skip to main content
10.1145/3159450.3159521acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Applying the Mathematical Work of Teaching Framework to Develop a Computer Science Pedagogical Content Knowledge Assessment

Published:21 February 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is specialized knowledge necessary to teach a subject. PCK integrates subject-matter content knowledge with knowledge of students and of teaching strategies so that teachers can perform the daily tasks of teaching. Studies in mathematics education have found correlations between measures of PCK and student learning. Finding robust, scalable ways for developing and measuring computer science (CS) teachers' PCK is particularly important in CS education in the United States, given the lack of formal CS teacher preparation programs and certifications. However, measuring pedagogical content knowledge is a challenge for all subject areas. It can be difficult to write assessment items that elicit the different aspects of PCK and there are often multiple appropriate pedagogical choices in any given teaching scenario. In this paper, we describe a framework and pilot data from a questionnaire intended to elicit PCK from teachers of high school introductory CS courses and we propose future directions for this work.

References

  1. D. L. Ball, M. H. Thames, and G. Phelps. 2008. Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education 59, 5 (2008), 389--407.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Juliet A. Baxter. 1987. Teacher explanations in computer programming: A study of knowledge transformation. Stanford University, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Elena Bender, Peter Hubwieser, Niclas Schaper, Melanie Margaritis, Marc Berges, Laura Ohrndorf, Johannes Magenheim, and Sigrid Schubert. 2015. Towards a competency model for teaching computer science. Peabody Journal of Education (0161956X) 90, 4 (2015), 519--532.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Malte Buchholz, Mara Saeli, and Carsten Schulte. 2013. PCK and reflection in computer science teacher education. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSE '13). 8--16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. J. Gal-Ezer and C. Stephenson. 2010. Computer science teacher preparation is critical. ACM Inroads 1, 1 (2010), 61--66. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. S. Doukakis, A. Psaltidou, A. Stavraki, N. Adamopoulos, P. Tsiotakis, and S. Stergou. 2010. Measuring the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) of in-service teachers of computer science who teach algorithms and programming in upper secondary education. Readings in Technology and Education: Proceedings of ICICTE, 442--452.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Nataša Grgurina, Erik Barendsen, Bert Zwaneveld, Klaas van Veen, and Idzard Stoker. 2014. Computational thinking skills in Dutch secondary education: Exploring pedagogical content knowledge. In Proceedings of the 14th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling '14), 173--174. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. H. C. Hill, S. G. Schilling, and D. L. Ball. 2004. Developing measures of teachers' mathematics knowledge for teaching. The Elementary School Journal 105, 1 (2004), 11--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. H. C. Hill, B. Rowan, and D. L. Ball. 2005. Effects of teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal 42, 2 (2005), 371--406.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. A. Hubbard, Y. Kao, and D. Brown. 2016. Designing think-aloud interviews to elicit evidence of computer science pedagogical knowledge. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Tami Lapidot. 2005. Computer science teachers' learning during their everyday work. Technion University, Israel.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Neomi Liberman, Yifat Ben-David Kolikant, and Catriel Beeri. 2012. "Regressed Experts" as a new state in teachers' professional development: Lessons from computer science teachers' adjustments to substantial changes in the curriculum. Computer Science Education 22, 3 (2012), 257--283.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. John Loughran, Amanda Berry, and Pamela Mulhall. 2012. Understanding and developing science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge, 2nd edition. Sense Publishers. Retrieved from https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/1219-understanding-and-developing-science-teachers-pedagogical-content-knowledge.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. P. Mishra and M. Koehler. 2006. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record 108, 6 (2006), 1017--1054.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Laura Ohrndorf and Sigrid Schubert. 2013. Measurement of pedagogical content knowledge: students' knowledge and conceptions. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSE '13), 104--107. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Laura Ohrndorf and Sigrid Schubert. 2014. Students' cognition: Outcomes from an initial study with student teachers. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE '14), 112--115. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. A. Pears, S. Seidman, L. Malmi, L. Mannila, E. Adams, J. Bennedsen, M. Devlin, and J. Paterson. 2007. A survey of literature on the leaching of introductory programming. SIGCSE Bull 39, 4 (2007), 204--223. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Mara Saeli, Jacob Perrenet, W. Jochems, and Bert Zwaneveld. 2010. Portraying the pedagogical content knowledge of programming?The technical report. Retrieved October 24, 2015 from https://www.tue.nl/fileadmin/content/universiteit/Over_de_universiteit/Eindhoven_School_of_Education/Onderzoek/Projecten_promovendi/Mara_Saeli_SPJZ_Technical_Report.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Mara Saeli, Jacob Perrenet, Wim MG Jochems, and Bert Zwaneveld. 2012. Pedagogical content knowledge in teaching material. Journal of Educational Computing Research 46, 3 (2012), 267--293.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. S. K. Selling, N. Garcia, and D. L. Ball. 2016. What does it take to develop assessments of mathematical knowledge for teaching?: Unpacking the mathematical work of teaching. The Mathematics Enthusiast 13, 1, 35--51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. L. S. Shulman. 1986. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher 15, 2 (2007), 4--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. J. Sorva. 2012. Visual programming simulation in introductory programming education (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved August 31, 2017 from Aaltodoc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Applying the Mathematical Work of Teaching Framework to Develop a Computer Science Pedagogical Content Knowledge Assessment

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGCSE '18: Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
      February 2018
      1174 pages
      ISBN:9781450351034
      DOI:10.1145/3159450

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 21 February 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      SIGCSE '18 Paper Acceptance Rate161of459submissions,35%Overall Acceptance Rate1,595of4,542submissions,35%

      Upcoming Conference

      SIGCSE Virtual 2024

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader