Informatics in Education

Computational thinking (CT) is widely recognized as a key 21st-century competence, yet its integration across disciplines remains unclear for many educators. This study explores how prospective teachers identify and express CT through scripts representing computational processes in school subjects of their choice. The challenge of integrating CT in teacher preparation programs in non-STEM-related fields is also addressed. Using a mixed-methods approach, we analyze projects and accompanying reflective analyses from 375 prospective teachers who created Scratch-based scripts aligned with computational processes in STEM and non-STEM subjects. Data analysis yielded a taxonomy of pedagogical strategies reflecting diverse instructional approaches. The study underscores the value of guided, discipline-specific CT activities in teacher preparation programs and highlights how script development of computational processes fosters both subject-matter understanding and computational thinking. The results suggest holistic lens in evaluating CT integration and offer evidence-based insights for embedding CT meaning-fully into teacher preparation programs across disciplines.

Object-oriented programming distinguishes between instance attributes and methods and class attributes and methods, annotated by the static modifier. Novices encounter difficulty understanding the means and implications of static attributes and methods. The paper has two outcomes: (a) a detailed classification of aspects of understanding static, and (b) a collection of questions designed to serve as a learning/practice/diagnostic tool to address those aspects. Providing answers requires learners to apply higher-order cognitive skills and, hence, to advance their understanding of the essential meaning of the concept. Each question is analyzed according to three characteristics: (a) the static aspects that the question examines according to a detailed classification the paper provides; (b) identification of the question according: to Bloom’s revised taxonomy, to the Structure of Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) taxonomy; and to the problem-solving keywords used in the question's formulation. Several recommendations for teaching are presented.