduced in computer science education. While tools like GitHub Copilot can enhance performance, they should not be seen as shortcuts for learning. Students still need guidance in how to use these tools responsibly. Importantly, the study showed that students did not take credit for the AI tool’s work — instead, they felt responsible for their own progress, especially as they improved their interactions with the tool over time.

Students might become better programmers when they learn how to work alongside AI systems, using them to enhance their problem-solving skills rather than relying on them for answers. This suggests that educators should focus on teaching students how to collaborate with AI, rather than fearing that these tools will undermine the learning process.

Bridging research and classroom realities

Moreover, the study touched on an important point about the limits of its findings. Since the experiment was conducted in a controlled environment with only 17 participants, researchers need to conduct further studies to explore how AI tools perform in real-world classroom settings. For example, the role of internet usage plays a fundamental role. It will be relevant to understand how factors such as class size, prior varying experience, and the age of students affect their ability to integrate AI into their learning.

In the follow-up discussion, Nicholas also demonstrated how AI tools are becoming more accessible within browsers and how teachers can integrate AI-driven development environments more easily into their courses. By making AI technology more readily available, these tools are democratising access to advanced programming aids, enabling students to build applications directly in their web browsers with minimal setup.

The path ahead

Nicholas’s talk provided an insightful look into the evolving relationship between AI tools and novice programmers. While AI can improve performance and reduce workload, it is not a magic solution to all the challenges of learning to code.

Based on the discussion after the talk, educators should support students in developing the skills to use these tools effectively, shaping an environment where they can feel confident working with AI systems. The researchers and educators agreed that more research is needed to expand on these findings, particularly in more diverse and larger-scale educational settings. 

As AI continues to shape the future of programming education, the role of educators will remain crucial in guiding students towards responsible and effective use of these technologies, as we are only at the beginning.

Join our next seminar

In our current seminar series, we are exploring how to teach programming with and without AI technology. Join us at our next seminar on Tuesday, 10 December at 17:00–18:30 GMT to hear Leo Porter (UC San Diego) and Daniel Zingaro (University of Toronto) discuss how they are working to create an introductory programming course for majors and non-majors that fully incorporates generative AI into the learning goals of the course. 

To sign up and take part in the seminar, click the button below — we’ll then send you information about joining. We hope to see you there.

The schedule of our upcoming seminars is online. You can catch up on past seminars on our previous seminars and recordings page.

The post Does AI-assisted coding boost novice programmers’ skills or is it just a shortcut? appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.

In our monthly seminar in September, Arto and Juho presented their research on using AI tools to provide personalised learning experiences and automated feedback to help requests, as well as their findings on teaching students how to write effective prompts for generative AI systems. While their research focuses primarily on undergraduate students — given that they teach such students — many of their findings have potential relevance for primary and secondary (K-12) computing education. 

Generative AI consists of algorithms that can generate new content, such as text, code, and images, based on the input received. Ever since large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Copilot became widely available, there has been a great deal of attention on how to use this technology in computing education. 

Arto and Juho described generative AI as one of the fastest-moving topics they had ever worked on, and explained that they were trying to see past the hype and find meaningful uses of LLMs in their computing courses. They presented three studies in which they used generative AI tools with students in ways that aimed to improve the learning experience. 

Using generative AI tools to create personalised programming exercises

An important strand of computing education research investigates how to engage students by personalising programming problems based on their interests. The first study in Arto and Juho’s research  took place within an online programming course for adult students. It involved developing a tool that used GPT-4 (the latest version of ChatGPT available at that time) to generate exercises with personalised aspects. Students could select a theme (e.g. sports, music, video games), a topic (e.g. a specific word or name), and a difficulty level for each exercise.

Arto, Juho, and their students evaluated the personalised exercises that were generated. Arto and Juho used a rubric to evaluate the quality of the exercises and found that they were clear and had the themes and topics that had been requested. Students’ feedback indicated that they found the personalised exercises engaging and useful, and preferred these over randomly generated exercises. 

Arto and Juho also evaluated the personalisation and found that exercises were often only shallowly personalised, however. In shallow personalisations, the personalised content was added in only one sentence, whereas in deep personalisations, the personalised content was present throughout the whole problem statement. It should be noted that in the examples taken from the seminar below, the terms ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ were not being used to make a judgement on the worthiness of the topic itself, but were rather describing whether the personalisation was somewhat tokenistic or more meaningful within the exercise. 

The findings suggest that this personalised approach may be particularly effective on large university courses, where instructors might struggle to give one-on-one attention to every student. The findings further suggest that generative AI tools can be used to personalise educational content and help ensure that students remain engaged. 

How might all this translate to K-12 settings? Learners in primary and secondary schools often have a wide range of prior knowledge, lived experiences, and abilities. Personalised programming tasks could help diverse groups of learners engage with computing, and give educators a deeper understanding of the themes and topics that are interesting for learners. 

Responding to help requests using large language models

Another key aspect of Alto and Juho’s work is exploring how LLMs can be used to generate responses to students’ requests for help. They conducted a study using an online platform containing programming exercises for students. Every time a student struggled with a particular exercise, they could submit a help request, which went into a queue for a teacher to review, comment on, and return to the student. 

The study aimed to investigate whether an LLM could effectively respond to these help requests and reduce the teachers’ workloads. An important principle was that the LLM should guide the student towards the correct answer rather than provide it. 

The study used GPT-3.5, which was the newest version at the time. The results found that the LLM was able to analyse and detect logical and syntactical errors in code, but concerningly, the responses from the LLM also addressed some non-existent problems! This is an example of hallucination, where the LLM outputs something false that does not reflect the real data that was inputted into it. 

The finding that LLMs often generated both helpful and unhelpful problem-solving strategies suggests that this is not a technology to rely on in the classroom just yet. Arto and Juho intend to track the effectiveness of LLMs as newer versions are released, and explained that GPT-4 seems to detect errors more accurately, but there is no systematic analysis of this yet. 

In primary and secondary computing classes, young learners often face similar challenges to those encountered by university students — for example, the struggle to write error-free code and debug programs. LLMs seemingly have a lot of potential to support young learners in overcoming such challenges, while also being valuable educational tools for teachers without strong computing backgrounds. Instant feedback is critical for young learners who are still developing their computational thinking skills — LLMs can provide such feedback, and could be especially useful for teachers who may lack the resources to give individualised attention to every learner. Again though, further research into LLM-based feedback systems is needed before they can be implemented en-masse in classroom settings in the future. 

Teaching students how to prompt large language models

Finally, Arto and Juho presented a study where they introduced the idea of ‘Prompt Problems’: programming exercises where students learn how to write effective prompts for AI code generators using a tool called Promptly. In a Prompt Problem exercise, students are presented with a visual representation of a problem that illustrates how input values will be transformed to an output. Their task is to devise a prompt (input) that will guide an LLM to generate the code (output) required to solve the problem. Prompt-generated code is evaluated automatically by the Promptly tool, helping students to refine the prompt until it produces code that solves the problem.

Feedback from students suggested that using Prompt Problems was a good way for them to gain experience of using new programming concepts and develop their computational thinking skills. However, students were frustrated that bugs in the code had to be fixed by amending the prompt — it was not possible to edit the code directly. 

How these findings relate to K-12 computing education is still to be explored, but they indicate that Prompt Problems with text-based programming languages could be valuable exercises for older pupils with a solid grasp of foundational programming concepts. 

Balancing the use of AI tools with fostering a sense of community

At the end of the presentation, Arto and Juho summarised their work and hypothesised that as society develops more and more AI tools, computing classrooms may lose some of their community aspects. They posed a very important question for all attendees to consider: “How can we foster an active community of learners in the generative AI era?” 

In our breakout groups and the subsequent whole-group discussion, we began to think about the role of community. Some points raised highlighted the importance of working together to accurately identify and define problems, and sharing ideas about which prompts would work best to accurately solve the problems. 

As AI technology continues to evolve, its role in education will likely expand. There was general agreement in the question and answer session that keeping a sense of community at the heart of computing classrooms will be important. 

Further resources

The Raspberry Pi Computing Education Research Centre and Faculty of Education at the University of Cambridge have recently published a teacher guide on the use of generative AI tools in education. The guide provides practical guidance for educators who are considering using generative AI tools in their teaching. 

Join our next seminar

In our current seminar series, we are exploring how to teach programming with and without AI technology. Join us at our next seminar on Tuesday, 12 November at 17:00–18:30 GMT to hear Nicholas Gardella (University of Virginia) discuss the effects of using tools like GitHub Copilot on the motivation, workload, emotion, and self-efficacy of novice programmers. To sign up and take part in the seminar, click the button below — we’ll then send you information about joining. We hope to see you there.

The schedule of our upcoming seminars is online. You can catch up on past seminars on our previous seminars and recordings page.

The post Using generative AI to teach computing: Insights from research appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.

At times, it can seem like everything is being automated with AI. However, there are some parts of learning to program that cannot (and probably should not) be automated, such as understanding errors in code and how to fix them. Manually typing code might not be necessary in the future, but it will still be crucial to understand the code that is being generated and how to improve and develop it. 

As important as debugging might be for the future of programming, it’s still often the task most disliked by novice programmers. Even if program error messages can be explained in the future or tools like LitterBox can flag bugs in an engaging way, actually fixing the issues involves time, effort, and resilience — which can be hard to come by at the end of a computing lesson in the late afternoon with 30 students crammed into an IT room. 

But what is it about debugging that young people find so hard, even when they’re given enough time to do it? And how can we make debugging a more motivating experience for young people? These are two of the questions that Laurie Gale, a PhD student at the Raspberry Pi Computing Education Research Centre, focused on in our July seminar.

Why do students find debugging hard?

Laurie has spent the past two years talking to teachers and students and developing tools (a visualiser of students’ programming behaviour and PRIMMDebug, a teaching process and tool for debugging) to understand why many secondary school students struggle with debugging. It has quickly become clear through his research that most issues are due to problematic debugging strategies and students’ negative experiences and attitudes.

When students first start learning how to program, they have to remember a vast amount of new information, such as different variables, concepts, and program designs. Utilising this knowledge is often challenging because they’re already busy juggling all the content they’ve previously learnt and the challenges of the programming task at hand. When error messages inevitably appear that are confusing or misunderstood, it can become extremely difficult to debug effectively. 

Given this information overload, students often don’t develop efficient strategies for debugging. When Laurie analysed the debugging efforts of 12- to 14-year-old secondary school students, he noticed some interesting differences between students who were more and less successful at debugging. While successful students generally seemed to make less frequent and more intentional changes, less successful students tinkered frequently with their broken programs, making one- or two-character edits before running the program again. In addition, the less successful students often ran the program soon after beginning the debugging exercise without allowing enough time to actually read the code and understand what it was meant to do. 

The issue with these behaviours was that they often resulted in students adding errors when changing the program, which then compounded and made debugging increasingly difficult with each run. 74% of students also resorted to spamming, pressing ‘run’ again and again without changing anything. This strategy resonated with many of our seminar attendees, who reported doing the same thing after becoming frustrated. 

Educators need to be aware of the negative consequences of students’ exasperating and often overwhelming experiences with debugging, especially if students are less confident in their programming skills to begin with. Even though spending 15 minutes on an exercise shows a remarkable level of tenaciousness and resilience, students’ attitudes to programming — and computing as a whole — can quickly go downhill if their strategies for identifying errors prove ineffective. Debugging becomes a vicious circle: if a student has negative experiences, they are less confident when having to bug-fix again in the future, which can lead to another set of unsuccessful attempts, which can further damage their confidence, and so on. Avoiding this downward spiral is essential. 

Approaches to help students engage with debugging

Laurie stresses the importance of understanding the cognitive challenges of debugging and using the right tools and techniques to empower students and support them in developing effective strategies.

Some ideas of how to improve debugging skills that were mentioned by Laurie and our attendees included:

• Using frame-based editing tools for novice programmers because such tools encourage students to focus on logical errors rather than accidental syntax errors, which can distract them from understanding the issues with the program. Teaching debugging should also go hand in hand with understanding programming syntax and using simple language. As one of our attendees put it, “You wouldn’t give novice readers a huge essay and ask them to find errors.”
• Making error messages more understandable, for example, by explaining them to students using Large Language Models.
• Teaching systematic debugging processes. There are several different approaches to doing this. One of our participants suggested using the scientific method (forming a hypothesis about what is going wrong, devising an experiment that will provide information to see whether the hypothesis is right, and iterating this process) to methodically understand the program and its bugs. 

Most importantly, debugging should not be a daunting or stressful experience. Everyone in the seminar agreed that creating a positive error culture is essential. 

Some ideas you could explore in your classroom include:

• Normalising errors: Stress how normal and important program errors are. Everyone encounters them — a professional software developer in our audience said that they spend about half of their time debugging. 
• Rewarding perseverance: Celebrate the effort, not just the outcome.
• Modelling how to fix errors: Let your students write buggy programs and attempt to debug them in front of the class.

In a welcoming classroom where students are given support and encouragement, debugging can be a rewarding experience. What may at first appear to be a failure — even a spectacular one — can be embraced as a valuable opportunity for learning. As a teacher in Laurie’s study said, “If something should have gone right and went badly wrong but somebody found something interesting on the way… you celebrate it. Take the fear out of it.” 

Watch the recording of Laurie’s presentation:

Join our next seminar

In our current seminar series, we are exploring how to teach programming with and without AI.

Join us at our next seminar on Tuesday, 12 November at 17:00–18:30 GMT to hear Nicholas Gardella (University of Virginia) discuss the effects of using tools like GitHub Copilot on the motivation, workload, emotion, and self-efficacy of novice programmers. To sign up and take part in the seminar, click the button below — we’ll then send you information about joining. We hope to see you there.

The schedule of our upcoming seminars is online. You can catch up on past seminars on our previous seminars and recordings page.

The post How to make debugging a positive experience for secondary school students appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.

PEMs can be a significant barrier to learning for novice coders, as they are often confusing and difficult to understand. This can hinder troubleshooting and progress in coding, and lead to frustration. 

Recently, various teams have been exploring how generative AI, specifically large language models (LLMs), can be used to help learners understand PEMs. My research in this area specifically explores secondary teachers’ views of the explanations of PEMs generated by a LLM, as an aid for learning and teaching programming, and I presented some of my results in our ongoing seminar series.

Understanding program error messages is hard at the start

I started the seminar by setting the scene and describing the current background of research on novices’ difficulty in using PEMs to fix their code, and the efforts made to date to improve these. The three main points I made were that:

1. PEMs are often difficult to decipher, especially by novices, and there’s a whole research area dedicated to identifying ways to improve them.
2. Recent studies have employed LLMs as a way of enhancing PEMs. However, the evidence on what makes an ‘effective’ PEM for learning is limited, variable, and contradictory.
3. There is limited research in the context of K–12 programming education, as well as research conducted in collaboration with teachers to better understand the practical and pedagogical implications of integrating LLMs into the classroom more generally.

My pilot study aims to fill this gap directly, by reporting K–12 teachers’ views of the potential use of LLM-generated explanations of PEMs in the classroom, and how their views fit into the wider theoretical paradigm of feedback literacy. 

What did the teachers say?

To conduct the study, I interviewed eight expert secondary computing educators. The interviews were semi-structured activity-based interviews, where the educators got to experiment with a prototype version of the Foundation’s publicly available Code Editor. This version of the Code Editor was adapted to generate LLM explanations when the question mark next to the standard error message is clicked (see Figure 1 for an example of a LLM-generated explanation). The Code Editor version called the OpenAI GPT-3.5 interface to generate explanations based on the following prompt: “You are a teacher talking to a 12-year-old child. Explain the error {error} in the following Python code: {code}”. 

Fifteen themes were derived from the educators’ responses and these were split into five groups (Figure 2). Overall, the educators’ views of the LLM feedback were that, for the most part, a sensible explanation of the error messages was produced. However, all educators experienced at least one example of invalid content (LLM “hallucination”). Also, despite not being explicitly requested in the LLM prompt, a possible code solution was always included in the explanation.

Matching the themes to PEM guidelines

Next, I investigated how the teachers’ views correlated to the research conducted to date on enhanced PEMs. I used the guidelines proposed by Brett Becker and colleagues, which consolidate a lot of the research done in this area into ten design guidelines. The guidelines offer best practices on how to enhance PEMs based on cognitive science and educational theory empirical research. For example, they outline that enhanced PEMs should provide scaffolding for the user, increase readability, reduce cognitive load, use a positive tone, and provide context to the error.

Out of the 15 themes identified in my study, 10 of these correlated closely to the guidelines. However, the 10 themes that correlated well were, for the most part, the themes related to the content of the explanations, presentation, and validity (Figure 3). On the other hand, the themes concerning the teaching and learning process did not fit as well to the guidelines.

Does feedback literacy theory fit better?

However, when I looked at feedback literacy theory, I was able to correlate all fifteen themes — the theory fits.

Feedback literacy theory positions the feedback process (which includes explanations) as a social interaction, and accounts for the actors involved in the interaction — the student and the teacher — as well as the relationships between the student, the teacher, and the feedback. We can explain feedback literacy theory using three constructs: feedback types, student feedback literacy, and teacher feedback literacy (Figure 4). 

From the feedback literacy perspective, feedback can be grouped into four types: telling, guiding, developing understanding, and opening up new perspectives. The feedback type depends on the role of the student and teacher when engaging with the feedback (Figure 5). 

From the student perspective, the competencies and dispositions students need in order to use feedback effectively can be stated as: appreciating the feedback processes, making judgements, taking action, and managing affect. Finally, from a teacher perspective, teachers apply their feedback literacy skills across three dimensions: design, relational, and pragmatic. 

In short, according to feedback literacy theory, effective feedback processes entail well-designed feedback with a clear pedagogical purpose, as well as the competencies students and teachers need in order to make sense of the feedback and use it effectively.

This theory therefore provided a promising lens for analysing the educators’ perspectives in my study. When the educators’ views were correlated to feedback literacy theory, I found that:

1. Educators prefer the LLM explanations to fulfil a guiding and developing understanding role, rather than telling. For example, educators prefer to either remove or delay the code solution from the explanation, and they like the explanations to include keywords based on concepts they are teaching in the classroom to guide and develop students’ understanding rather than tell.

2. Related to students’ feedback literacy, educators talked about the ways in which the LLM explanations help or hinder students to make judgements and action the feedback in the explanations. For example, they talked about how detailed, jargon-free explanations can help students make judgments about the feedback, but invalid explanations can hinder this process. Therefore, teachers talked about the need for ways to manage such invalid instances. However, for the most part, the educators didn’t talk about eradicating them altogether. They talked about ways of flagging them, using them as counter-examples, and having visibility of them to be able to address them with students.

3. Finally, from a teacher feedback literacy perspective, educators discussed the need for professional development to manage feedback processes inclusive of LLM feedback (design) and address issues resulting from reduced opportunities to interact with students (relational and pragmatic). For example, if using LLM explanations results in a reduction in the time teachers spend helping students debug syntax errors from a pragmatic time-saving perspective, then what does that mean for the relationship they have with their students? 

Conclusion from the study

By correlating educators’ views to feedback literacy theory as well as enhanced PEM guidelines, we can take a broader perspective on how LLMs might not only shape the content of the explanations, but the whole social interaction around giving and receiving feedback. Investigating ways of supporting students and teachers to practise their feedback literacy skills matters just as much, if not more, than focusing on the content of PEM explanations. 

This study was a first-step exploration of eight educators’ views on the potential impact of using LLM explanations of PEMs in the classroom. Exactly what the findings of this study mean for classroom practice remains to be investigated, and we also need to examine students’ views on the feedback and its impact on their journey of learning to program. 

If you want to hear more, you can watch my seminar:

You can also read the associated paper, or find out more about the research instruments on this project website.

If any of these ideas resonated with you as an educator, student, or researcher, do reach out — we’d love to hear from you. You can contact me directly at veronica.cucuiat@raspberrypi.org or drop us a line in the comments below. 

Join our next seminar

The focus of our ongoing seminar series is on teaching programming with or without AI. Check out the schedule of our upcoming seminars. 

To take part in the next seminar, click the button below to sign up, and we will send you information about how to join. We hope to see you there.

You can also catch up on past seminars on our blog and on the previous seminars and recordings page.

The post How useful do teachers find error message explanations generated by AI? Pilot research results appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.

We used a set of ten areas of opportunity to scaffold and prompt teachers to look for ways that Computing resources could be adapted, including making changes to the content or the context of lessons, and using pedagogical techniques such as collaboration and open-ended tasks. 

Today’s blog lays out our findings about how teachers can bring students’ identities into the classroom as an entry point for culturally responsive Computing teaching.

Collaborating with teachers

A group of twelve primary teachers, from schools spread across England, volunteered to participate in the study. The primary objective was for our research team to collaborate with these teachers to adapt two units of work about creating digital images and vector graphics so that they better aligned with the cultural contexts of their students. The research team facilitated an in-person, one-day workshop where the teachers could discuss their experiences and work in small groups to adapt materials that they then taught in their classrooms during the following term.

A shared focus on identity

As the workshop progressed, an interesting pattern emerged. Despite the diversity of schools and student populations represented by the teachers, each group independently decided to focus on the theme of identity in their adaptations. This was not a directive from the researchers, but rather a spontaneous alignment of priorities among the teachers.

The focus on identity manifested in various ways. For some teachers, it involved adding diverse role models so that students could see themselves represented in computing, while for others, it meant incorporating discussions about students’ own experiences into the lessons. However, the most compelling commonality across all groups was the decision to have students create a digital picture that represented something important about themselves. This digital picture could take many forms — an emoji, a digital collage, an avatar to add to a game, or even creating fantastical animals. The goal of these activities was to provide students with a platform to express aspects of their identity that were significant to them whilst also practising the skills to manipulate vector graphics or digital images.

Funds of identity theory

After the teachers had returned to their classrooms and taught the adapted lessons to their students, we analysed the digital pictures created by the students using funds of identity theory. This theory explains how our personal experiences and backgrounds shape who we are and what makes us unique and individual, and argues that our identities are not static but are continuously shaped and reshaped through interactions with the world around us. 

In the context of our study, this theory argues that students bring their funds of identity into their Computing classrooms, including their cultural heritage, family traditions, languages, values, and personal interests. Through the image editing and vector graphics activities, students were able to create what the funds of identity theory refers to as identity artefacts. This allowed them to explore and highlight the various elements that hold importance in their lives, illuminating different facets of their identities. 

Students’ funds of identity

The use of the funds of identity theory provided a robust framework for understanding the digital artefacts created by the students. We analysed the teachers’ descriptions of the artefacts, paying close attention to how students represented their identities in their creations.

1. Personal interests and values 

One significant aspect of the analysis centered around the personal interests and values reflected in the artefacts. Some students chose to draw on their practical funds of identity and create images about hobbies that were important to them, such as drawing or playing football. Others focused on existential  funds of identity and represented values that were central to their personalities, such as cool, chatty, or quiet.

2. Family and community connections

Many students also chose to include references to their family and community in their artefacts. Social funds of identity were displayed when students featured family members in their images. Some students also drew on their institutional funds, adding references to their school, or geographical funds, by showing places such as the local area or a particular country that held special significance for them. These references highlighted the importance of familial and communal ties in shaping the students’ identities.

3. Cultural representation

Another common theme was the way students represented their cultural backgrounds. Some students chose to highlight their cultural funds of identity, creating images that included their heritage, including their national flag or traditional clothing. Other students incorporated ideological aspects of their identity that were important to them because of their faith, including Catholicism and Islam. This aspect of the artefacts demonstrated how students viewed their cultural heritage as an integral part of their identity.

Implications for culturally responsive Computing teaching

The findings from this study have several important implications. Firstly, the spontaneous focus on identity by the teachers suggests that identity is a powerful entry point for culturally responsive Computing teaching. Secondly, the application of the funds of identity theory to the analysis of student work demonstrates the diverse cultural resources that students bring to the classroom and highlights ways to adapt Computing lessons in ways that resonate with students’ lived experiences.

However, we also found that teachers often had to carefully support students to illuminate their funds of identity. Sometimes students found it difficult to create images about their hobbies, particularly if they were from backgrounds with fewer social and economic opportunities. We also observed that when teachers modelled an identity artefact themselves, perhaps to show an example for students to aim for, students then sometimes copied the funds of identity revealed by the teacher rather than drawing on their own funds. These points need to be taken into consideration when using identity artefact activities. 

Finally, these findings relate to lessons about image editing and vector graphics that were taught to students aged 8- to 10-years old in England, and it remains to be explored how students in other countries or of different ages might reveal their funds of identity in the Computing classroom.

Moving forward with cultural responsiveness

The study demonstrated that when Computing teachers are given the opportunity to collaborate and reflect on their practice, they can develop innovative ways to make their teaching more culturally responsive. The focus on identity, as seen in the creation of identity artefacts, provided students with a platform to express themselves and connect their learning to their own lives. By understanding and valuing the funds of identity that students bring to the classroom, teachers can create a more equitable and empowering educational experience for all learners.

We’ve written about this study in more detail in a full paper and a poster paper, which will be published at the WiPSCE conference next week. 

We would like to thank all the researchers who worked on this project, including our collaborations with Lynda Chinaka from the University of Roehampton, and Alex Hadwen-Bennett from King’s College London. Finally, we are grateful to Cognizant for funding this academic research, and to the cohort of primary Computing teachers for their enthusiasm, energy, and creativity, and their commitment to this project.

The post Adapting primary Computing resources for cultural responsiveness: Bringing in learners’ identity appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.