skip to main content
10.1145/1584322.1584329acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicerConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

In-service teachers learning of a new paradigm: a case study

Published:10 August 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

Due to a reform in the Israeli CS high school curricula, in-service teachers who studied and taught procedural programming are now required to cope with the new paradigm of OOP. In this paper we describe a case study in which we traced the difficulties of one in-service teacher as she taught the topic of inheritance and polymorphism for the first time. We noticed a growth in her knowledge in the laboratory problem-session, whereas in a similar pen-and-paper session no substantial knowledge growth took place. A qualitative analysis enabled us to discern how the combined factors of the teacher's experience, the presence of the computer, and students' expectations for workable solutions, pressured the teacher to seek to resolve difficulties through trial and error, which facilitated knowledge growth. We argue that all these factors have to be fulfilled in order for teacher learning to happen.

References

  1. Bents, M., & Bents, R. (1990). Perceptions of good teaching among novice' advanced beginner and expert teachers. Paper presented at Annual Meetings of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA, April 1990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Berliner, D. C. (1994). Expertise: the wonder of exemplary performances. Mangieri, J.N., Collins Block, C. (eds.), Creating Powerful Thinking in Teachers and Students, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Chapter 7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers, International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 463--482.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Fuller, F. F. (1973). Teacher education and the psychology of behavior change: A conceptualization of the process of affective change of preservice teachers. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association in Montreal Canada.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Gal-Ezer, J. Beeri, C. Harel, D. & Yehudai, A. (1995). A High School Program in Computer Science, Computer, 28(10), 73--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Lapidot, T. (2004). The learning of computer-science teachers during their teaching work, unpublished dissertation, Technion, Haifa.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Liberman, N. Beeri, C., & Ben-David Kolikant, Y. (submitted). A classification of misconceptions and difficulties involving inheritance and polymorphism.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Leinhardt, G. (1989). Math lessons: A contrast of novice and expert competence. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 20 (1), 52--75.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Moschkovich, J. N. (2004). Appropriating mathematical practices: A case study of learning to use and explore functions through interaction with a tutor. Educational Studies in mathematics, 55(1), 49--80.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Roberts, E. (2004). The dream of a common language: The search for simplicity and stability in computer science education. SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(1), 115--119. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Shkedi, A. (2003). Words of meaning: Qualitative research-theory and practice. Tel Aviv, Israel: Ramot.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching, Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Shulman, L. S., (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Zilberstein, M., & Katz, P. (1998). A great teacher, an expert teacher, a professional: Three aspects of the personality of the 'Teacher Asher'. Dapim, 26, 53--71. (In Hebrew).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. In-service teachers learning of a new paradigm: a case study

    Recommendations

    Reviews

    Matthew Mark Huntbach

    This short paper analyzes the efforts of a high school teacher who is experienced in teaching procedural programming, and is attempting to teach object-oriented programming for the first time. The teacher's only experience in object-oriented programming is an in-service training course for teachers and a commercial course in Java. The teacher is shown employing stalling tactics to avoid answering students' questions in class, sometimes giving the wrong answer, but gaining more understanding as she supervises programming laboratory sessions, and becoming better prepared to teach the topic in the future. Although one of the goals of the paper is to show how an experienced teacher uses coping techniques to maintain a confident presence in class, one issue showed poor practice: the teacher assigned the students a programming problem, but did not first try solving it herself; she only "read and executed" a solution. She learned by supervising students as they were solving this problem, but she would have supervised better had she experimented beforehand by developing her own solutions. The paper makes one question whether short training courses are an adequate basis to teach something new. It provides some useful practical data, which could contribute to further discussion on computer programming education, supporting the message, "You only really learn by doing it." Online Computing Reviews Service

    Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

    Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

    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
      ICER '09: Proceedings of the fifth international workshop on Computing education research workshop
      August 2009
      150 pages
      ISBN:9781605586151
      DOI:10.1145/1584322

      Copyright © 2009 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: 10 August 2009

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate189of803submissions,24%

      Upcoming Conference

      ICER 2024
      ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
      August 13 - 15, 2024
      Melbourne , VIC , Australia

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader