Article In Press | Published on: April 25, 2026
Volume: 3, Issue: 1
1. Department of Curriculum & Educational Technology, Alvan Ikoku Federal University of Education, Owerri, Nigeria.
2. Department of Education Psychology and Counseling, Alvan Ikoku Federal University of Education, Owerri, Nigeria.
Corresponding Author: Eke Ogbu Eke, Department of Curriculum & Educational Technology, Alvan Ikoku Federal University of Education, Owerri, Nigeria.
Citation: Eke. O. Eke, N. Enwereuzo, I. Ubochi, O. Charles, U. Ibebuike. (2026). Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Computational Thinking Strategies for Effective Senior Secondary Curriculum Implementation in Nigeria, Proceedings of the International Academy of Sciences, RPC Publishes, 3(1); 1-8.
Copyright: © 2026 Eke Ogbu Eke, this is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Computational thinking is a vital 21st century skill that fosters problem solving, logical reasoning and innovation across disciplines. In Nigeria the senior secondary curriculum remains outdated and disconnected from global demands underscoring the need for computational thinking integration to enhance relevance and critical thinking. This study examined teachers’ perceptions of embedding computational thinking instructional strategies in senior secondary education in Owerri Nigeria and explored gender-based differences. Using a descriptive survey design 310 public school teachers 78 males 232 females were purposively sampled. Data were collected with a 20 item 4-point Likert scale questionnaire Cronbach alpha 0.88 and analyzed via mean scores and independent t tests. Results revealed strongly positive perceptions overall mean 3.21 greater than 2.50 with teachers affirming computational thinkings benefits for problem solving mean 3.53 collaboration mean 3.64 and curriculum alignment. However low ratings on preparedness mean 2.22 to 2.34 and resource availability mean 2.38 to 3.55 highlighted critical barriers. No significant gender difference emerged t 208 0.17 p 0.980. These findings, the first large scale empirical evidence of Nigerian teachers computational thinking readiness, signaled strong support but underscore the urgency of targeted training infrastructure investment and policy reform to enable effective implementation and modernize the curriculum.
1. Adegoke, B. A., Olatunji, M. A. (2023). Curriculum relevance and technological integration in Nigerian secondary education. Journal of Educational Innovation and Policy,12(2):45-60.
2. Adeyemo, S. A.,Adu, E. O. (2018). Teachers’ preparedness and challenges in implementing computer science education in Nigerian secondary schools. African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences,14(1):77-88.
3. Akinoso, S. O., Oginni, O. M. (2023). Fostering creativity through computational thinking in Nigerian classrooms. International Journal of STEM Education,10(1), Article 24.
4. Eze, U. C., Chinelo, O. N., Obayi, C. I. (2025). Pre-service teachers’ readiness for computational thinking integration in Southwestern Nigeria. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 41(1):33-47.
5. Grover, S.,Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher,42(1):38-43.
6. Ibrahim, A., Abubakar, M., Achi, I. (2022). Digital literacy and collaborative learning through computational thinking in Nigerian schools. Journal of Educational Technology in Developing Countries, 9(2):112-128.
7. Johnson, M., Adams, S.,Cummins, M. (2016). NMC Horizon Report: 2016 K–12 Edition. The New Media Consortium.
8. Kazakoff, E. R., Bers, M. U. (2020). Putting the “T” in STEM: The role of robotics in fostering computational thinking in early childhood. Journal of Educational Computing Research,58(1):123-145.
9. Lye, S. Y., Koh, J. H. L. (2020). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K–12? Computers in Human Behavior,110, Article 106377.
10. National Policy on Education. (2013). Federal Republic of Nigeria (6th ed.). NERDC Press.
11. Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L. (2022). Teachers’ perceptions and practices of computational thinking in K–12 education: A systematic literature review. Education and Information Technologies,27(5):6555-6583.
12. Okeke, C. I.,Hassan, B. (2021). Challenges of integrating computational thinking in Nigerian secondary schools: Teachers’ perspectives. African Journal of Teacher Education,10(1):89-104.
13. Oyelere, S. S., Suhonen, J., Niemi, H. (2021). Computational thinking in secondary education: A systematic literature review. Education and Information Technologie,s 26(6):7257-7289.
14. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., et al. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM,52(11):60-67.
15. Rich, K., Bly, L., Leatham, K. (2020). Beyond coding: Integrating computational thinking into elementary mathematics. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching,39(3):255-275.
16. Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., Clark, D. (2021). Integrating computational thinking with K–12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies,26(2):1525-1553.
17. Tedre, M., Kale, P. (2023). The global expansion of computational thinking in school curricula: Trends, challenges, and implications for curriculum policy. Computers & Education, 184: Article 104-482.
18. Unwin, L. Unwin, D. (2023). Computational thinking as a 21st-century skill: Implications for curriculum design in developing economies. Global Education Review,10(1):55-72.
19. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P.,Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in teacher education: A literature review. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,24(5):715-728.
20. Voogt, J.,Robl, M. (2023). Reconceptualizing computational thinking for global education: A comparative policy analysis. Journal of Curriculum Studies,55(4):512-530.
21. Wang, D., Zhang, L., Liu, Y. (2019). Teachers’ attitudes toward computational thinking integration: The role of professional development and school support. Teaching and Teacher Education,85:1-10.
22. Yadav, A., Gretter, S., Good, J., McLean, T. (2022). Computational thinking in teacher education: Preparing K–12 teachers to integrate CT across disciplines. Journal of Science Education and Technology,31(1):1-14.
23. Yadav, A., Mayfield, C., Korb, J. Hambrusch, S. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions of computational thinking in K–12 classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(7), 1245–1268.
24. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approach (4th ed.). SAGE.
25. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM,49(3):33-35.
26. Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record,108(6):1017-1054.