Table 2 Teacher survey questions (7-Point Likert, excepted adoption and demographic questions)

Professional development programme perception (Cronbach’s \(\alpha =0.88\))

Root: overall, the CS PD programme

El-Hamamsy et al. (2021b)

Interest

Was rich and interesting

\(1.58\pm 1.11\) (\([-2.0, 3.0]\))

El-Hamamsy et al. (2021b)

Difficulty

Had an adapted difficulty

\(1.2\pm 1.27\) (\([-2.0, 3.0]\))

El-Hamamsy et al. (2021b)

Equilibrium

Had a good equilibrium between theory and practice

\(1.48\pm 1.16\) (\([-1.0, 3.0]\))

El-Hamamsy et al. (2021b)

Workshops

Not applicable

I enjoyed the workshops

\(2.05\pm 1.06\) (\([-2.0, 3.0]\))

El-Hamamsy et al. (2021b)

Trainers

Not applicable

I appreciated the trainers

\(2.26\pm 0.79\) ([0.0, 3.0])

El-Hamamsy et al. (2021b)

Exchanges

Not applicable

I enjoyed the exchanges with the other participants

\(1.8\pm 1.07\) (\([-1.0, 3.0]\))

Danaher and Haddrell (1996)

PD recommendation

Not applicable

I would recommend the CS PD programme to other teachers

\(1.41\pm 1.29\) (\([-3.0, 3.0]\))

Danaher and Haddrell (1996)

Pedagogical activity recommendation

Not applicable

I would recommend the pedagogical activities seen in CS training to other teachers

\(1.7\pm 1.18\) (\([-2.5, 3.0]\))

CS perception (Cronbach’s \(\alpha =0.93\))

Root: Today I believe that CS

Roche (2019)

CS school mission

Is part of the school’s mission

\(0.66\pm 1.41\) (\([-3.0, 3.0]\))

Roche (2019)

CS transversal utility

Is useful for learning in other subjects

\(0.92\pm 1.22\) (\([-2.5, 3.0]\))

CS global-utility

Is generally useful

\(0.94\pm 1.14\) (\([-2.5, 3.0]\))

Deci et al. (1989)

CS potential for advancement

Not applicable

Enables students to have a better chance of professional integration

\(0.4\pm 1.23\) (\([-2.0, 3.0]\))

Deci et al. (1989)

CS potential for advancement

Not applicable

Enable students to become digital actors rather than consumers

\(0.69\pm 1.2\) (\([-2.0, 3.0]\))

Deci et al. (1989)

CS potential for advancement

Not applicable

Allows students to express their creativity

\(-0.07\pm 1.42\) (\([-3.0, 3.0]\))

CS global-non-utility

Is not really worth it

\(-1.25\pm 1.24\) (\([-3.0, 2.0]\))

CS non-utility

Will not necessarily bring much to the students

\(-0.86\pm 1.24\) (\([-3.0, 2.0]\))

Autonomous motivation to teach CS (Cronbach’s \(\alpha _{\text{all}}=0.68\), \(\alpha =0.76\) without Introjected regulation 1) based on the Situational Motivational Angot (2013) and Motivation at work Gagné et al. (2010) scales

Root: The reason I have implemented/plan to implement CS activities with my students is that

Angot (2013)

Intrinsic motivation 1

I find this activity really pleasant.

Teaching CS is fun

\(0.65\pm 1.28\) (\([-3.0, 3.0]\))

Angot (2013)

Identified regulation 1

I think this activity is important to me.

I believe that teaching CS is important for students

\(0.84\pm 1.26\) (\([-2.0, 3.0]\))

Angot (2013)

External regulation 1

I feel I am supposed to do it.

I feel I am supposed to do this

\(0.75\pm 1.61\) (\([-3.0, 3.0]\))

Angot (2013)

Intrinsic motivation 2

I find this activity interesting

I find that teaching CS interesting

\(0.87\pm 1.18\) (\([-3.0, 3.0]\))

Angot (2013)

Identified regulation 2

I find that doing this activity is good for me.

I find that teaching CS is useful for my students

\(0.9\pm 1.2\) (\([-2.5, 3.0]\))

Angot (2013)

External regulation 2

It’s something I have to do.

I feel that this is something I have to do

\(0.7\pm 1.37\) (\([-3.0, 3.0]\))

Gagné et al. (2010)

Introjected regulation 1

My work is my life and I don’t want to fail

I want to show others that I can do it

\(-1.35\pm 1.62\) (\([-3.0, 2.0]\))

Gagné et al. (2010)

Introjected regulation 2

My reputation depends on it

My reputation depends on it

\(-1.54\pm 1.54\) (\([-3.0, 3.0]\))

Adoption

El-Hamamsy et al. (2022a)

Number of activities

Which activities did you teach? [List of all the CS pedagogical activities the teachers were trained to introduce in the CS-PD programme they participated in in 2018–2019 for which they had access to all the requires material and pedagogical resources]

\(2.3\pm 1.88\) ([0.0, 7.0])

El-Hamamsy et al. (2022a)

Periods

How many periods did you teach per activity? [List of the activities that the teachers selected in the previous question]

\(9.15\pm 10.36\) ([0.0, 45.0])

Demographics

Age

Age

\(39.44\pm 11.51\) ([23.0, 62.0])

Teaching experience

Years of teaching experience

\(15.24\pm 10.91\) ([0.5, 38.0])

ICT experience

Years of experience with informatics

\(11.78\pm 8.15\) ([0.0, 30.0])

Teaching Digital Education experience

Years of experience in teaching digital education

\(2.49\pm 2.22\) ([0.0, 18.0])

Perceived ICT competence

When it comes to ICT, I consider myself to be (1 = a non-user, 2 = a novice, 3 = an intermediate, 4 = somebody who is used to it, 5 = an expert)

\(3.32\pm 0.75\) ([1.0, 5.0])

Relative ICT competence

I tend to use digital technologies (1 = after most of my colleagues, 2 = as the same time as most of my colleagues, 3 = before most of my colleagues, I am an early adopter, 4 = before anybody else, I am an innovator)

\(2.17\pm 0.69\) ([1.0, 4.0])