The Subservient, Co-equal, Affective, and Social Integration Styles and Their Implications for [Computer Science]
In this episode I unpack Bresler’s (1995) publication titled “The subservient, co-equal, affective, and social integration styles and their implications for the arts,” which “examines the different manifestations of arts integration in the operational, day-to-day curriculum in ordinary schools, focusing on the how, the what, and the toward what” (p. 33).
-
Welcome back to another episode of the
CSK8 podcast my name is jared o'leary
each episode of this podcast is either
an interview with a guest or multiple
guests or a solo episode where i unpack
some scholarship in relation to computer
science education in this week's episode
i'm unpacking a paper titled the
subservient co-equal effective and
social integration styles and the
implications for the arts and this paper
was written by lera bressler and there
is no abstract for this particular paper
however a quote from page 33 kind of
perfectly summarizes this paper in a
single sentence so it says quote this
article examines the different
manifestations of arts integration in
the operational day-to-day curriculum in
ordinary schools focusing on the how the
what and the toward what end quote from
page 33 now even though this particular
paper is related to the arts and
integration of the arts i'm going to
specifically talk about computer science
integration so i promise it's relevant
to computer science educators now you
can find a direct link to this article
in the show notes at jared o'leary.com
which you can quickly visit by going to
the app that you're listening to this on
and clicking on the link in the
description and right below that you'll
also see a link to boot up professional
development so the link says that this
podcast is powered by boot up that's the
non-profit that i work for where i
collaborate on research grants and
advise our professional development team
and create content like this podcast and
a free curriculum so if you haven't
checked it out make sure you check it
out at bootuppd.org and there are links
to that on my website and in the show
notes there's also links on my website
to a bunch of other nerdy stuff like
drumming and gaming so check that out
too all right so in the very first
paragraph i'm going to read you a quote
it's going to be a few sentences but i'm
going to change arts and the arts to
computer science let's see if this
resonates with you quote computer
science educators typically seek to
establish through integration a more
solid role for computer science within
the academic curriculum they envision
computer science specialists who
collaborate with classroom teachers and
in the process strengthen the links
between the marginalized specialists in
the institutions principles vision of
integration typically involves classroom
teachers teaching computer science as
part of the academic curriculum they
tend to value integration as a way both
to use school time efficiently and to
save money in resources classroom
teachers often express ambivalence
toward the issue of integration they see
the demand that they include computer
science as one more mandated curriculum
topic imposed upon them with little or
no support end quote from page 31 and i
don't know about for you but that really
resonated with me with our discussions
in computer science education now in
these show notes i'll include a link to
my dissertation which has some
discussions on the different types of
integration that you can include in a
class or program or school but this
particular article kind of talks about a
few different categories of them very
briefly so this is from page 31 so i'm
not going to read all of them but here
are some different approaches that i
think are worth discussing so one is
interdisciplinary so the author
describes this as quote maintaining
traditional subject boundaries while
aligning content and concepts from one
discipline with those of another end
quote this is a little bit different
than thematic approaches which involves
quote subordinating subject matter to a
theme allowing the boundaries between
disciplines to blur end quote which is
different from holistic approaches which
is all about quote addressing the needs
of the whole child including cognitive
physical moral effective and spiritual
dimensions end quote which is different
from multidisciplinary which is quote
looking at a situation as it was
portrayed in different disciplines end
quote which is different than another
definition of interdisciplinary which is
quote considering a problem in terms of
different disciplines and then
synthesizing these perspectives and
coming up with a more general account
end quote which is different than
metadisciplinary which is quote
comparing the practices within a
particular discipline end quote which is
different from transdisciplinary which
is quote examining a concept as it
appears in political and in physical
discourse end quote okay so why all
these different terms and then there's
even interdiscipline which i mentioned
in an episode two weeks ago which is
basically like when you fuse two
disciplinary domains together to create
a new one like bioengineering is
the fusing together a merger of biology
and engineering to create bioengineering
or ethics in engineering and you could
do ethical engineering or ethical
bioengineering combination of like three
things so those are like an
interdiscipline okay so why is it
important to know the difference between
thematic approaches holistic approaches
multidisciplinary interdisciplinary
meta-disciplinary transdisciplinary or
interdiscipline because whenever
somebody talks about integration we need
to know okay well what do you envision
for that type of integration are you
planning on integrating through a
multidisciplinary approach or
transdisciplinary approach each one of
these all serve different purposes and
different rationales and can position
the
disciplines in a relationship with each
other that might be beneficial to both
or might only be beneficial to one so
when we talk about integration it's
extremely important that we really
clarify well what exactly do you mean by
this what does that look like so let's
dive into this a little bit more so on
the following page the author provides
some more context around integration and
kind of talks about how there's been
debate among the arts community about
well what does integration look like and
it is a continuum there are many ways to
integrate and there are a lot of debates
around it maybe i'll read some elliot
eisner publications down the road i
think it'd be beneficial for the field
of cs education to
see how other disciplines talk about
integration to kind of learn from the
mistakes and learn from the lessons
learned in other areas an interesting
quote however from page 32 basically
states that although a lot of people
talk about arts integration very few
people actually practice integration of
the arts and i'd say the same thing for
computer science education when people
especially administrators tend to talk
about integration they're trying to find
a way to slip it into the curriculum
with minimal effort so that way it
doesn't take away from the core or
essential classes subjects etc that's
obviously generally speaking but what
can happen is people will do a so-called
integration by like once a semester or
once a quarter they will do a coding
lesson that's not really integration
that's just quickly trying to check off
the boxes to say that you covered some
standards and i think that's problematic
there are some really cool ways that you
can integrate but unless you're willing
to spend a lot of time and money
providing professional development for
all of your teachers like through boot
up professional development i would
argue it's not going to go well it could
do a disservice not only to the students
but also to the teachers if you don't
have a ton of support to be able to help
teachers learn how to teach a new
content area embedded within another
content area which is difficult to do so
you have to provide the time the energy
the effort the money otherwise they're
going to
just kind of skim through the surface of
concepts and practices on cs education
and i don't think students are actually
going to learn much cs education that's
my own bias but it's just what i've
observed with a lot of districts when
they say they are doing something if
they're an integration approach it
usually means that they're not really
diving into cs
as deeply as they would have if they
just had somebody doing this full time
as their only position which like my old
k8 school that i worked in in avondale
it was a coding position so all i taught
were coding classes so every kid was
required to go to this class because my
entire job just consisted of teaching
coding i needed to know a lot about
different languages platforms etc but if
i were teaching i don't know science
class and was just kind of integrating
it like once a month or once a quarter i
wouldn't need to know much about
computer science and i wouldn't really
be able to help kids dive deeper into it
because they weren't able to engage in
it as frequently as they were in a class
dedicated 100 to learning coding if
however you were to combine that
approach with
collaborating with other subject areas i
think you could do some pretty cool
integration stuff but as we're going to
see there are some different approaches
for integration that you'll need to
consider an interesting note about arts
integration is that there is a tendency
to say that we're integrating the arts
to have a child-centered approach by
allowing them to express themselves etc
but i'd argue that a lot of the
rationales for integrating cs is not in
fact student-centered it's just test
centered so integration again being
pushed down as
oh this is the quickest way that we can
do this without taking away time from
other things is not thinking about the
benefits to students but it's just
thinking about how can we check off the
boxes for these required standards
without taking away time and i do think
that's problematic i get it it's
difficult but in the long run i honestly
think it's kind of doing a bit of a
disservice and kind of doing some smoke
and mirrors by being able to say oh yeah
we're doing computer science when really
it's just okay maybe you're using some
terms like computational thinking and
like you're talking about oh this is
decomposition check i used a vocabulary
word we talked about it for a minute and
now we continue working on ela or
science or math or whatever the way that
comes across to me is like saying oh
yeah we have a dual language immersion
program we support bilingualism in our
schools because when we are getting
ready to take a test we ask students to
call out their in pizzu which is
japanese for a pencil and then we say at
lunch time hey don't forget to drink a
lot of mizu which means water yeah
you're connecting in some vocabulary
words but you're not going to become
bilingual if you have a vocabulary word
every now and then same thing with
computer science you're not going to
become proficient in computer science if
you don't put in the time and if you
want to hear more about that listen to
the episode where i unpack k unders
erickson's discussions on skill
acquisition and expertise which is like
the scholar who was basically cited for
malcolm gladwell's book outliers that
talks about the 10 000 hour rule that's
not an actual rule so check that out if
you want to hear more
discussion on that particular topic so
if you decide to do integration there
are some approaches that you can use
that are awesome that work great for
any subject area involved with it but
then there are approaches that are
problematic so this particular paper
talks about a three-year ethnographic
study that the author did in k-8 schools
where they did semi-structured
interviews with teachers principals
artists and residents they reviewed
curricular materials etc and they
specifically looking at the integration
approaches used for the arts in their
classrooms what i want to do is read for
you the different approaches but i'm
going to translate it into computer
science education so i'm going to swap
out the words the arts with computer
science so here's a quote from page 33
quote in the first the subservient style
computer science serves the basic
academic curriculum in its contents
pedagogies and structures the second the
co-equal style brings computer science
as an equal partner integrating the
curriculum with computer science
specific contents skills expressions and
modes of thinking the third the
effective integration style emphasizes
feelings invoked by and attitudes
towards computer science as well as
student-centered learning and initiative
and incorporates ideals of creativity
and self-expression that teachers and
principals acknowledge are not served by
the academic curriculum the fourth style
emphasizes the social function of the
school and its role as a community end
quote okay so the remaining sections of
this paper unpacks each of those so the
first one that it talks about is the
subservient approach this approach is
the most prevalent in the particular
study it's where the arts served to
spice up the other subject areas now
here's a quote from page 33 and 34. and
again i'm going to modify it so it's
computer science the subservient nature
of computer science to the curricular
content is not surprising since these
activities were typically conducted by
classroom teachers with little
experience in computer science one would
assume that the teachers would try to
get advice from specialists but there
was little consultation and input from
computer science specialists the primary
motivation for integration in this
approach centered around economy of time
end quote now another motivation for
this particular approach was quote the
building of student self-esteem
providing different modes of
representations so that different
students can succeed was a common theme
in interviews with teachers end quote
now if we look at this as a way to get
kids to express themselves okay then
maybe programming like scratch
approaches could work with that but
another way that you could look at this
the subservient approach is
computational thinking so rather than
actually learning computer science
concepts practices skills programming
languages etc you learn a
like four or five different terms
associated with whatever your definition
of computational thinking is like
decomposition abstraction
pattern recognition etc you can teach
those relatively quickly to teachers
they incorporate that vocabulary insert
it into a lesson or two and that
approach could be described as a
subservient approach which is
drastically different than the next
approach the co-equal cognitive
integration style here's a quote from
page 34 quote the second integrative
style is the one advocated by the
scholarly literature it is also the
least common in my study because it
requires discipline specific knowledge
or skills it was rarely practiced and
when it was it was either conducted by a
teacher with an extensive computer
science background or in consultation in
cooperation with computer science
specialists end quote obviously i
changed the wording so it was computer
science not the arts this approach the
co-equal style engaged in like projects
or units that occurred over a relatively
long period of time taking several
lessons this contrasts with the
subservient approach which kind of just
throws in vocabulary or small activities
to kind of
enhance the subject area through the
arts or computer science so when i think
of integration i think of the co-equal
style this might be a teacher whose
entire job is dedicated to computer
science and programming collaborating
with another teacher and they come up
with together like a combined unit or
project that students will work on in
both classes that could be a co-equal
approach it does however require at
least one person to understand computer
science or programming but in my opinion
it allows you to dive deeper because you
have somebody there with some expertise
in the subject area without that
expertise and the time and the money
dedicated to developing that expertise
teachers would be limited to again
skimming on the surface of concepts and
practices usually just by using
vocabulary alright so there are two more
integration styles that i mentioned in
this particular article the next one is
called the effective style so this one
was interesting i'm not sure what the
exact parallel would be for computer
science education but for the arts it
was basically using the art aesthetics
to kind of set a mood or relax or
concentrate in class so for example
putting on music during a test to help
calm students down in terms of their
anxiety around the test or something
like that so here's a quote from page
making a product nor on acquiring
specific knowledge or skills it was on
exposing students to art so that they
could immerse themselves in their
feelings and their responses to it these
activities provided a change of pace a
change of mode a change of mood end
quote however in the effective style
there was also another subcategory in it
that was more active so rather than just
receiving information or passively
engaging in the arts or in computer
science you would create something so in
this particular study the teachers would
use the arts to
encourage kids to create things to
express themselves a common rationale
for this in the interviews was that
quote some teachers complained about the
overly structured nature of the
curriculum which does not allow students
to express themselves and have ownership
over their projects allowing students to
be creative provided a balance as did
the non-critical non-authoritative role
teachers assumed in order to facilitate
student expressivity and spontaneity
they regarded the arts as tools for
self-expression and the manifestation of
individuality and uniqueness end quote
from page 34 and 35 so that reminds me a
lot of the conversations that i hear
around creative computing and kind of
aligns with my own approach with
computer science while i think many kids
have the opportunity to use cs for
careers and projects outside of school
most likely won't go into computer
science as a field of study or for a
career so because the kids that i worked
with were required to attend i wanted
them to still be able to do something
with that information even if they had
no plans on
using it for a career so we focus on
self-expression and creativity in the
classes that i worked with however where
that differs is it was specifically in a
computer science class in a k-8 coding
class it was not in like a social
studies class where you used computer
science to express yourself in social
studies content so that's where it's a
little bit different than just like the
creative computing discussions now
interestingly this approach is most
common in k through 2 grades so the
primary grades and here's a quote from
page 35 quote teachers who adopted this
orientation were mostly classroom or
special education teachers who although
they had little or no formal computer
science background had an active
interest in computer science as
reflected in their stated beliefs and
activities in their private lives as it
did not require any specific knowledge
the orientation fit nicely within
classroom teachers lack of computer
science expertise end quote so going
back to unplugged i could see how that
kind of might relate to that i could
also see some platforms like code.org or
scratch junior where you don't
necessarily need to have a lot of cs and
programming content knowledge in order
to engage in it or to teach it in the
primary grade levels just more of but
obviously that depends on how you teach
it now in the last paragraph of this
particular section the author mentions
that the purpose typically for the
effective style was to complement other
subject areas by incorporating things
that were absent from it so for example
in x subject area maybe there's not a
lot of creativity so let's let kids
express themselves in the subject area
through creating a scratch project or
hey there's not a lot of movement going
on we're just kind of sitting getting so
let's incorporate and unplug to get it
so that kids are up and moving that
differs from the
subservient style which was imitative of
the general curriculum which is also
different than the
co-equal style which was attempting to
expand the curriculum but there's one
more style that actually has less to do
with education and more to do with
integrating through social functions of
schooling so this one is called the
social integration style and it too
complemented the academic curriculum but
from a different angle than some of the
other approaches so principals who use
this quote place high value on the
establishment and maintenance of the
school as a community and its relations
with the larger outside community
students as families social functions
like pta meetings holiday honor programs
and ethnic evenings reviewed as prime
opportunities for creating such a
community and computer science had a
role in making those social events a
success in quote from page 35. okay so
again changed it so cs rather than the
arts but i'm not entirely sure what this
kind of integration would look like for
computer science like the examples that
were given were hey in the pta meeting
we would have a choir perform
integrating into some kind of a social
activity but what would be the
equivalent of that for computer science
if you got an idea let me know there's a
contact me button on my website all
right so the last section of here is on
the discussion and so the author is
quick to point out that although they
presented this into like four different
styles of integration they overlap so
some teachers might engage in one two
three or all four of these in various
times of the year and for various
reasons but it's a good thing to
consider whenever engaging any form of
integration or if you're like a
professional development provider and
the administrators say hey we want to
integrate well then you can talk about
well why is it that you want to
integrate how do you want to integrate
maybe you could use some of these
categories or different categories of
different integration styles to talk
about it or you could talk about well is
this going to be transdisciplinary
meta-disciplinary interdisciplinary
multidisciplinary etc and depending on
which one that you choose how does this
relate to your own
vision for cs education which i talk
about in an episode on the vision
framework by cs for all which i highly
recommend taking a look at and i'll
include a link to that in the show now
so you can listen to that episode and
then read the actual paper depending on
what vision you have an integration
style may or may not actually align with
that vision and how you choose to
implement so here's a quote from page 35
and 36 and again changing it to cs
rather than the arts quote these
integration styles reflect some
fundamental differences and assumptions
about the relationship of computer
science and computer science instruction
to the larger curriculum and educational
goals emphasizing different roles of
computer science in the school each
model implies different values
concerning what is worthwhile and
important for children to know in
computer science as well as in academic
subjects and how computer science could
fit within the academic curriculum and
the school these values and goals shape
the organization of learning resources
and pedagogies end quote now the
subservient relationship it's clear that
the author and myself are not a huge fan
of that one that was the most prevalent
uh approach or style and the one that
was most touted as hey this is what you
should do the co-equal that one was the
least done in classes and the author
notes that quote this style was at least
in practice and that is not surprising
as the style is the most difficult to
implement quote a little bit further
down this style quote attempts to
integrate computer science into the
curriculum in ways that draw and build
on the characteristics of computer
science requiring classroom teachers to
provide direction and guidance that
often transcends their vision and
current abilities whereas the
subservient effective and social
integration styles do not require any
major changes in teacher thinking and
attitudes the co-equal cognitive style
entails a fundamentally different way of
conceptualizing a discipline in terms of
content goals and sometimes pedagogies
these new conceptualizations often call
for a change of existing structures in
that they involve collaboration among
groups of people who do not
traditionally work together in quotes
from page 36 and i would add to that for
computer science that it also requires
learning more about a content area that
they likely do not have any background
in all right so here's the last couple
sentences of this particular paper it's
from page 36
just as distinct disciplines has
developed over the ages because they
allow scholars to lucidate specific
kinds of phenomena school subjects are
often taught as much for convenience of
presentation and evaluation as for their
intrinsic logic this convenience
establishes traditions within schools as
well as within teacher education
programs in colleges of education
changing these traditions has
implications for conceptual knowledge
and pedagogical techniques implying
changes in attitude and beliefs about
the nature of the discipline and of
cooperation in addition to intellectual
feasibility and soundness integration
typically involves issues of human
relations communication among different
groups of teachers and the coordination
of resources schedules and structures to
use an analogy from the arts it involves
a shift from a solo performance to a
chamber work end quote that is really
important for pd providers in particular
to think about so if you're working with
a district and let's say you wanted to
have district-wide implementation it is
likely that admin are going to try and
find the fastest cheapest way to begin
addressing the computer science
standards with the least amount of time
and energy on teachers especially
nowadays because they have so much on
their plate and with all the stresses
and whatnot with covid and communities
rallying against equity centered
approaches to education etc like there's
so much going on and to then say hey you
have to learn a whole another subject
area on top of all the stuff that you're
already worrying about i get it why
administrators want to just go with the
fastest way to integrate however in the
long run i would argue this is a
complete disservice to these students
who are supposed to be learning this
content area for example just simply
using terms around computational
thinking and then saying well now we've
integrated computer science we don't
need to do anything other than that i
think is problematic there's so many
cool things you can explore in the field
and that you can explore in the
intersections of computer science and
other areas like check out the podcast
from two weeks ago on the intersections
of music and cs that stuff gets me
excited it's so cool but instead of
exploring stuff like that if we just go
with the subservient approach and we say
hey here's a cs term we're applying it
in a music class boom we're done that's
just not a very exciting way to learn
and i don't think it's going to honestly
motivate kids to want to explore cs but
those are my opinions and you're allowed
to disagree speaking of my opinions at
the end of these unpacking scholarship
episodes i like to talk about some
lingering questions and thoughts i do
have a couple so one of them is if we
were to interview a variety of teachers
in different cs integration contexts
what integration styles would we find so
if we didn't start with these four
different categories and we were to go
in and code them not like programming
but like qualitatively code them to
figure out different approaches that
were used what would we see but another
question that i have is of the
integration styles that were mentioned
which ones do you think are more common
in cs compared to the arts and then how
do those different integration styles
lend themselves toward different visions
for cs again going back to the visions
framework from cs4 so for example would
a focus on digital literacy integrate in
subservient ways and would a focus on
creativity and self-expression integrate
through effective or co-equal styles i
don't know but it seems like an
interesting research question in my
opinion and then i guess the last thing
just to kind of drive home a point that
i made earlier i think that advocates
and leaders in the space need to not
just focus on getting cs into all of
schools but also focus on
how it's going into schools so if it's
going into a classroom through
integration cool but is it through a
subservient style or a co-equal style an
effective style social integration style
or something else yeah it's great that
we're increasing enrollment numbers
we're getting it so that more kids have
access to computer science yadda yadda
but how are we doing that in the long
run are we shooting ourselves in the
foot because of the approaches that
we're using to get it into the
classrooms quickly and i don't know
we'll find out like 10 20 years from now
but i'm not seeing enough discussion on
this it wasn't really until
the other weekend when carla strickland
gave a closing keynote for a csta
conference where karla unpacked like the
different approaches to integration and
how they all have different modes or
means and lend themselves towards
different goals that was probably the
first time that i've really heard people
within the space actually talk about how
there are different ways to integrate
and i loved it but i think we need to
have more of those discussions so if
there was a call to action i guess that
i would say for this particular episode
it would be to one think about how you
are integrating cs in your schools or
through your professional development or
your curriculum etc and then engage in
colleagues to really kind of unpack what
are the long-term benefits or
constraints with this approach and how
does it compare to other approaches in
the space if you got an idea again you
can certainly be a guest on the show
contact me button on my website at
jaredelery.com but i hope you walk away
from this particular episode with more
questions or things to consider or
ponder than answers and i hope you
consider sharing this particular episode
with a friend but stay tuned next week
for another episode and until then i
hope you're all staying safe and are
having a wonderful week
Article
Bresler, L. (1995). The subservient, co-equal, affective, and social integration styles and their implications for the arts. Arts Education Policy Review, 96(5), 31–37.
The Author’s One Sentence Summary
“This article examines the different manifestations of arts integration in the operational, day-to-day curriculum in ordinary schools, focusing on the how, the what, and the toward what” (p. 33).
Some Of My Lingering Questions/Thoughts
If we were to interview a variety of teachers in different CS integration contexts, what integration styles would we find?
Of the integration styles mentioned, which ones do you think are more common in CS compared to the Arts?
How do the different types of visions for CS lean toward different integration styles?
I want to encourage PD providers and CS leads to challenge administrators who integrate simply for the sake of saving time
Resources/Links Relevant to This Episode
Other podcast episodes that were mentioned or are relevant to this episode
CS for What? Diverse Visions of Computer Science Education in Practice
In this episode I unpack Santo, Vogel, and Ching’s (2019) publication titled “CS for What? Diverse Visions of Computer Science Education in Practice,” which is a white paper that provides a useful framework for considering the underlying values and impact of CS programs or resources.
Educational Aims, Objectives, and Other Aspirations
In this episode I unpack Eisner’s (2002) publication titled “Educational aims, objectives, and other aspirations,” which problematizes behavioral education objectives and discuss two alternative approaches.
How to Get Started with Computer Science Education
In this episode I provide a framework for how districts and educators can get started with computer science education for free.
In this episode I unpack an excerpt from Schubert’s (1986) book titled “Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility,” which describes different examples, intents, and criticisms of “images” or “characterizations” of curriculum.
Intersections of Popular Musicianship and Computer Science Practices
In this episode I unpack my (2020) publication titled “Intersections of popular musicianship and computer science practices,” which discusses potential implications of hardware and software practices that blur the boundaries between music making and computer science.
Lifelong Kindergarten with Mitch Resnick
In this interview with Mitch Resnick, we discuss misconceptions people have around the four P’s (Projects, Passion, Peers, and Play) in Mitch’s book, encouraging depth of understanding while playing, what has surprised Mitch during his career, encouraging online communication and collaboration without creating artificial engagement, what Mitch wishes we’d see more of and discuss in CS education, our pet peeves with unplugged activities and computational thinking, accounting for survivorship bias with Scratch, expanding our focus on equity and inclusion to include both the “who” and the “how,” the importance of experimenting and learning through play, and much more.
The Centrality of Curriculum and the Function of Standards: The Curriculum is a Mind-altering Device
In this episode I unpack Eisner’s (2002) publication titled “The centrality of curriculum and the function of standards: The curriculum is a mind-altering device,” which problematizes curricula and standards by discussing how both can deprofessionalize the field of education.
The CS Visions Framework and Equity-centered Computing Education with Rafi Santo and Sara Vogel
In this interview with Rafi Santo and Sara Vogel, we discuss informal learning in CS, the CS Visions Framework, equity through social justice pedagogy, considerations for Integration, and much more.
The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance
In this episode I unpack Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Römer’s (1993) publication titled “The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance,” which debunks the notion of innate abilities within a domain and describes the role of deliberate practice in achieving expert performance.
Find other CS educators and resources by using the #CSK8 hashtag on Twitter
Free CS Resources I Have Created
More Content
