The vast majority of respondents (80%) reported their organization to be a college or university and 59% of respondents identified themselves as college/university faculty. The 20% of respondents who did not identify their organization as a college or university reported being from membership organizations, corporations, high schools, and foundations.

Google and the National Science Foundation (NSF) funded the majority of professional development experiences reported in the survey. The professional development funding sources were grouped into five categories: Google-only funded professional development (25%), NSF-only funded professional development (22%), Google plus NSF funded professional development (7%), Google plus non-NSF funded professional development (11%), NSF plus non-Google funded professional development (12%), and “All Other Funders” including state, local, and/or corporate/private funds (24%).

High school computer science teacher professional development experiences funded solely or partially by NSF have a significantly smaller percentage of in-service non-computer science teachers, compared to the Google-funded or other corporate/private funded professional development experiences. More specifically, the average percentage of participants who are in-service non-computer science teachers is 19% in NSF-funded professional development compared to 47% in Google-funded professional developments and 36% in other corporate/private funded professional developments.

Issue	Less	More
Relevance and Fit	University developed professional development	University and school co-developed professional development
Priority	Higher education-driven	School-and district-driven
Investment	Externally funded professional development	Co-funded profession development

This table and the other summary tables in this report capture some of the issues that emerged from the data and offer recommendations for future goals for computer science education professional development. Note that these recommendations are framed as “Less” and “More” intentionally, recognizing that no single approach or model of professional development is a fit for every situation. Further, it is important to acknowledge that there is work to be done to move the field from “Less” to “More” and that that work will take some time. Finally, the recommendations are grounded in some of the generally accepted principles about professional development that reside in the literature. For references, see the “Resources” section of this report.

More than half (51%) of the participants were not full time in-service computer science teachers. Of these, the largest group was in-service non-computer science teachers at 36%. The remaining categories of participants were “other” (11%) and pre-service teachers (5%). Of those 11% identified as “other,” the top three categories included industry professionals, retired teachers and informal education providers.

Note: “In-service” refers to teachers who are currently employed as teachers. Pre-service teachers are those in teacher preparation programs not yet employed as teachers.

Of the in-service teacher participants who were not teaching computer science full-time, 28% on average also taught mathematics. Looking at other subjects, 16% taught science, 18% taught technology skills, 3% taught English/Humanities, 2% taught social sciences and 3% taught drafting, graphic design or another technical art.

Approximately 15% of participants were teaching another subject not listed in the menu of choices. They included business, special education, information technology, and library science.

Approximately 14% of professional development providers indicated they didn’t know what other subjects the participants taught.

Seventy-three percent of all professional development providers reported having 40 or fewer participants. More specifically, nearly one quarter (23%) reported serving 0-10 participants and another quarter (23%) reported serving 11-20 participants. Thus, nearly half (46%) of all reported professional development experiences serve 20 or fewer participants. Another 15% reported serving 21-30 participants and 12% reported serving 31-40 participants to comprise the 73% that serve 40 or fewer.

The remaining 27% of professional development experiences report a range of larger participant numbers. More specifically, 3% of professional development experiences reported 41-50 participants, 4% reported 51-60 participants, 3% reported 61-70 participants, 4% reported 71-80 participants, and 14% reported having more than 100 participants.

Issue	Less	More
Class Size	---	Relatively small numbers of participants
Audience	Mixed groups	Homogenous groups

This table and the other summary tables in this report capture some of the issues that emerged from the data and offer recommendations for future goals for computer science education professional development. Note that these recommendations are framed as “Less” and “More” intentionally, recognizing that no single approach or model of professional development is a fit for every situation. Further, it is important to acknowledge that there is work to be done to move the field from “Less” to “More” and that that work will take some time. Finally, the recommendations are grounded in some of the generally accepted principles about professional development that reside in the literature. For references, see the “Resources” section of this report.

Sixty-eight percent of professional development providers reported their application process to consist of teacher self-selection. About a third, (32%) reported that they were “selective” in that they targeted specific teachers based on qualifications and/or experience and 16% reported that they were selective in that they targeted particular geographic areas. Only 8% of respondents reported their professional development experience was non-selective and included all computer science teachers within a school or school district. Note that for this question, respondents were able to select more than one option to describe their selection criteria but few did.

A large majority of professional development providers (83%) reported using local teacher networks to publicize information about the computer science professional development experience. The next most common means providers identified was CSTA (49%) and school district newsletters or websites (33%). Sixty-four percent of providers chose “other.” The survey did not provide an opportunity for explanation of “other” on this item.

Professional development experiences were predominately comprised of local teachers (58%). The remaining 42% of participants taught regionally (11%), taught in another region within the state (16%) and/or taught in another state (7%). The results were similar for in-person professional development as well as professional development that was partially or mostly online.

Forty-five percent of the high school computer science professional development experiences paid participants to attend and complete the experience, while 55% did not.

Forty-one percent of high school computer science professional development experiences offered credits of varying kinds for attending and completing the professional development experience. In turn, 59% did not. Of those that did offer academic credit to participants, about half (52%) offered continuing education credit, about a third (32%) offered graduate credit, 3% offered undergraduate credits, and 13% offered other forms of credit including clock hours and community college credit.

Eighty percent of respondents reported that they provided participants with “other” kinds of incentives (not money or credits) or support when they attended and completed the professional development experience. These incentives included classroom materials (textbooks, lesson plans, handouts and worksheets, LEGO® robotics kits) and technology (laptops, software, jump drives).

Nearly all (95%) of the computer science professional development providers reported including in-person experiences for participants. Forty-one percent of computer science professional development providers reported their experience included an online component, while 59% did not.

Of the respondents who reported doing an “in person summer workshop” with follow up, the two most common kinds of follow up were “in person meeting only” (28%) and “in person meeting” with phone calls, online meetings and mail (28%). The next most common kind of follow up was “mail only” (17%).

Issue	Less	More
Recruitment	Casting a broad net for participants in PD experiences	Targeting participants and audience for PD experiences
Exposure and Dosage	Single opportunities with little follow up	Continuing exposure to professional development experiences for the more hours over longer periods of time
Isolation	Professional development out of school	School based and/or job-embedded professional development
Unreached	---	Providing opportunities where they don't already exist.

This table and the other summary tables in this report capture some of the issues that emerged from the data and offer recommendations for future goals for computer science education professional development. Note that these recommendations are framed as “Less” and “More” intentionally, recognizing that no single approach or model of professional development is a fit for every situation. Further, it is important to acknowledge that there is work to be done to move the field from “Less” to “More” and that that work will take some time. Finally, the recommendations are grounded in some of the generally accepted principles about professional development that reside in the literature. For references, see the “Resources” section of this report.

A little more than half (54%) of the professional development providers reported that they focus on preparing teachers to teach a particular course (i.e. AP Computer Science Principles, AP Computer Science A, Exploring Computer Science, and Computer Applications (e.g. Microsoft Office)), while the remainder (46%) of respondents report that their professional development experience is not preparing participants to teach a particular course.

About 2/3 of the 54% percent of respondents who indicated that they focus some of their professional development time on preparing participants to teach a particular course reported spending a significant majority (at least ¾) of professional development time on that course.

More specifically, 17% reported devoting 75% or more of its PD time to prepare teachers to teach AP Computer Science Principles; another 15% reported devoting 75% or more of PD time to prepare teachers to teach Exploring Computer Science; another 15% reported devoting 75% or more of PD time to preparing teachers to teach AP Computer Science A; and another 17% reported preparing teachers to teach other courses not listed. This comes to 64% of those who report preparing participants for a particular course. No respondents indicated that they devoted at least 75% or more of time to Computer Applications.

A little over a third (36%) of respondents who said they focused some amount of their professional development on a particular course devoted less than 75% of their PD time on any single course.

The respondents who devoted more than 75% of time to preparing teachers to teach AP Computer Science Principles reported an average of 47% of their participants intending to teach that course with the range being from 0% of the participants to 100% of participants.

The respondents who devoted more than 75% of time to preparing teachers to teach Exploring Computer Science (ECS) reported an average of 61% of their participants intending to teach the course with the range being from 0% of participants to 100% of participants.

The respondents who devoted more than 75% of time to preparing teachers to teach AP Computer Science A (15%) reported an average of 78% of their participants intending to teach the course with the range being from 10% to 100% of participants.

The three goals most frequently ranked number one by providers were “participants’ abilities to increase student participation and engagement in computer science” (N=22; 29%), “participants’ understanding of particular computer science concepts” (N=19; 25%), and “participants abilities to implement particular pedagogical approaches or strategies for teaching computer science concepts” (N=18; 24%).

“Learning a particular programming tool” and “learning a particular programming language” were not selected by any of the providers as a number 1 goal. “Learn a particular programming tool" was selected by only 10 providers as a top three goal. Similarly, no provider selected “learn a particular programming language” as a number one goal, and only four ranked it as a top three goal.

PD Goal	Top 1		Top 3
	N	%	N	%
Participants abilities to implement increase student participation and engagement in computer science	22	29%	57	75%
Participants’ understanding of particular computer science concepts	19	25%	43	57%
Participants abilities to implement particular pedagogical approaches or strategies for teaching computer science concepts	18	24%	49	64%
Participants' abilities to address issues of access, equity and diversity in computer science	4	5%	20	26%
Participants' abilities to reflect on and thus improve their own teaching practice	4	5%	18	24%
Development of a professional learning community	4	5%	16	21%
Learn a particular programming tool	0	0%	10	13%
Learn a particular programming language	0	0%	4	5%
Other 1	4	5%	7	9%
Other 2	1	1%	4	5%

The three most frequently identified content of professional development experiences was programming concepts (86% of all respondents), computational thinking and problem solving practices (79%), and programming tools and languages (74%).

The proportion of time spent on each of these content areas, however, varied widely. Respondents reported spending anywhere from 5% of time to 100% of time on programming concepts, with an average of 30% of professional development time spent. Similarly, respondents reported spending anywhere from 4% to 95% of time on computational thinking and problem solving practices for an average of 25% of time spent. And programming tools and languages comprised, on average, 24% of time with a range from 3% to 90%.

By contrast, connecting computing with other disciplines comprised, on average, 16% of time, modeling and simulation concepts and tools comprised 15% of time, computing and society and/or social impacts of computing comprised 14% of time and using/manipulating data comprised 10% of time.

Of those that reported “other computer science content” in their professional development, the top two answers were robotics, and computer/network/history basics.

For the three goals most frequently ranked number one, the content emphasized was predominately programming concepts, computational thinking and problem solving practices, and programming tools and languages.

It is noteworthy that there isn’t a great deal of difference in content emphasis between the three groups choosing each of the different number one goals. Further, even though no respondents chose “learning a particular programming language” or “learn a particular programming tool” as a number 1 goal, “programming tools and languages” was one of the top three content areas respondents reported spending time on. It is unclear how programming tools and languages were emphasized in that professional development and/or the extent to which they may have been vehicles for focusing on other content areas.

The survey provided 17 options for pedagogical content focus areas. Of these, 54% of respondents selected assessing student learning, 51% of respondents selected materials and/or technology management, and 50% of respondents selected facilitating discussion. The range of time devoted to these, however, as with many of the content areas, was highly variable.

It is noteworthy that well over a third of respondents selected “other” pedagogical content and of those respondents, they reported spending over 2/3 of their time on that “other” content. When looking at their descriptions of “other” almost half (45%) of them began their answer with “how to…” (e.g. “how to teach Java”) but didn’t offer any more specific pedagogical strategies.

Further, another five respondents who selected “other” cited broad terms such as “STEM learning strategies,” “inquiry” or “active learning” and another six of respondents selecting the “other” category reported that they don’t teach any pedagogy in their professional development experience.

For those respondents who identified “participants abilities to increase student participation and engagement in computer science” as a top goal, they reported spending 18% of their time on materials and/or technology management, 18% of their time on “other,” 13% of their time on facilitating discussion and 10% on writing lessons. The other percentages were under 10%.

In contrast, for those who identified “participants’ understanding of particular computer science concepts as a number one goal, 43% of time was spent on “other” while only assessing student learning (14%) and materials and/or technology management (11%) were reported at over 10% of time.



64% of respondents identified “participants abilities to implement particular pedagogical approaches or strategies for teaching computer science concepts” as a top three goal. They reported that they spent most of their time, on average, on “other” pedagogical content. The next highest focus areas were, on average, writing lessons, sequencing lessons, materials and/or technology management, and facilitating discussion.

*See above for discussion of “other” pedagogical content.

Professional development experiences that had 20 participants or fewer did not have different goals, structure or content than professional development experiences designed for those that had 100 participants or more. There was no significant relationship between the size of PDs and their structure, goals and content.

“Participants’ abilities to address issues of access, equity and diversity in computer science,” was ranked as a number one goal by 5% of survey respondents, and as a top three goal by 26% of providers. Though not a highly ranked as a top three choices, this goal of equity, access and diversity was dominant as a 4th place and 5th place ranking.

Further, although addressing issues of access, equity and diversity in computer science was not listed as an option in the “computer science content” item, six respondents wrote it in as an “other” content covered during their professional development experience.

Issue	Less	More
Fit	Widely varied disciplinary content within and across PD experiences	Disciplinary content aligned to goals and target audience within PD experiences.
Fit	Widely varied pedagogical content within and across PD experiences	Pedagogical content aligned to goals and target audience within PD experiences.
Pedagogical Understanding	Vaguely defined pedagogical content.	Clarified pedagogical strategies and specified classroom applications.
Classroom Application	Isolated content and approaches	Content and pedagogy directly tied to teacher's instructional goals, curricular frameworks and/or courses.
Underrepresented	---	Attention to increasing access and equity

This table and the other summary tables in this report capture some of the issues that emerged from the data and offer recommendations for future goals for computer science education professional development. Note that these recommendations are framed as “Less” and “More” intentionally, recognizing that no single approach or model of professional development is a fit for every situation. Further, it is important to acknowledge that there is work to be done to move the field from “Less” to “More” and that that work will take some time. Finally, the recommendations are grounded in some of the generally accepted principles about professional development that reside in the literature. For references, see the “Resources” section of this report.

Of the 66 respondents reporting the use of whole group lecture and/or presentation, only 5 respondents reported spending more than 50% time in the whole group lecture and/or presentation format. In contrast, 21 respondents (about 25%) of those reporting that they used self-directed and/or PD leader guided individual or small group hands-on computer work reported spending 50% or more of their time doing “individual or small group projects using computers.”

Of the few (5) respondents who reported spending 50% or more of their time in whole group lecture and/or presentation format, two ranked “participants' understanding of particular computer science concepts” as the highest priority goal, and two others selected “development of a professional learning community.” One selected “participants' abilities to address issues of access, equity and diversity in computer science.”

On the other hand, of the 21 respondents (about 25%) who reported spending 50% or more time doing “individual or small group project using computers” 43% ranked “participants' understanding of particular computer science concepts” as the highest priority goal; about one-quarter (24%) selected “participants’ abilities to increase student participation and engagement in computer science”; and 19% selected “participants’ abilities to implement particular pedagogical approaches or strategies for teaching computer science concepts.”

Finally, only 4 respondents reported spending 50% or more of their time doing “individual or small group projects without using computers.” For these respondents, two ranked “Participants' abilities to increase student participation and engagement in computer science” as the top 1 goal; one selected “participants' abilities to implement particular pedagogical approaches or strategies for teaching computer science concepts,” and the other selected “other” as its top goal.

Issue	Less	More
Educating Teachers	---	Opportunities for teacher reflection
Educating Teachers	---	Small group discussion

This table and the other summary tables in this report capture some of the issues that emerged from the data and offer recommendations for future goals for computer science education professional development. Note that these recommendations are framed as “Less” and “More” intentionally, recognizing that no single approach or model of professional development is a fit for every situation. Further, it is important to acknowledge that there is work to be done to move the field from “Less” to “More” and that that work will take some time. Finally, the recommendations are grounded in some of the generally accepted principles about professional development that reside in the literature. For references, see the “Resources” section of this report.