Maria Knobelsdorf, University of Dortmund, Germany - Didaktik der ...

eason has to be sought outside the regular programs. In Bavaria
this might have been a specific in-service program like SIGNAL
or FLIEG (see section 5), attended by many Bavarian teachers
instead of regular programs, a specific didactical training programs
for the new Bavarian subject of CS or the daily teaching
environment at schools. It would be plausible to assume one of
those three reasons because all those courses or environments
focus on modeling and thus might cause a quite special view on
the concept model as well as on the salient process concepts, e.g.
classifying or finding relationship.
On the other hand, there are certainly some threats to the validity
of our results. Firstly, the question of the interview could be more
precise, e.g. asking to assess the value of the concepts for CS
courses in school or as background of the teachers. A stimulating
text passage before the question might help also. Secondly, the
teachers had not much time to think about the 240 combinations
of content and process concepts.
9. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
Suggested by this comparison of two different states, we aim to
conduct a larger study, interviewing teachers in Germany about
their valuation of content and process concepts in the future.
Our results show that there are significant differences in the valuation
of certain concepts between the teachers of those two states.
It would be very interesting to investigate the perceptions of those
concepts by the teachers, trying to detect if the differences concern
only the degree of valuation or even different subject
knowledge about these aspects.
Further, it should be considered to incorporate our results in the
teacher education programs. The first step could be to analyze the
coverage of the salient concepts by those programs. In the case
that there are differences, those should be removed. Additionally,
there might be some fuzziness in the German standards for teacher
education o the KMK regarding those concepts.
10. REFERENCES
[1] Abell, S. K. 2007. Research on science teacher knowledge.
In Handbook of research on science, S. K. Abell and N. G.
Lederman, Eds. Lawrence Erlbaum, London, 1105–1149.
[2] Baumann, R. 1998. Fundamentale Ideen der Informatik –
gibt es das? In Informatische Bildung in Deutschland. Perspektiven
für das 21. Jahrhundert ; Festschrift für Professor
Dr. Wolfgang Arlt aus Anlass seines Eintritts in den Ruhestand,
B. Koerber and W. Arlt, Eds. Log-In-Verl., Berlin.
[3] Ben-Ari, M. 1998. Constructivism in computer science
education. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 30, 1, 257–261.
[4] Breier, N. and Hubwieser, P. 2002. An Information-
Oriented Approach to Informatical Education. Informatics
in Education 1, 31–42.
[5] Bruner, J. S. 1960. The process of education. [a searching
discussion of school education opening new paths to learning
and teaching]. A Vintage book V-234. Vintage Books,
New York NY.
[6] Costa, A. L. and Liebmann, R. M. 1997. The Processcentered
school. Sustaning a renaissance community. Corwin
Press, Thousand Oaks, Calif.
[7] Davis, E. A. 2004. Knowledge integration in science teaching:
Analyzing teachers’ knowledge development. Research
in Science Education, 34 (2004), 21–53.
[8] Denning, P. J. 2003. Great principles of computing. Communications
of the ACM, 46(11) (2003), 15–20.
72
[9] Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and Internet surveys: the tailored
design method. Wiley, New York.
[10] Driel van, J. H., Beijaard, D., and Verloop, N. 2001. Professional
development and reform in science education: the
role of teachers' practical knowledge. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 38(2) (2001), 137–158.
[11] EC – European Commission. 2009. Common european
principles for teacher competences and qualifications. Accessed
10 August 2009.
[12] Ericson, B. 2008. Ensuring exemplary teaching in an essential
discipline. Addressing the crisis in computer science
teacher certification. ACM, New York.
[13] Fincher, S. and Tenenberg, J. 2007. Warren's questions. In
Proccedings of Third International Computing Education
Research Workshop, ICER, Ed. ACM, New York, 51–60.
[14] Fishman, B. and Davis, E. 2006. Teacher learning research
and the learning sci-ences. In The Cambridge handbook of
the learning sciences, R. K. Sawyer, Ed. Cambridge University
Press., New York, 535–550.
[15] Gesellschaft für Informatik e. V., Ed. 2008. Grundsätze und
Standards für die Informatik in der Schule. Bildungsstandards
Informatik für die Sekundarstufe I. Empfehlungen der
Gesellschaft für Informatik e. V., erarbeitet vom Arbeitskreis
»Bildungsstandards«, Bonn.
[16] Hartmann, W. and Nievergelt, J. 2002. Informatik und
Bildung zwischen Wandel und Beständigkeit. Informatik
Spektrum 25, 6, 465–476.
[17] Hartmann, W., Näf, M., and Reichert, R. 2006. Informatikunterricht
planen und durchführen. eXamen.press. Springer,
Berlin.
[18] Hubwieser, P. 2003. Object Models of IT-Systems: Supporting
Cognitive Structures in Novice Courses of Informatics.
In Informatics and the digital society: Social, ethical
and cognitive issues ; IFIP TC3/WG 3.1 & 3.2 Open
Conference on Social, Ethical, and Cognitive Issues of Informatics
and ICT, July 22 - 26, 2002, Dortmund, Germany.
IFIP / International Federation for Information Processing.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Mass.,
129‐140.
[19] Hubwieser, P. 2006. Functions, Objects and States: Teaching
Informatics in Secondary Schools: Invited talk. In Informatics
Education - The Bridge between Using and Understanding
Computers. Lecture notes in computer science.
Springer.
[20] Hubwieser, P. 2007. A smooth way towards object oriented
programming in secondary schools. In Informatics, Mathematics
and ICT: A golden triangle: Proceedings of the
Working Joint IFIP Conference: WG3.1 Secondary Education,
WG3.5 Primary Education; College of Computer and
Information Science, Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts,
USA 27th ‐ 29th June 2007, D. Benzie and M.
Iding, Eds., Boston,MA.
[21] Hubwieser, P. and Aiglstorfer, G. 2004. Fundamente der
Informatik: Ablaufmodellierung, Algorithmen und Datenstrukturen.
Oldenbourg, München.
[22] Hubwieser, P. and Mühling, A. 2009. Ausgewählte Ergebnisse
einer Befragung von Lehrkräften zum Unterrichtsfach
Informatik in Bayern. durchgeführt im November/Dezember
2009 als Online-Umfrage unter Lehrkräften, die an bayerischen
Gymnasien Informatik unterrichten.
http://www.ddi.edu.tum.de/fileadmin/tueds10/www/materia
l/Forschung/Lehrerbefragung_2009/Lehrerbefragung-2009-
Abschlussbericht.pdf. Accessed 29 February 2012.