Abstract
Answers to the questions of which instructional methods are suitable for school, what instructional methods should be applied in teaching individual subjects and how instructional methods support the act of learning represent challenges to general education and education in individual subjects. This article focuses on empirical examinations of instructional methods for computer science education supporting knowledge processes in the act of learning and their integration into the context of significant learning theories. The results of this article show that certain instructional methods are especially predestined for computer science education. They can also be attributed to behavioristic, cognitivist and constructivist learning theories; they are thereby localized and can profit from the empirical findings of the learning theories, especially in practical use on teaching computer science.
About the author
Andreas Zendler studied psychology and computer science at the University of Regensburg and the University of Potsdam. 1988 Dr phil. in experimental psychology. 1997 Dr rer. nat. in computer science. 2000 habilitation in computer science. From 1988 until 2004 consultant for software engineering with Softlab. Since 2005 professor for computer science education at the University of Education Ludwigsburg. Research areas: Empirical computer science education, experimental designs in educational studies, data science.
References
1. S. K. Abell and N. G. Lederman, Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007.Search in Google Scholar
2. Association for Computing Machinery. Computer science curriculum 2013. ACM, 2013.Search in Google Scholar
3. C. Agneli, D. Kadijevich, and C. Schulte. Improving computer science education. Routledge Chapman & Hall, 2013.10.4324/9780203078723Search in Google Scholar
4. J. R. Anderson. Cognitive psychology. Worth Publishers, 2013.Search in Google Scholar
5. R. Andersson and L. Bendix. eXtreme teaching: a framework for continuous improvement. Comp. Sci. Educ., 16(3):175–184, 2006.10.1080/08993400600912335Search in Google Scholar
6. M. Baer and M. Paradiso. Neuroscience: Exploring the brain. Lippincott Williams & Wilk, 2015.Search in Google Scholar
7. K. Benoit and N. Wiesehomeier. Expert judgment. In S. Pickel, G. Pickel, H.-J. Lauth, and D. Jahn, editors, Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaften, pages 479–516, Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2009.Search in Google Scholar
8. J. S. Bruner. The process of education. Harvard University Press, 1966.Search in Google Scholar
9. J. K. Burton, D. M. Moore, and S. G. Magliaro. Behaviorism and instructional design. In D. H Jonassen, editor, Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, pages 3–35, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004.Search in Google Scholar
10. R. K. Canton. Programmed Instruction in online learning. Cambia Press, 2007.Search in Google Scholar
11. M. Carro, A. Herranz, and J. Mariño. A model-driven approach to teaching concurrency. ACM Trans. on Comp. Educ., 13(1): Article No. 5, 2013.10.1145/2414446.2414451Search in Google Scholar
12. A. Collins, D. Brown, and E. E. Newman. Cognitive apprenticeship. Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick, editor, Knowing, Learning and Instruction, pages 453–494, Erlbaum, 1989.10.4324/9781315044408-14Search in Google Scholar
13. S. Collins Neuroscience for learning and development: How to apply neuroscience and psychology for improved learning and training. Kogan Page, 2015.Search in Google Scholar
14. Cornelson. Methodik. www.cornelsen.de/lehrkraefte/suche?such_quelle=servicebox&freitext=Methodik. Accessed: 2017-08-01.Search in Google Scholar
15. B. G. Davis. Tools for teaching. Jossey-Bass, 2009.Search in Google Scholar
16. D. A. Dillman, J. Smyth, and L. Christian. Internet, mail, and mixed-mode designs: The tailored design method. Wiley & Sons, 2009.Search in Google Scholar
17. A. de Freitas and M. M. de Freitas. Classroom live: a software-assisted gamification tool. Comp. Sci. Educ., 23(2):186–206, 2013.10.1080/08993408.2013.780449Search in Google Scholar
18. R. M. Gagné, W. W. Wagner, K. Golas, and J. M. Keller. Principles of instructional design. Wadsworth Publishing, 2004.Search in Google Scholar
19. A. Gartner, M. C. Kohler, and F. Riessman. Children teach children. Learning by teaching. Harper & Row, 1971.Search in Google Scholar
20. GI. Bildungsstandards Informatik SI und SII. http://www.informatik-standards.de. Accessed: 2017-08-01.Search in Google Scholar
21. P. Ginnis. The teacher’s toolkit. Classroom achievement. Crown House Publishing, 2001.Search in Google Scholar
22. M. J. van Gorp and S. Grissom. An empirical evaluation of using constructive classroom activities to teach introductory programming. Comp. Sci. Educ., 11(3):247–260, 2001.10.1076/csed.11.3.247.3837Search in Google Scholar
23. N. S. Gowda. Learning and the learner: Insights into the processes of learning and teaching. PHI Learning, 2001.Search in Google Scholar
24. J. Grzega and M. Schöner. The didactic model LdL (Lernen durch Lehren) as a way of preparing students for communication in a knowledge society. J. of Edu. for Teach., 34(3):167–175, 2008.10.1080/02607470802212157Search in Google Scholar
25. G. Gugel. 2000 Methoden für Schule und Lehrebildung. Beltz, 2001.Search in Google Scholar
26. K. L. Gwet. Handbook of inter-rater-reliability. Advanced Analytics, 2014.10.1002/9781118445112.stat06882Search in Google Scholar
27. W. Hartmann, M. Näf, and R. Reichert. Informatikunterricht planen und durchführen. Springer, 2006.Search in Google Scholar
28. J. Hattie. Visible learning. Routledge, 2009.10.4324/9780203887332Search in Google Scholar
29. O. Hazzan, T. Lapidot, and N. Ragonis. Guide to teaching computer science: an activity-based approach. Springer, 2011.10.1007/978-0-85729-443-2Search in Google Scholar
30. S. G. Huber and S. Hader-Popp. Unterrichtsentwicklung durch Methodenvielfalt im Unterricht fördern: das Methodenatelier als schulinterne Fortbildung. In A. Bartz, J. Fabian, S. G. Huber, C. Kloft, H. Rosenbusch, and H. Sassenscheidt, editors, PraxisWissen Schulleitung, pages 30–31, Wolters Kluwer, 2007.Search in Google Scholar
31. P. Hubwieser. Didaktik der Informatik: Grundlagen, Konzepte, Beispiele. Springer, 2007.Search in Google Scholar
32. L. Humbert. Didaktik der Informatik. Teubner, 2006.10.1007/978-3-322-93427-7Search in Google Scholar
33. Y.-C. Hung. The effect of teaching methods and learning style on learning program design in webbased education systems. J. of Educ. Comp. R., 47(4):409–427, 2012.10.2190/EC.47.4.dSearch in Google Scholar
34. S. Iron, S. Alexander, and S. Alexander. Improving computer science education. Routledge Chapman & Hall, 2004.Search in Google Scholar
35. P. Kilpeläinen. Do all roads lead to Rome? (Or reductions for dummy travelers). Comp. Sci. Edu., 20(3):181–199, 2010.10.1080/08993408.2010.501226Search in Google Scholar
36. E. Koffmann and T. Brinda. Teaching programming and problems solving. In L. Cassel and R. A. Reis, editors, Informatics curricula and teaching methods, pages 125–130, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003.10.1007/978-0-387-35619-8_13Search in Google Scholar
37. LOG IN. Unterrichtsmaterialien für den Informatikunterricht. http://www.log-in-verlag.de/informatikunterricht. Accessed: 2017-08-01.Search in Google Scholar
38. D. Mareschal and B. Butterworth. Educational neuroscience. Wiley & Sons, 2013.10.1002/9781394259588Search in Google Scholar
39. M. D. Merill. First Principles. Educ. Technology, Res. and Dev., 50(3):43–59, 2002.10.1007/BF02505024Search in Google Scholar
40. S. B. Merriam and R. S. Caffarella. Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. Bass, 2006.Search in Google Scholar
41. H. Meyer. Unterrichtsmethoden. In H. Kiper, H. Meyer, and W. Topsch, editors, Einführung in die Schulpädagogik, pages 109–121, Cornelsen, 2012.Search in Google Scholar
42. C. Mitchell and L. Sackney. Profound improvement building capacity for learning communities. Routledge, 2011.10.4324/9780203826027Search in Google Scholar
43. D. R. Olson. Jerome Bruner: The cognitive revolution in educational theory. Continuum, 2007.Search in Google Scholar
44. S. Petrina Advanced teaching methods for the technology classroom. Information Science Publishing, 2006.10.4018/978-1-59904-337-1Search in Google Scholar
45. G. Petty. Teaching today: a practical guide. Nelson Thornes, 2009.Search in Google Scholar
46. B. Sabitzer. Neurodidactics – a new stimulus in ICT and computer science education. In L. Gómez Chova, I. Candel Torres and A. López Martìnez, editors, INTED 2011 Proceedings CD. International Association of Technology, Education and Development (IATED), March 2011.Search in Google Scholar
47. S. D. Sala and M. Anderson. Neuroscience in education: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Oxford University Press, 2011.Search in Google Scholar
48. J. W. Santrock. Educational psychology. Mcgraw-Hill, 2011.Search in Google Scholar
49. S. Schubert and A. Schwill. Didaktik der Informatik. Spektrum, 2012.10.1007/978-3-8274-2653-6Search in Google Scholar
50. C. Schulte. Uncovering structure behind function: the experiment as teaching method in computer science education. In WiPSCE’12 Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, pages 40–47, Wiley, 2012.10.1145/2481449.2481460Search in Google Scholar
51. M. Seiffert and B. Koerber. Neue Methoden braucht der Unterricht. LOG IN, 138:3, 2003.Search in Google Scholar
52. R. E. Slavin, Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Pearson Education, 2014.Search in Google Scholar
53. A. J. Spurgin. Human reliability assessment theory and practice. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2009.10.1201/9781420068528Search in Google Scholar
54. R. Tennyson, F. Schott, N. Seel, and S. Dijkstra. Instructional design: International perspective: Theory, research, and models (volume 1). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997.Search in Google Scholar
55. The Center for Teaching and Learning. 150 teaching methods. http://teaching.uncc.edu/learning-resources/articles-books/best-practice/instructional-methods/150-teaching-methods. Accessed: 2017-08-01.Search in Google Scholar
56. N. Thota and R. Whitfield. Holistic approach to learning and teaching introductory object-oriented programming. Comp. Sci. Educ., 20(2):103–127, 2010.10.1080/08993408.2010.486260Search in Google Scholar
57. F. E. Weinert. Ansprüche an das Lernen in der heutigen Zeit. In MSW – Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (Ed.), Fächerübergreifendes Arbeiten – Bilanz und Perspektiven. Ritterbach, 1997.Search in Google Scholar
58. J. Wiechmann Direkte Instruktion. In J. Wiechmann, editor, Zwölf Unterrichtsmethoden, pages 35–39, Beltz, 2011.Search in Google Scholar
59. A. Woolfolk. Educational psychology. Pearson, 2015.Search in Google Scholar
60. A. Zendler and D. Klaudt. Booklet I: Instructional methods to computer science education. epubli, 2015.Search in Google Scholar
61. A. Zendler and D. Klaudt. Instructional methods to computer science education as investigated by computer science teachers. Journal of Computer Science, 11(8):915–927, 2015.10.3844/jcssp.2015.915.927Search in Google Scholar
62. A. Zendler. Computer science education teaching methods—an overview of the literature. International Journal of Research Studies in Computing, 4(2):3–11, 2015.10.5861/ijrsc.2015.1242Search in Google Scholar
63. A. Zendler, C. Seitz, and D. Klaudt. Instructional methods in the context of significant learning theories. In A. Zendler, editor, Elements of empirical computer science education, 2018.Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
