research-article

Public Access

Computer Science Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Characterizing Teacher Performance

Authors:

Marc BergesAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), Volume 19, Issue 3

Article No.: 29, Pages 1 - 24

https://doi.org/10.1145/3303770

Published: 21 May 2019 Publication History

All formats PDF

Abstract

Computer science education efforts are expanding across the globe to equip students with the necessary computing skills for today’s digital world. However, preparing students to become literate in computing activities requires the training of tens of thousands of teachers in computer science. The discrepancy between student needs and teacher preparation in computer science has raised questions of quality teachers, particularly for teachers who do not possess adequate content or pedagogical knowledge to teach computer science efficiently. To address this issue, we designed an instrument to measure knowledge needed to teach computer science (i.e., computer science pedagogical content knowledge). Results exhibited that our instrument measured aspects of teachers’ computer science pedagogical content knowledge; however, teachers’ prior background in teaching did not influence their performance. We discuss implications for future research and practice.

References

[1]

Patricia Teague Ashton. 1990. Editorial. J. Teach. Ed. 41, 3 (1990), 2.

[2]

Valerie Barr and Chris Stephenson. 2011. Bringing computational thinking to K--12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community?ACM Inroads 2, 1 (2011), 48--54.

Digital Library

[3]

David J. Bartholomew. 2008. Analysis of Multivariate Social Science Data (2nd ed.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

[4]

Theresa Beaubouef. 2002. Why computer science students need math. SIGCSE Bulletin 34, 4 (2002), 57--59.

Digital Library

[5]

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 J. Ed. 90, 4 (2015), 519--532.

[6]

John Biggs. 1999. What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Ed. Res.Dev. 18, 1 (1999), 57--75.

[7]

Janina A. Bindernagel and Ingo Eilks. 2009. Evaluating roadmaps to portray and develop chemistry teachers’ PCK about curricular structures concerning sub-microscopic models. Chem. Ed. Res. Pract. 10, 2 (2009), 77--85.

[8]

Andreas Borowski, J. Carlson, Hans Fischer, Ineke Henze, Julie Gess-Newsome, and Sophie Kirschner. 2012. Different models and methods to measure teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. In E-Book Proceedings of the ESERA 2011 Conference: Science Learning and Citizenship, C. Bruguière, A. Tiberghien, and P. Clément (Eds.). Lyon, France.

[9]

Dorothee Brovelli, Katrin Bölsterli, Markus Rehm, and Markus Wilhelm. 2014. Using vignette testing to measure student science teachers’ professional competencies. Amer. J. Ed. Res. 2, 7 (2014), 555--558.

[10]

Margret Buchmann. 2006. The flight away from content in teacher education and teaching. J. Curr. Studies 14, 1 (2006), 61--68.

[11]

William S. Carlsen. 1987. Why do you ask? The effects of science teacher subject-matter knowledge on teacher questioning and classroom discourse. In Proceedings of the Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

[12]

Anthony P. Carnevale, Nicole Smith, and Michelle Melton. 2014. STEM. Georgetown University - Center on Education and the Workforce. Retrieved from https://georgetown.app.box.com/s/cyrrqbjyirjy64uw91f6.

[13]

J. Century, M. Lach, H. King, S. Rand, C. Heppner, B. Franke, and J. Westrick. 2013. Building an operating system for computer science. University of Chicago's Center for Elementary Mathematics and Science Education. Retrieved from http://outlier.uchicago.edu/computerscience/OS4CS/.

[14]

M. Clancy. 2004. Misconceptions and attitudes that interfere with learning to program. In Computer Science Education Research, S. Fincher and M. Petre (Eds.). Taylor 8 Francis, London, UK, 85--100.

[15]

Kathryn F. Cochran, R. A. King, and J. A. DeRuiter. 1991. Pedagogical content knowledge: A tentative model for teacher preparation. In Proceedings of the Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

[16]

CSTA. 2011. Computational thinking: Leadership toolkit. Computer Science Teachers Association. Retrieved from http://www.csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/471.11CTLeadershiptToolkit-SP-vF.pdf.

[17]

CSTA. 2013. Bugs in the system: Computer science teacher certification in the U.S. Computer Science Teachers Association. Retrieved from http://csta.acm.org/ComputerScienceTeacherCertification/sub/CSTA_BugsInTheSystem.pdf.

[18]

CSTA. 2015. National secondary school computer science survey. Google. Retrieved from http://www.csta.acm.org/Research/sub/Projects/ResearchFiles/CSTA_NATIONAL_SECONDARY_SCHOOL_CS_SURVEY_2015.pdf.

[19]

Jan Cuny. 2012. Transforming high school computing: A call to action. ACM Inroads 3, 2 (2012), 32--36.

Digital Library

[20]

Judith Gal-Ezer and Chris Stephenson. 2010. Computer science teacher preparation is critical. ACM Inroads 1, 1 (2010), 61--66.

Digital Library

[21]

Google. 2015. Searching for computer science: Access and barriers in U.S. K--12 education. Retrieved from https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/searching-for-computer-science_report.pdf.

[22]

Pamela L. Grossman, Suzzane M. Wilson, and Lee S. Shulman. 2005. Teachers of substance: Subject matter knowledge for teaching. Prof., Rev. Curríc. Form. Prof. 9, 2 (2005), 1--25. https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/profesorado/article/download/42833/24723.

[23]

Sigrun Gudmundsdottir. 1987. Pedagogical content knowledge: Teachers’ ways of knowing. In Proceedings of the Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

[24]

Orit Hazzan, Tami Lapidot, and Noa Ragonis. 2014. Guide to Teaching Computer Science: An Activity-based Approach. Springer, New York.

Digital Library

[25]

Heather C. Hill, Deborah Loewenberg Ball, Merrie Blunk, Imani Masters Goffney, and Brian Rowan. 2007. Validating the ecological assumption: The relationship of measure scores to classroom teaching and student learning. Meas.: Interdisc. Res. Persp. 5, 2--3 (2007), 107--118.

[26]

Heather C. Hill, Deborah Loewenberg Ball, and Stephen G. Schilling. 2008. Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. J. Res. Math. Ed. 39, 4 (2008), 372--400.

[27]

Heather C. Hill, Stephen G. Schilling, and Deborah Loewenberg Ball. 2004. Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. Elem. School J. 105, 1 (2004), 11--30.

[28]

Peter Hubwieser, Johannes Magenheim, Andreas Mühling, and Alexander Ruf. 2013. Towards a conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge for computer science. In Proceedings of the 9th International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM Press, New York, NY, 1--8.

Digital Library

[29]

Carolyn Jeffries and Dale W. Maeder. 2005. Using vignettes to build and assess teacher understanding of instructional strategies. Profess. Ed. 27 (2005), 17--28. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ728478.pdf.

[30]

Taehoon Kang and Troy T. Chen. 2011. Performance of the generalized S-X2 item fit index for the graded response model. Asia Pacific Education Review 12, 1 (2011), 89--96.

[31]

Thilo Kleickmann, Dirk Richter, Mareike Kunter, Jürgen Elsner, Michael Besser, Stefan Krauss, and Jürgen Baumert. 2013. Teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. J. Teach. Ed. 64, 1 (2013), 90--106.

[32]

Stefan Krauss, Martin Brunner, Mareike Kunter, Jürgen Baumert, Werner Blum, Michael Neubrand, and Alexander Jordan. 2008. Pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. J. Ed. Psych. 100, 3 (2008), 716--725.

[33]

John K. Lannin, Matthew Webb, Kathryn Chval, Fran Arbaugh, Sarah Hicks, Cynthia Taylor, and Rebecca Bruton. 2013. The development of beginning mathematics teacher pedagogical content knowledge. J. Math. Teach. Ed. 16, 6 (2013), 403--426.

[34]

Melanie Margaritis, Johannes Magenheim, Peter Hubwieser, Marc Berges, Laura Ohrndorf, and Sigrid Schubert. 2015. Development of a competency model for computer science teachers at secondary school level. In Proceedings of the IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 211--220.

[35]

Philipp Mayring. 2014. Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution. Klagenfurt. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173.

[36]

Punya Mishra and Matthew J. Koehler. 2006. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teach. Colle. Rec. 108, 6 (2006), 1017--1054.

[37]

Ann Morrison and Kathleen Luttenegger. 2015. Measuring pedagogical content knowledge using multiple points of data. Qual. Rep. 20, 6 (2015), 804--816. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss6/6.

[38]

Laurie Murphy, Gary Lewandowski, Renée McCauley, Beth Simon, Lynda Thomas, and Carol Zander. 2008. Debugging. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM Press, New York.

[39]

Mitchell Nathan, Kenneth Koedinger, and Martha Alibali. 2001. Expert blind spot: When content knowledge eclipses pedagogical content knowledge. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Cognitive Science. USTC Press, Beijing, China.

[40]

Duncan D. Nulty. 2008. The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done?Assess. Eval. High. Ed. 33, 3 (2008), 301--314.

[41]

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). ACM, New York, NY, 112--115.

Digital Library

[42]

Maria Orlando and David Thissen. 2000. Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models. Appl. Psych. Meas. 24, 1 (2000), 50--64.

[43]

Soonhye Park, Jeong-Yoon Jang, Ying-Chih Chen, and Jinhong Jung. 2011. Is pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) necessary for reformed science teaching? Evidence from an empirical study. Res. Sci. Ed. 41, 2 (2011), 245--260.

[44]

Geoffrey Phelps and Stephen Schilling. 2004. Developing measures of content knowledge for teaching reading. Elem. School J. 105, 1 (2004), 31--48.

[45]

Yizhou Qian and James Lehman. 2017. Students 8 misconceptions and other difficulties in introductory programming: A literature review. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 18, 1, Article 1 (Oct. 2017), 24 pages.

Digital Library

[46]

G. Rasch. 1980. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

[47]

Inez C. Rovegno. 1992. Learning to teach in a field-based methods course: The development of pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching .Teach. Ed. 8, 1 (1992), 69--82.

[48]

Brian Rowan, Steven G. Schilling, Deborah L. Ball, and Robert Miller. 2001. Measuring Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Surveys: An Exploratory Study. Consortium for Policy Research in Education. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

[49]

Mara Saeli, Jacob Perrenet, Wim M.G. Jochems, and Bert Zwaneveld. 2012. Programming: Teachers and pedagogical content knowledge in the Netherlands. Inform. Ed. 11, 1 (2012), 81--114.

[50]

Stephan Schmelzing, Jan H. van Driel, Melanie Jüttner, Stefanie Brandenbusch, Angela Sandmann, and Birgit J. Neuhaus. 2013. Development, evaluation, and validation of a paper-and-pencil test for measuring two components of biology teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge concerning the “cardiovascular system.”Int. J. Sci. Math. Ed. 11, 6 (2013), 1369--1390.

[51]

Cynthia C. Selby. 2015. Relationships: Computational thinking, pedagogy of programming, and Bloom’s taxonomy. In Proceedings of the 10th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE’15), Judith Gal-Ezer, Sue Sentance, and Jan Vahrenhold (Eds.). The Association for Computing Machinery, New York, New York, 80--87.

Digital Library

[52]

Lee S. Shulman. 1986. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Ed. Res. 15, 2 (1986), 4--14.

[53]

Lee S. Shulman. 1987. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Ed. Rev.Feb. (1987), 1--22.

[54]

Lee S. Shulman. 1988. A union of insufficiencies: Strategies for teacher assessment in a period of educational reform. Educational Leadership 46, 3 (1988), 36--41.

[55]

D. Strickland. 2014. L. A. Unified Announces Larger Focus on Computer Science for K-12. http://home.lausd.net/apps/news/article/407400

[56]

K. Taylor and C. C. Miller. 2015, September 15. De Blasio to announce 10-year deadline to offer computer science to all students. The New York Times (2015, September 15). http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/nyregion/de-blasio-to-announce-10-year-deadline-to-offer-computer-science-to-all-students.html.

[57]

Jan H. van Driel, Nico Verloop, and Wobbe de Vos. 1998. Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35, 6 (1998), 673--695.

[58]

Jian Wang, Sandra J. Odell, and Sharon A. Schwille. 2008. Effects of teacher induction on beginning teachers’ teaching: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Teacher Education 59, 2 (2008), 132--152. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487107314002

[59]

Aman Yadav, Marc Berges, Phil Sands, and Jon Good. 2016. Measuring computer science pedagogical content knowledge: An exploratory analysis of teaching vignettes to measure teacher knowledge. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, Jan Vahrenhold and Erik Barendsen (Eds.). ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 92--95.

Digital Library

[60]

Aman Yadav, Sarah Gretter, Susanne Hambrusch, and Phillips Sands. 2016. Expanding computer science education in schools: Understanding teacher experiences and challenges. Computer Science Education 26, 4 (2016), 235--254.

[61]

Aman Yadav, Hai Hong, and Chris Stephenson. 2016. Computational thinking for all: Pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends 60, 6 (2016), 565--568.

[62]

Aman Yadav, Phil Sands, Jon Good, and Alex Lishinki. 2018. Computer science and computational thinking in the curriculum: Research and practice. In Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education, Joke Voogt and Gerald Knezek (Eds.). Springer.

Cited By

Agbanimu DOkebukola POnowugbeda FPeter EOladejo AGbeleyi OAdemola I(2025)Mitigating difficulty in Computer studies through Culturo-Techno-Contextual ApproachThe Journal of Educational Research10.1080/00220671.2025.2454673(1-9)Online publication date: 23-Jan-2025
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2025.2454673
Lin XShen WHuang SWang YZhou WLing XLi W(2025)Exploring Chinese teachers’ concerns about teaching artificial intelligence: the role of knowledge and perceived social goodAsia Pacific Education Review10.1007/s12564-024-10034-xOnline publication date: 10-Jan-2025
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-024-10034-x
Childs JOgden KFletcher CAntoine ABaker SMadrigal AStephenson BStone JBattestilli LRebelsky SShoop L(2024)Advancing Equity through a Research-Practice Partnership: A Case Study of a Professional Development Initiative for Educators of ColorProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 210.1145/3626253.3635633(1602-1603)Online publication date: 14-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626253.3635633
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Computer Science Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Characterizing Teacher Performance
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. K-12 education

Recommendations

Measuring computer science pedagogical content knowledge: An exploratory analysis of teaching vignettes to measure teacher knowledge
WiPSCE '16: Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education

The initiatives to introduce Computer Science as a mandatory subject in K-12 in the U.S. (CSForAll), the U.K. (CAS), or Australia mean that thousands of new teachers will need to be trained both through inservice professional development and preservice ...
Towards a conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge for computer science
ICER '13: Proceedings of the ninth annual international ACM conference on International computing education research

ccording to the current state of research, it seems uncontroversial that the Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) of teachers is a crucial factor for the success of teaching and learning in the context of many school subjects. Yet, the research about PCK ...
Assessing the Development of Computer Science Pedagogical Content Knowledge in the TEALS Program (Abstract Only)
SIGCSE '16: Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education

One of the critical barriers to increasing pre-collegiate computer science course offerings in the U.S. is a lack of qualified computer science teachers. Programs such as TEALS, a teacher preparation program pairing high school teachers with computing ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education

ACM Transactions on Computing Education Volume 19, Issue 3

September 2019

333 pages

EISSN:1946-6226

DOI:10.1145/3308443

Editor:
Chris Hundhausen
Washington State University, USA

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2019 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 ACM 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 May 2019

Accepted: 01 January 2019

Revised: 01 November 2018

Received: 01 February 2018

Published in TOCE Volume 19, Issue 3

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tag

Pedagogical content knowledge

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Funding Sources

National Science Foundation

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

34
Total Citations
View Citations
4,286
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)655
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)45

Reflects downloads up to 01 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Agbanimu DOkebukola POnowugbeda FPeter EOladejo AGbeleyi OAdemola I(2025)Mitigating difficulty in Computer studies through Culturo-Techno-Contextual ApproachThe Journal of Educational Research10.1080/00220671.2025.2454673(1-9)Online publication date: 23-Jan-2025
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2025.2454673
Lin XShen WHuang SWang YZhou WLing XLi W(2025)Exploring Chinese teachers’ concerns about teaching artificial intelligence: the role of knowledge and perceived social goodAsia Pacific Education Review10.1007/s12564-024-10034-xOnline publication date: 10-Jan-2025
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-024-10034-x
Childs JOgden KFletcher CAntoine ABaker SMadrigal AStephenson BStone JBattestilli LRebelsky SShoop L(2024)Advancing Equity through a Research-Practice Partnership: A Case Study of a Professional Development Initiative for Educators of ColorProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 210.1145/3626253.3635633(1602-1603)Online publication date: 14-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626253.3635633
Esche SStephenson BStone JBattestilli LRebelsky SShoop L(2024)Rubric for the Quality of Answers to Student Queries about CodeProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3626252.3630918(331-337)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626252.3630918
Coroiu ACălin AGăceanu RVescan A(2024)Advancements, Challenges, and Emerging Trends in Computer Science Education: A Systematic Literature Review of Academic and Professional Learning: Editorial2024 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering - Companion (SANER-C)10.1109/SANER-C62648.2024.00006(1-12)Online publication date: 12-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER-C62648.2024.00006
Yun MCrippen K(2024)Computational Thinking Integration into Pre-Service Science Teacher Education: A Systematic ReviewJournal of Science Teacher Education10.1080/1046560X.2024.2390758(1-30)Online publication date: 28-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2024.2390758
Smit RWaibel CSchmid R(2024)Assisting in a computer science education centre as a field-based internship for pre-service teachersComputer Science Education10.1080/08993408.2023.2300554(1-25)Online publication date: 7-Jan-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2023.2300554
Kohlhase MBerges MGrubert JHenrich ALandes DLeidner JMittag FNicklas DSchmid USedlmaier YUlbrich-vom Ende AWolter D(2024)Project VoLL-KIKI - Künstliche Intelligenz10.1007/s13218-024-00846-9Online publication date: 5-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-024-00846-9
Star J(2023)Revisiting the origin of, and reflections on the future of, pedagogical content knowledgeAsian Journal for Mathematics Education10.1177/275272632311758852:2(147-160)Online publication date: 18-May-2023
https://doi.org/10.1177/27527263231175885
Malmi LSheard JSinclair JKinnunen PSimon (2023)Domain-Specific Theories of Teaching Computing: Do they Inform Practice?Proceedings of the 23rd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3631802.3631810(1-15)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3631802.3631810
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Article

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents