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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
[23] Huynh, H. and Feldt, L. S. 1976. Estimation of the Box correction for degrees of freedom from sample data in randomised block and split-plot designs. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1 (1976), 69–82. [24] Kansanen, P. 2006. Constructing a research-based program in teacher education. In Competence oriented teacher training, F. Oser, Achtenhagen F. and U. Renold, Eds. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, 11–22. [25] Kirk, E. 1994. Experimental design. Wadsworth, Belmont. [26] Linn, M. C., Eylon, B.-S., and Davis, E. A. 2004. The knowledge integration perspective on learning. In Internet environments for science education, M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis and P. Bell, Eds. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 29–46. [27] Loidl, S., Mühlbacher, J. R., and Schauer, H. 2005. Preparatoy knowledge: propaedeutic in informatics. In From computer literacy to informatics fundamentals, Proceedings of international conference on informat-ics in secondary schools—evolution and perspectives, R. T. Mittermeir, Ed. Springer, New York, 104–115. [28] Meyer, J. H. F. and Land, R. 2003. Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge 1: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. In Improving Student Learning – Ten Years On., C. Rust, Ed. OCSLD, Oxford. [29] Moreno, L., González, C., Castilla, I., González, E. J., and Sigut, I. 2007. Use of constructivism and collaborative teaching in an ILP processors course. IEEE Transactions on Education 50, 2, 101–111. [30] Mueller, K. E. and Barton, C. N. 1989. Approximate power for repeated-measures ANOVA lacking sphericity. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84(406) (1989), 549–555. [31] Mueller, K. E., LaVange, L. E., Ramey, S. L., and Ramey, C. T. 1992. Power calcu-lations for general linear multivariate models including repeated measures appli-cations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87(420) (1992), 1209–1226. [32] Mühling, A., Hubwieser, P., and Brinda, T. 2010. Exploring Teachers‘ Attitudes Towards Object Oriented Modelling and Programming in Secondary Schools. In ICER ‘10: Proceedings of the Sixth international workshop on Computing education research. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 59–68. [33] Müller, P. and Hubwieser, P. 2000. Informatics as a Mandatory Subject at Secondary Schools in Bavaria. In Open Classrooms in the Digital Age, EDEN, Ed., 129‐140. [34] Ni, L. 2009. What makes CS teachers change? Factors influencing CS teachers' adoption of curriculum innovations. SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1) (2009), 544–548. [35] Niemi, H. and Jakku-Sihvonen, R. 2006. Research-based teacher education. In Research-based teacher education in Finland, R. Jakku-Sihvonen and H. Niemi, Eds. Finnish Educational Research Association, Turku, 31–50. [36] Nievergelt, J. 1990. Computer Science for Teachers: A quest for classics and how to present them. In Computer Assisted Learning, D. H. Norrie and Six H. W., Eds. Lecture notes in computer science 438. Springer, Berlin, 2–15. [37] Parker, J. C. and Rubin, L. J. 1966. Process as content. Curriculum design and the application of knowledge. Rand McNally, Chicago. [38] Sanders, K., Boustedt, J., Eckerdal, A., McCartney, R., Moström, J. E., Thomas, L., and Zander, C. 2012. Threshold concepts and threshold skills in computing. In Proceed- 73 ings of the ninth annual international conference on International computing education research. ICER ’12. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 23‐30. [39] Schwill, A. 1994. Fundamental ideas of computer science. Bulletin European Association for Theoretical Computer Science 53, 274–274. [40] Sekretariat der ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Ed. 2008. Ländergemeinsame inhaltliche Anforderungen für die Fachwissenschaften und Fachdidaktiken in der Lehrerbildung. Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 16.10.2008 i. d. F. vom 16.09.2010, Berlin. [41] Shulman, L. S. 1986. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2) (1986), 4–14. [42] Sorva, J. 2010. Reflections on threshold concepts in computer programming and beyond. In Proceedings of the 10th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. Koli Calling ’10. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 21‐30. [43] Spohrer, M. 2009. Konzeption und Analyse neuer Maßnahmen in der Fort- und Weiterbildung von Informatiklehrkräften. Dissertation, Technische Universität. [44] Stephenson, C., Gal-Ezer, J., Haberman, B., and Verno, A. 2005. The New Educational Imperative: Improving High School Computer Science Education. Using worldwide research and professional experience to improve U. S. Schools. Final Report of the CSTA Curriculum Improvement Task Force. ACM, CSTA, New York. [45] Vaux, A. and Briggs, C. S. 2005. Conducting mail and Internet surveys. In The psychology research handbook, F. T. L. Leong and J. T. Austin, Eds. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 186–209. [46] Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., and Michels, K. M. 1991. Statistical principles in ex-perimental design. McGraw-Hill, Boston. [47] Wursthorn, B. 2005. Fundamental concepts of computer science in a Logo-environment. In Digital tools for lifelong learning. Proceedings of the tenth European Logo Conference (pp. 219-227). Warsaw, Poland Centre for Informatics and Technology Education inDigital tools for lifelong learning., G. Gregorczyk, A. Walat, W. Kranas and M. Borowiecki, Eds., Warsaw, 219–227. [48] Zeidler, D. L. 2002. Dancing with maggots and saints: visions for subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1) (2002), 27–42. [49] Zendler, A. and Spannagel, C. 2008. Empirical foundation of central concepts for computer science education. ACM Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, 8(2) (2008), Article No. 6. [50] Zendler, A., Spannagel, C., and Klaudt, D. 2008. Process as content in computer science education: empirical determination of central processes. Computer Science Education, 18(4) (2008), 231–245. [51] Zendler, A., Spannagel, C., and Klaudt, D. 2011. Marrying content and process in computer science education. IEEE Transactions on Education 54, 3, 387–397.
Page 1 and 2:
Fakultät für Mathematik, Informat
Page 3 and 4:
Program Committee Michal Armoni Wei
Page 5 and 6:
Challenge and Creativity: Students
Page 7 and 8:
Challenges in Computer Science Educ
Page 9 and 10:
These echo a 2008 report from the N
Page 11 and 12:
examples, and in practice teachers
Page 13 and 14:
Figure 3: A trace of bubble sort fr
Page 15 and 16:
either their own program or another
Page 17 and 18:
ital system used a variety of inter
Page 19 and 20:
computer science, and with the less
Page 21 and 22: effect of different factors on the
Page 23 and 24: (GE) and freshmen CS and Lyceum (GR
Page 25 and 26: Performance Expectancy (PE) Satisfa
Page 27 and 28: for active CS teachers. Furthermore
Page 29 and 30: participants change between the roo
Page 31 and 32: Altogether 830 participants visited
Page 33 and 34: 7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The initial equi
Page 35 and 36: • self-concept in science • ins
Page 37 and 38: mean at t0 mean at t2 mean at t0 me
Page 39 and 40: survey at the time t0 time of surve
Page 41 and 42: characteristics mean m (regarding t
Page 43 and 44: technology subjects in senior secon
Page 45 and 46: aim to react on these topics, exper
Page 47 and 48: the educational programs and ration
Page 49 and 50: y choice of handset, choice of netw
Page 51 and 52: 8. REFERENCES [1] Bell, T. et al. 2
Page 53 and 54: Agile Projects in High School Compu
Page 55 and 56: ited time, heterogeneous student ab
Page 57 and 58: the target audience. This phase is
Page 59 and 60: longer than one to two weeks (which
Page 61 and 62: e.g. assessing individual achieveme
Page 63 and 64: Conceptual Change and Epistemologic
Page 65 and 66: einterpreted, or excluded, for exam
Page 67 and 68: How Teachers in Different Education
Page 69 and 70: attended by about a 33-40 % of all
Page 71: The assumption of sphericity was no
Page 75 and 76: Ways of Planning Lessons on the Top
Page 77 and 78: other topic. The reasons given vari
Page 79 and 80: Promoting Computational Thinking wi
Page 81 and 82: algorithm or a product is viewed as
Page 83 and 84: Preparing Teachers for Teaching Inf
Page 85 and 86: However, even when such learning th
Page 87 and 88: Grand challenges for the UK: Upskil
Page 89 and 90: first two questions. We maintain th
Page 91 and 92: (Some) Grand Challenges of Computer
Page 93 and 94: ecoming more student-centered. Inde
Page 95 and 96: [13] OECD. (2006). Are students rea
Page 97 and 98: in the world, for example, as descr
Page 99 and 100: The aims of the case study were to
Page 101 and 102: Figure 8: Acquisition of programmin
Page 103 and 104: The focus group girls were more con
Page 105 and 106: tool for teachers and students in t
Page 107 and 108: eledSQL - A New Web-Based Learning
Page 109 and 110: create and manage teacher accounts.
Page 111 and 112: ABSTRACT Bringing Contexts into the
Page 113 and 114: 3.1.1 Greenfoot as a framework for
Page 115 and 116: Real-world context Views of Computi
Page 117 and 118: Real-world context GP Context Artif
Page 119 and 120: i. e. theories, models, frameworks,
Page 121 and 122: number P-156 in Lecture Notes in In
Page 123 and 124:
1. Context-based education in compu
Page 125 and 126:
Figure 1. Network traffic for authe
Page 127 and 128:
A weak point of the Vigenère algor
Page 129 and 130:
We have learnt that we can both loo
Page 131 and 132:
Comparing CSTA K-12 Computer Scienc
Page 133 and 134:
grade 4, 5, 6 or 8, depending on ch
Page 135 and 136:
Table 1. Scoring Scale for the Impl
Page 137 and 138:
the highest rate of implementation
Page 139 and 140:
Information Theory on Czech Grammar
Page 141 and 142:
of information in a message M, repr
Page 143 and 144:
Data modeling and database systems
Page 145 and 146:
the knowledge about ICT and CS (see
Page 147 and 148:
The Mindstorm Effect: A Gender Anal
Page 149 and 150:
Exploring the processing of formatt
Page 151 and 152:
Teachersʼ Perceptions Of The Value
Page 153 and 154:
Technocamps: Bringing Computer Scie
Page 155 and 156:
Abenteuer Informatik - Hands-on exh
Page 157 and 158:
Gaming and Mathematics: A Cross Cur
Page 159 and 160:
Turi: Chatbot software for schools
Page 161 and 162:
ABSTRACT Learning Fields in Vocatio
Page 163 and 164:
ABSTRACT This study examines the po
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?