Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Oldenbourg March 22, 2018

Tensions in specifying computing curricula for K-12: Towards a principled approach for objectives

Mary E. Webb, Tim Bell, Niki Davis, Yaacov J. Katz, Andrew Fluck, Maciej M. Sysło, Ivan Kalaš, Margaret Cox, Charoula Angeli, Joyce Malyn-Smith, Torsten Brinda, Peter Micheuz and Andrej Brodnik


In this article we examine key issues and tensions for developing and specifying Computing-related elements of curricula design, particularly the role of Computer Science in the curriculum. The article is based on a series of discussions and analyses of curriculum design across various countries with different approaches and traditions of Computing in the curriculum.


1. C. Angeli, J. Voogt, J. Malyn-Smith, M. E. Webb, A. Fluck, M. Cox, and J. Zagami, A K-6 Computational Thinking Curriculum Framework: Implications for Teacher Knowledge. Education Technology and Society, (2016). 19(3): p. 47–57.Search in Google Scholar

2. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). Australian Curriculum. 2017; Available from: in Google Scholar

3. M. Choi, M. Glassman, and D. Cristol, What it means to be a citizen in the internet age: Development of a reliable and valid digital citizenship scale. Computers & Education, (2017). 107: p. 100–112.10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.002Search in Google Scholar

4. Department for Education, National curriculum in England: computing programmes of study. (2013): London, England.Search in Google Scholar

5. C. Duncan, T. Bell, and S. Tanimoto. Should your 8-year-old learn coding? In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WIPSCE 2015). (2014). Berlin, Germany: New York, ACM.10.1145/2670757.2670774Search in Google Scholar

6. A. Fisher and J. Margolis, Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. (2003), Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT press.10.1145/611892.611896Search in Google Scholar

7. A. Fluck, M. E. Webb, M. Cox, C. Angeli, J. Malyn-Smith, J. Voogt, and J. Zagami, Arguing for Computer Science in the School Curriculum. Education Technology and Society, (2016). 19(3): p. 38–46.Search in Google Scholar

8. A. Fluck, Timely updates for Computer Science curricula in World Conference on Computers in Education (WCCE) (2017): Dublin.Search in Google Scholar

9. S. Hawking. Speech at the launch of the Leverhim Centre for the Future of Intelligence. 2016; Available from: in Google Scholar

10. R. Hollandsworth, J. Donovan, and M. Welch, Digital Citizenship: You Can’t Go Home Again. TechTrends, (2017): p. 1–7.10.1007/s11528-017-0190-4Search in Google Scholar

11. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Digital skills crisis. (2016).Search in Google Scholar

12. ISTE. ISTE standards for students. 2017; Available from: in Google Scholar

13. Joint Informatics Europe & ACM Europe Working Group on Informatics Education, Informatics education: Europe cannot afford to miss the boat: Report of the joint Informatics Europe & ACM Europe Working Group on Informatics Education. (2013).Search in Google Scholar

14. M. Kabátová, I. Kalaš, and M. Tomcsányiová, Programming in Slovak Primary Schools. Olympiads in Informatics, (2016). 10: p. 125–159.10.15388/ioi.2016.09Search in Google Scholar

15. S. Makridakis, The forthcoming Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution: Its impact on society and firms. Futures, (2017). 90: p. 46–60.10.1016/j.futures.2017.03.006Search in Google Scholar

16. A. Manches and L. Plowman, Computing education in children’s early years: A call for debate. British Journal of Educational Technology, (2017). 48(1): p. 191–201.10.1111/bjet.12355Search in Google Scholar

17. Ministry of Education New Zealand, Digital Technologies | Hangarau Matihiko. Draft for consultation. (2017).Search in Google Scholar

18. G. E. Moore, Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics Magazine, (1965). 38(8).10.1109/JPROC.1998.658762Search in Google Scholar

19. V. Moret-Bonillo, Can artificial intelligence benefit from quantum computing? Progress in Artificial Intelligence, (2015). 3(2): p. 89–105.10.1007/s13748-014-0059-0Search in Google Scholar

20. S. Papert, An exploration in the space of mathematics educations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, (1996). 1(1): p. 95–123.10.1007/BF00191473Search in Google Scholar

21. J. Pollex and A. Lenschow, Surrendering to growth? The European Union’s goals for research and technology in the Horizon 2020 framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, (2016).10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.195Search in Google Scholar

22. A. Robins, J. Rountree, and N. Rountree, Learning and Teaching Programming: A Review and Discussion. Computer Science Education, (2003). 13(2): p. 137–172.10.1076/csed. in Google Scholar

23. J. J. Schwab, The Practical: Arts of Eclectic. The School Review, (1971). 79(4): p. 493–542.10.1086/442998Search in Google Scholar

24. M. Searson, M. Hancock, N. Soheil, and G. Shepherd, Digital citizenship within global contexts. Education and Information Technologies, (2015). 20(4): p. 729–741.10.1007/s10639-015-9426-0Search in Google Scholar

25. M. Tedre and M. Apiola, Three computing traditions in school computing education. In Improving computer science education, D. Kadijevich, C. Angeli, and C. Schulte, Editors. (2013), Routledge: London. p. 100–106.Search in Google Scholar

26. The Royal Society, Shut down or restart? The way forward for computing in UK schools. (2012), The Royal Society: London.Search in Google Scholar

27. The Royal Society, Vision for science and mathematics education, in The Royal Society Science Policy Centre report 01/14. (2014).Search in Google Scholar

28. T. N. Theis and H. S. P. Wong, The End of Moore’s Law: A New Beginning for Information Technology. Computing in Science & Engineering, (2017). 19(2): p. 41–50.10.1109/MCSE.2017.29Search in Google Scholar

29. J. Voogt, O. Erstad, C. Dede, and P. Mishra, Challenges to learning and schooling in the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, (2013). 29(5): p. 403–413.10.1111/jcal.12029Search in Google Scholar

30. M. Webb, E. N. Davis, T. Bell, Y. J. Katz, N. Reynolds, D. P. Chambers, and M. M. Sysło, Computer science in K-12 school curricula of the 2lst century: Why, what and when? Education and Information Technologies, (2017). 22(2): p. 445–468.10.1007/s10639-016-9493-xSearch in Google Scholar

31. M. E. Webb. Considerations for the design of Computing curricula. In KEYCIT 2014 – Key Competencies in Informatics and ICT. (2014). University of Potsdam, Germany: Commentarii informaticae didacticae (CID) | 7.Search in Google Scholar

32. M. E. Webb, A. Fluck, M. Cox, C. Angeli-Valanides, J. Malyn-Smith, J. Voogt, and J. Zagami, Thematic Working Group 9: Curriculum – Advancing Understanding of the Roles of Computer Science/Informatics in the Curriculum, in EDUsummIT 2015 Summary Report: Technology Advance Quality Learning for All, K.-W. Lai, Editor. (2015): Bangkok, Thailand. p. 60–69.Search in Google Scholar

33. Wikipedia. Computer Science. 2018; Available from: in Google Scholar

34. C. Wilson, L. A. Sudol, C. Stephenson, and M. Stehlik, Running on Empty: The Failure to Teach K-12 Computer Science in the Digital Age. (2010), Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA).10.1145/3414583Search in Google Scholar

35. J. Wing, Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, (2006). 49(3): p. 33–36.10.1145/1118178.1118215Search in Google Scholar

36. World Economic Forum Global Risks Report 2017 (2017).Search in Google Scholar

37. M. Young, Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: a knowledgebased approach. Journal of Curriculum Studies, (2013). 45(2): p. 101–118.10.1080/00220272.2013.764505Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2017-8-24
Revised: 2018-2-7
Accepted: 2018-2-7
Published Online: 2018-3-22
Published in Print: 2018-4-25

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Scroll Up Arrow