Computational thinking (CT) skills are increasingly important as digital technologies transform education and the labour market, and they also support broader outcomes such as critical thinking and academic achievement. (Lei et al., 2020; Kumar & Mohd, 2024). Schools, and especially teachers, play a central role in developing CT, yet little is known about how teacher characteristics vary between high- and low-performing schools. Evidence suggests that high-performing schools are more likely to have teachers who are motivated, collaborate frequently, and participate actively in professional development, all of which support effective teaching and improved student outcomes (Lorenz et al., 2022). Highly qualified teachers tend to work in schools with academically stronger students, while less experienced teachers often teach in schools with higher concentrations of disadvantaged students (Pop-Eleches & Urquiola, 2013; OECD, 2019). Socioeconomic context also influences teacher characteristics and instructional practices. Schools with higher-SES students generally have better resources, more experienced staff, and greater instructional stability, whereas lower-achieving schools face limited resources, higher teacher turnover, and fewer opportunities for professional growth (Yang Hansen et al., 2016; Sirin, 2005). Teachers in high-achieving schools are more likely to employ cognitively demanding methods, such as inquiry-based learning, formative assessment, structured feedback, and problem-solving tasks, which support CT, critical reasoning, and data analysis (Hattie, 2009). This study examines information technology, computer studies (or similar) teacher characteristics in the highest- and lowest-achieving schools in countries where students’ average in International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) 2023 CT achievement exceeds the overall study mean: Belgium (Flemish), Chinese Taipei, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Latvia, the Republic of Korea, and the Slovak Republic. A particular focus is placed on the topics most frequently taught in top-performing schools and how these relate to what students actually learn. Using ICILS 2023 information technology, computer studies (or similar) teacher and student questionnaires, the analysis identifies which CT-related activities are emphasized. While the specific emphasis on topics and activities is expected to vary across countries, clustering countries with similar patterns allows for targeted recommendations to help teachers strengthen students’ CT skills.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. Kumar, I., & Mohd, N. (2024). Ways of using computational thinking to improve students’ ability to think critically. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-0782-3.ch015 Lei, H., Chiu, M., Li, F., Wang, X., & Geng, Y. (2020). Computational thinking and academic achievement. Children and Youth Services Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105439 Lorenz, R., Endberg, M., & Bos, W. (2022). Teaching with technology: A large-scale, international, and multilevel study of the roles of teacher and school characteristics. Computers & Education, 179, 104408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104408 OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 results (Volume I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. OECD Publishing. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en Pop-Eleches, C., & Urquiola, M. (2013). Going to a better school: Effects and behavioral responses. The American Economic Review, 103(4), 1289–1324. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.4.1289 Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417 Yang Hansen, K., Gustafsson, J. E., & Rosén, M. (2016). Context factors and student achievement in the IEA studies: Evidence from TIMSS. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 4(1), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-016-0020-6