A Systematic Review of Instructional Pedagogies for Teaching Computer Education Among Secondary School Learners in Uganda
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70232/jrmste.v3i3.76Keywords:
Computer Technology Education, Teaching Pedagogy, Competency-Based CurriculumAbstract
Computer Education has become part of modern curricula because of its impact on the development of digital literacy, problem-solving skills, and innovation. Curriculum reforms such as the Competency-Based Curriculum in Uganda have emphasized these competencies through learner-centered methods. However, successful implementation is still limited by the infrastructural factors, the traditional pedagogical methodology, and the lack of proper teacher preparation. The purpose of the study was to find out the most common pedagogical strategies in computer education worldwide, assess their efficiency, and discuss their applicability in education. A systematic literature review was conducted by using PRISMA 2020. ERIC, Scopus, JSTOR, ProQuest, Springer, Sage, Wiley, and Taylor and Francis were used to select 23 peer-reviewed publications published between 2010 and 2025. Constructivist theory, competency-based education, and critical thinking provided the basis of the review. The research involved a content analysis approach, which synthesized evidence on the strategies used in pedagogy, research designs, and learning outcomes. The results show that learner-centered pedagogies, specifically problem-based learning, project-based learning, computational thinking, flipped instruction, and collaborative learning, are most commonly applied and show a significant benefit in terms of increasing the engagement of learners, their critical thinking skills, their problem-solving capabilities, and their computational competence. These strategies are highly aligned with the main competencies highlighted in the competency-based curriculum. Nonetheless, they are hindered by contextual problems, such as the lack of ICT infrastructure, access to technological resources, and a lack of teacher training. The paper concludes that although globally accepted pedagogical strategies are very applicable to competency-based education structures, they require contextualization in order to be effectively implemented. Initiatives should be focused on enhancing teacher capacity, ICT infrastructure, and endorsing context-sensitive instructional practices to be implemented effectively in education environments characterized by resource constraints.
References
Arfe, B., Vardanega, T., & Ronconi, L. (2020). The effects of coding on children’s planning and inhibition skills. Computers & Education, 148, Article 103807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103807
Blau, I., & Shamir-Inbal, T. (2017). Re-designed flipped learning model in an academic course: The role of co-creation and co-regulation. Computers & Education, 115, 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.014
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting, Vancouver, Canada. https://scratched.gse.harvard.edu/ct/files/AERA2012.pdf
Csizmadia, A., Curzon, P., Dorling, M., Humphreys, S., Ng, T., Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2015). Computational thinking: A guide for teachers. Retrieved from https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/424545/
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 199–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1033142
Guzdial, M. (2015). Learner-centered design of computing education: Research on computing for everyone. Synthesis lectures on human-centered informatics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00684ED1V01Y201511HCI033
Hamidi, A. (2025). Advancing computational thinking education: Insights from systems thinking applications. Human Systems Management, 44(1), 157-172. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-240024
Hermans, F., & Aivaloglou, E. (2017). To Scratch or not to Scratch?! A controlled experiment comparing plugged first and unplugged first programming lessons. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 49–56). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3137065.3137072
Hsu, T.-C., Chang, S.-C., & Hung, Y.-T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004
Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected code: Engaging youth in programming through constructionist learning. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262529679/connected-code/
Kong, S. C., & Lai, M. (2023). Effects of a teacher development program on teachers’ knowledge and collaborative engagement, and students’ achievement in computational thinking concepts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(2), 489–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13256
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
Qian, Y., & Lehman, J. (2017). Students’ misconceptions and other difficulties in introductory programming: A literature review. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 18(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3077618
Repenning, A., Webb, D., & Ioannidou, A. (2010). Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 265–269). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734357
Seiter, L., & Foreman, B. (2013). Modeling the learning progressions of computational thinking of primary grade students. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘13) (pp. 59–66). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2493394.2493403
Sentance, S., & Csizmadia, A. (2017). Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher’s perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 469–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9482-0
Tew, A. E., & Guzdial, M. (2011). The FCS1: A language independent assessment of CS1 knowledge. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 111–116). https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953200
Thota, N., & Negreiros, J. G. M. (2015). Introducing educational technologies to teachers: Experience report. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 12(1), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.12.1.5
Vivian, R., Falkner, K., & Falkner, N. (2014). Addressing the challenges of a new digital technologies curriculum: MOOCs as a scalable solution for teacher professional development. Research in Learning Technology, 22, Article 24691. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.24691
Wang, Y., Li, H., Feng, Y., Jiang, Y., & Liu, Y. (2012). Assessment of programming language learning based on peer code review model: Implementation and experience report. Computers & Education, 59(2), 412–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.007
Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational thinking for all: Pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends, 60(6), 565–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0087-7
Yağcı, M. (2018). Web-mediated problem-based learning and computer programming: Effects of study approach on academic achievement and attitude. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(2), 272-292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117706908
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Pison Asiimwe, Justine Momanyi Omare, Frank Murangira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
