Many schools worldwide have started to adopt computer programming as part of their formal curriculum. However, critics contend that integrating computer programming into schools tends to be technocentric. Teacher professional development is crucial to integrate computer programming as a tool for learning in classrooms through constructionist pedagogy. This study employed a grounded theory approach to develop a deeper understanding of teacher learning experiences during teacher professional development in constructionist computer programming education. An analysis of surveys and interviews with 14 public elementary and middle school teachers in Japan highlighted that teachers who undergo professional development for constructionist computer programming education tend to include three major learning elements: learning design strategies, pedagogical reflection, and professional development strategies. The analysis also demonstrated how those three elements are interconnected and continuous in the teachers’ learning experiences, implying the importance of supporting all the three elements during teacher professional development. The study indicated that leadership experiences during professional development helped teachers become more intentional regarding their learning experiences. This indicates the strength of such program designs for future constructionist computing professional development. Based on our observations, the current paper proposes a new teacher professional development model: the Creative Teacher Learning Spiral. We discuss the implications and recommendations for its application.

1. [1] S. Grover and R. Pea, “Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field,” Educational Researcher, Vol.42, No.1, pp. 38-43, 2013. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
2. [2] Y. B. Kafai, “From computational thinking to computational participation in K-12 education,” Commun. ACM, Vol.59, No.8, pp. 26-27, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1145/2955114
3. [3] I. Torres and E. Inga, “Fostering STEM Skills Through Programming and Robotics for Motivation and Cognitive Development in Secondary Education,” Information, Vol.16, No.2, Article No.96, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16020096
4. [4] J. M. Wing, “A conversation about computational thinking,” NSW Department of Education, 2019.
5. [5] J. M. Wing, “Computational thinking,” Communications of the ACM, Vol.49, No.3, pp. 33-35, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
6. [6] J. M. Wing, “Computational thinking and thinking about computing,” Philosophical Trans. of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol.366, No.1881, pp. 3717-3725, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118
7. [7] M. Resnick and N. Rusk, “Coding at a crossroads,” Commun. ACM, Vol.63, No.11, pp. 120-127, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375546
8. [8] O. S. Iversen, R. C. Smith, and C. Dindler, “From computational thinking to computational empowerment: A 21st century PD agenda,” Proc. of the 15th Participatory Design Conf.: Full Papers, Vol.1, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1145/3210586.3210592
9. [9] K. Nakatani, T. Doi, T. Wada, and T. Kaneda, “Promotion of Self-Growth of Students by PBL-Type Manufacturing Practice,” J. Robot. Mechatron., Vol.29, No.6, pp. 1037-1048, 2017. https://doi.org/10.20965/jrm.2017.p1037
10. [10] K. Kadota, “Development of Communication Robot for STEM Education by Using Digital Fabrication,” J. Robot. Mechatron., Vol.29, No.6, pp. 944-951, 2017. https://doi.org/10.20965/jrm.2017.p0944
11. [11] S. Papert, “Information Technology and Education: Computer Criticism vs. Technocentric Thinking,” Educational Researcher, Vol.16, No.1, pp. 22-30, 1987. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X016001022
12. [12] K. Brennan, “Beyond technocentrism: Supporting constructionism in the classroom,” Constructivist Foundations, Vol.10, No.3, pp. 289-296, 2015.
13. [13] M. Tissenbaum, D. Weintrop, N. Holbert, and T. Clegg, “The case for alternative endpoints in computing education,” British J. of Educational Technology, Vol.52, No.3, pp. 1164-1177, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13072
14. [14] I. Harel and S. Papert, “Constructionism,” Ablex Publishing, 1991.
15. [15] S. Papert, “Mindstorms: Computers, children, and powerful ideas,” Basic Books, p. 255, 1980.
16. [16] S. Vossoughi, P. K. Hooper, and M. Escudé, “Making through the lens of culture and power: Toward transformative visions for educational equity,” Harvard Educational Review, Vol.86, No.2, pp. 206-232, 2016. https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.86.2.206
17. [17] H. Muramatsu, “Trends of Technology Education in Compulsory Education in Japan,” J. Robot. Mechatron., Vol.29, No.6, pp. 952-956, 2017. https://doi.org/10.20965/jrm.2017.p0952
18. [18] D. Hickmott and E. Prieto-Rodriguez, “To Assess or Not to Assess: Tensions Negotiated in Six Years of Teaching Teachers about Computational Thinking,” Informatics in Education, Vol.17, No.2, pp. 229-244, 2018. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2018.12
19. [19] A. Yadav, C. Mayfield, N. Zhou, S. Hambrusch, and J. T. Korb, “Computational Thinking in Elementary and Secondary Teacher Education,” ACM Trans. Comput. Educ., Vol.14, No.1, Article No.5, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1145/2576872
20. [20] M. M. Yurkofsky, S. Blum-Smith, and K. Brennan, “Expanding outcomes: Exploring varied conceptions of teacher learning in an online professional development experience,” Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol.82, pp. 1-13, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.03.002
21. [21] Y. Murai and H. Muramatsu, “Application of creative learning principles within blended teacher professional development on integration of computer programming education into elementary and middle school classrooms,” Information and Learning Sciences, Vol.121, Nos.7-8, pp. 665-675, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0122
22. [22] Y. Murai, R. Ikejiri, Y. Yamauchi, A. Tanaka, and S. Nakano, “Design strategies to integrate creative learning in elementary school curricula through computer programming activities,” Interactive Learning Environments, Vol.31, No.7, pp. 4698-4712, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1979048
23. [23] L. Darling-Hammond and N. Richardson, “Teacher learning: What matters?,” Education Leadership, Vol.66, No.5, pp. 46-53, 2009.
24. [24] M. K. Stein and M. C. Wang, “Teacher development and school improvement: The process of teacher change,” Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol.4, No.2, pp. 171-187, 1988. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(88)90016-9
25. [25] L. Darling-Hammond, R. C. Wei, A. Andree, N. Richardson, and S. Orphanos, “Professional learning in the learning profession,” National Staff Development Council, Vol.12, No.10, pp. 1-33, 2009.
26. [26] D. Deglau and M. O’Sullivan, “Chapter 3: The Effects of a Long-Term Professional Development Program on the Beliefs and Practices of Experienced Teachers,” J. of Teaching in Physical Education, Vol.25, No.4, pp. 379-396, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.25.4.379
27. [27] J. L. Snow-Gerono, “Professional development in a culture of inquiry: PDS teachers identify the benefits of professional learning communities,” Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol.21, No.3, pp. 241-256, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.06.008
28. [28] S. L. Battersby and B. Verdi, “The Culture of Professional Learning Communities and Connections to Improve Teacher Efficacy and Support Student Learning,” Arts Education Policy Review, Vol.116, No.1, pp. 22-29, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2015.970096
29. [29] R. V. Bullough, D. Kauchak, N. A. Crow, S. Hobbs, and D. Stokes, “Professional development schools: Cataylsts for teacher and school change,” Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol.13, No.2, pp. 153-169, 1997.
30. [30] J. Lave and E. Wenger, “Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation,” Cambridge University Press, 1991.
31. [31] E. Wenger, “Communities of practice: Learning as a social system,” Systems Thinker, Vol.9, No.5, 1998.
32. [32] M. Resnick, “Lifelong kindergarten: Cultivating creativity through projects, passion, peers, and play,” MIT Press, 2017. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11017.001.0001
33. [33] D. Butler and M. Leahy, “Developing preservice teachers’ understanding of computational thinking: A constructionist approach,” British J. of Educational Technology, Vol.52, No.3, pp. 1060-1077, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13090
34. [34] L. Gabaree, C. Presicce, Y. Murai, and M. Tsur, “Designing for multiple pathways in online learning experiences,” Proc. of Connected Learning Summit, 2018.
35. [35] J. Kelter et al., “Constructionist co-design: A dual approach to curriculum and professional development,” British J. of Educational Technology, Vol.52, No.3, pp. 1043-1059, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13084
36. [36] H. Muramatsu, Y. Murai, S. Matsuzaka, and H. Yoda, “Effectiveness of a long-term online teacher professional development on computer programming education,” J. of The Japan Society of Technology Education (JSTE), Vol.64, No.4, pp. 299-307, 2022 (in Japanese). https://doi.org/10.32309/jjste.64.4_299
37. [37] M. Resnick, “All I really need to know (about creative thinking) I learned (by studying how children learn) in kindergarten,” Proc. of the 6th ACM SIGCHI Conf. on Creativity & Cognition (C&C ’07), 2007. https://doi.org/10.1145/1254960.1254961
38. [38] J. M. Corbin and A. Strauss, “Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria,” Qualitative Sociology, Vol.13, pp. 3-21, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593
39. [39] D. Fisher and N. Frey, “Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility,” 3rd edition, ASCD, 2021.
40. [40] T. Ishii, “Contemporary Issues Concerning the Professionality and Professionalism of Teaching Profession,” The Annual Bulletin of the Japanese Society for the Study on Teacher Education, Vol.30, pp. 40-50, 2021. https://doi.org/10.32292/jsste.30.0_40
41. [41] A. L. Strauss, “Qualitative analysis for social scientists,” Cambridge University Press, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511557842
42. [42] H. Boeije, “A Purposeful Approach to the Constant Comparative Method in the Analysis of Qualitative Interviews,” Quality & Quantity, Vol.36, pp. 391-409, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020909529486
43. [43] Y. Qian, S. Hambrusch, A. Yadav, and S. Gretter, “Who needs what: Recommendations for designing effective online professional development for computer science teachers,” J. of Research on Technology in Education, Vol.50, No.2, pp. 164-181, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2018.1433565
44. [44] D. A. Schön, “Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions,” Jossey-Bass, 1987.
45. [45] M. Park and K. So, “Opportunities and Challenges for Teacher Professional Development: A Case of Collaborative Learning Community in South Korea,” Int. Education Studies, Vol.7, No.7, pp. 96-108, 2014. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n7p96
46. [46] A. Even-Zahav, M. Widder, and O. Hazzan, “From teacher professional development to teacher personal-professional growth: The case of expert STEM teachers,” Teacher Development, Vol.26, No.3, pp. 299-316, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2022.2052947
47. [47] E. Ackermann, “Piaget’s Constructivism, Papert’s Constructionism: What’s the difference?,” Future of Learning Group Publication, Vol.5, No.3, Article No.438, 2001.