Category 1: Goals and content
The goals and content category includes research that analyses, for example, the characteristics of the goals or content of a specific course or a larger entity of studies, such as a degree programme. Another example of research that would fall into this category is research that analyses the relationship between the goals and the content in one level (course, degree, general goals of education) or between different levels. These examples point out that the eight categories that are presented in this section are meta-level categories that include several subcategories. For clarity’s sake, the subcategories are discussed in detail, in only two categories. Figure 13 visualises which aspect of the didactic triangle goals and content category focuses on.
Figure 13 Goals and content as a focus of a category
The literature review (chapter two), which concentrated on studies that focused on difficulties during the instructional process, did not contain any studies that would have
solely discussed the goals or the content of the introductory programming courses or a CS degree. The examples of research belonging to this category can be found by expanding the original topic limitation. For example, the study by Stephenson and West (1998) shed light on the programming language choice and key concepts in an introductory programming course (CS1). The study by Reges (2006) also focused on the content of the CS1 course by emphasising the basic skills (e.g., loops, conditionals and arrays) in introductory programming course. These two studies are examples of course level research that focuses on goals and content.
The studies of Tucker, Keleman and Bruce (2001) and Reed, Miller and Braught (2000) are examples of research that focus on organisation level goals and content. The former study highlighted the diminishing role of the theoretical and mathematical ideas in CS curricula. The latter study suggested integrating the development of empirical skills throughout the CS curriculum. The doctoral thesis of Surakka (2005) on the technical skills that graduates from the specialisation in Software Systems need is an example of a study that analysed the goals of a degree programme. The society’s viewpoint was strongly present in Surakka’s study. Job advertisements were used as one data source in this dissertation and therefore the needs of the industry and the society were highlighted. Thus, in this study the goals were discussed at the society level. Another example of a report that focuses on goals and content from the society’s viewpoint is Computing Curricula 2005 (ACM 2005). It is an example of a report that summarises, for example, the performance capabilities expected of the graduates from different computing related degree programs. Thus, this report summarises the general educational goals of different degree programs. Computing Curricula 2001 Computer Science (ACM 2001) on the other hand specifies the goals and content of a degree program on the core topics and course levels.
The computing curricula provided an example of the similarities and differences between research and reports that were found on the organisation and society level.
Computing curricula discuss the degree level goals and content. However, an organisation that develops them bases their work on observing the international working life and scientific trends. Thus, the focus of category 1 at the society level is clearly larger than a single organisation. Another example of society level reports are national strategies, for instance, the Finnish Ministry of Education’s Regional strategy for education and research up to 2013 (2004) and Development plan for education and research 2007- 2012 (2008), which both state the general goals for technology education, among the other things.
Category 2: Student(s)/community of students/citizens
This category focuses on the student(s)/a community of students/the citizens of a society as actors in an instructional process (Figure 14). This definition is loose and it allows a variety of studies to be placed into this category. First, the category includes research that addresses the characteristics, knowledge, or prior learned skills of students, community of students, or citizens. For example, research that analysed how students’ prior academic experiences and programming self-esteem (Bergin and Reilly 2006), cognitive styles (Mancy and Reid 2004) or problem solving ability (Pillay and Jugoo 2005) affects success in a CS1 course belong to this category. As these examples illustrate, the characteristics of the student(s)/community of students/citizens contain a variety of factors some of which are inherent qualities, such as gender, some are academic attainments, such as solid mathematic skills, and some are personal
characteristics, such as perceived self-images of the students. Overall, these are the qualities of the students(s)/community of students/citizens that they bring with them to the instructional process.
Figure 14 Student(s)/community of students/citizens as a focus of a category
Second, the category includes research that analyses the students’ relation to fellow students or the community of students. One focus of the study by Garvin-Doxas and Barker (2004) was the interaction between students. This included, for example, informal discussions before lectures. The data was collected from first year computer science courses but the focus was on community level issues. Therefore, the research is placed on the organisation/community level. Another study with a similar focus was the study by Crenshaw et al. (2008) that focused, among other things, on the students’
perceptions of the community of CS students. The study’s focus was on general CS studies and it discussed aspects that are community level issues. Therefore, this study was placed in the related work section in the organisation/community cell. This study is an example of research that focuses on the interaction between different level nodes in one vertex of the triangle.
Category 3: Teacher(s)/teaching organisation/society
Category 3 focuses on teacher(s)/teaching organisation/society as actors in the instructional process (Figure 15). These actors are the ones who are responsible for organising and realising the formal education in a society. The level of teacher(s) refers to a single teacher/assistant teacher in a course or a team of teachers who have shared goals, for example, organising a basic studies module. The teaching organisation refers to the abstract institution that provides the resources for teaching and learning.
However, teaching organisations often are hierarchical and it is possible to distinguish different levels of the organisation. For example, Helsinki University of Technology (TKK) is organised into four faculties that each consist of departments. Thus, if needed, it would be possible to divide the teaching organisation level further to different levels of teaching organisation. The society level refers here to the structures of the society
that are responsible for education. The Finnish Ministry of Education, which is responsible for developing educational, science, cultural, sport and youth policies, is an example of a society level actor.
Figure 15 Teacher(s)/teaching organisation/society as a focus of a category
The different focuses within this category include aspects, such as the interactions between actors on one level (e.g., between teachers) or between levels (e.g., the ways a teacher can affect organisation level decisions). For instance, the study by Ben-David Kolikant and Pollack (2004) analysed computer science teachers’ relation to their colleagues and highlighted the importance of interaction between the teachers. Another approach is to focus on the characteristics or qualifications of the actors. The study by Gal-Ezer (1995) emphasised the need for qualified educators and proposed a design of the computer science teachers’ certification program.
Category 4: Student(s)/community of students/citizen relation to teacher(s)/
teaching organisation/society
This category’s focus is on the relationship between the two actors of the instructional process: student(s)/community of students/citizens and teacher(s)/teaching organisation/
society (Figure 16). The relationship does not contain the pedagogical aspect (e.g., teaching, which is discussed later) but the way the actors perceive each other. For instance, the study by Crenshaw et al. (2008) analysed the CS students’ conceptions of the members of the department. The study by Foor et al. (2007) also focused on the student’s conception of her teachers and the university as a learning environment. The study also illustrated teachers’ conceptions of the student and her abilities (as reported by the student). These examples suggest two possible subcategories for this category.
The first is the conceptions of students/community of students/society of the qualities and abilities of teachers/teaching organisation/society. The other subcategory emphasises the same relation but in the opposite direction.
Figure 16 The relation between the actors as a focus of a category
Category 5: Student(s)/community of students/citizens relation to goals/content This category focuses on the relation between the student(s)/community of students/citizens and the goals and the content of the course/degree program/general goals of education (Figure 17). According to Kansanen (2003) the relation between the students and the content of the course manifests itself as studying. That is, the students’
actions when they are striving to achieve the goals, for example, learning some specific skill or completing a degree. However, this relation manifests itself in other ways, too.
It can be interpreted as the ways students perceive the goals and content: do they think the goals are worth working for and do they think that they are capable of achieving these goals. The students’ conceptions of the content and the different ways of understanding this content are also a manifestation of this particular relation.
Additionally, the results of the studying bring yet another dimension to this category.
The results of the studying could be, for instance, grades, passing rates, achieved skills and changed attitudes. In order to address the different possibilities the relation between the students/community of student(s)/citizens and the goals and the content of the course/degree program/general goals of education, this category is divided into three subcategories:
5.1 The understanding of and attitude about goals and content that the student(s)/community of students/citizens have
5.2 The actions (e.g., studying) the student(s)/community of students/citizens do to achieve the goals or learn the content
5.3 The results of the action of the student(s)/community of students/citizens (5.2)
Figure 17 The relation between the student(s)/community of students/citizens and content/goal as a focus of a category
Subcategory 5.1 focuses on research that analyses the understanding on or attitude towards goals and content that students/community of students/citizens have. In a field of computer science education the doctoral thesis by Booth (1992) is one of the first studies that shed light on students’ conceptions of nature of programming and programming language. These conceptions are an example of the relation that subcategory 5.1 stands for. This category also includes the research that has analysed the students’ problems that derived from incorrect or partial understanding (Spohrer and Soloway 1986) or discussed how students understood some specific programming related concepts (Sorva 2007; Sorva 2008). On the other hand, also the studies that focused on the students’ conceptions of the difficulty of the course (Rountree et al.
2004) or on the students’ intrinsic goal orientation and task value (Bergin et al. 2005) belong to this subcategory. The studies that focused on the students’ comfort level (consisting of factors such as asking and answering questions during the course, anxiety level when working on assignments, perceived competence compared with classmates, and perceived difficulty of assignments (Cantwell Wilson and Shrock 2001) also belong to this category.
Subcategory 5.2 concentrates on research about how students/community of students/citizens act towards achieving goals. Naturally, there are several different types of actions a student can choose to achieve goals and thus the content of this subcategory is diverse. For example, on the one hand there could be research that discusses non-legitimised actions, such as plagiarism. On the other hand, there could be research that discusses the deep and surface approaches to learning. Yet another type of research belonging to this category is that which analyses the concrete content related problems students encountered during studying sessions (e.g., Garner et al. 2005; Robins et al.
2006) or the group dynamic related challenges students face (e.g., Kinnunen and Malmi 2005).
Subcategory 5.3 focuses on the results of the acts that the student(s)/community of students/citizens do to achieve their goals. Just as the students’ actions can vary, so can the type of results, too. The results can be, for instance, achieved skills and knowledge
measured as received grades or degrees (e.g., Cantwell Wilson 2002), or drop-out rates (e.g., Xenos et al. 2002).
Category 6: Teacher(s)/teaching organisation/society relation to goals/content Category 6 focuses on the relationship between the teacher(s)/teaching organisation/
society and goals/content of a course or a degree or the general goals of education (Figure 18). This relationship may externalise several ways. On a course level it could mean the way in which the teachers understands the goals and the content of the course or the attitudes the teacher has towards the goals and the content. On a degree level, the relationship could manifest as the degree requirements that the teaching organisation sets for a bachelor’s or a master’s degree.
Figure 18 The relation between the teacher(s)/teaching organisation/society and content/goal as a focus of a category
The course level research that belongs to this category focuses on teachers’ conceptions of or opinions on concepts and goals and the field of science they teach. For example, the study of how CS teachers’ understand ‘object-first’ belongs to this category (Bennedsen and Schulte 2008). Another example is the research that focuses on the teachers’ content and goal related opinions, for instance, which topics are important to teach in an introductory programming course (Goldman et al. 2008; Schulte and Bennedsen 2006).
The study by Gruba, Moffat, Søndergaard and Zobel (2004 ) discussed the factors that affected curriculum change in computer science departments. The study brought out factors, such as outspoken individuals, academic fashion, financial concerns and student demands were mentioned as influential when it comes to curriculum change. This study’s focus is on the teaching organisation’s relation to the degree level goals and content. Another example of a similar focus is the study that focused on the process of teachers’ assimilation of the new CS curriculum (Haberman et al. 2003). The study by Stein (1999) highlights yet another type of research that belongs to this category. This
research proposed a new perspective from which computer science can be seen. Thus, it focused on how the community of teachers (scientists) think about the subject they teach.
The society level research and reports that belong to this category focus on the relation between the society and the goals and content. For instance, the influence of the national strategy can be found in the Finnish framework curriculum for comprehensive school. The study by Lattu (2002) highlighted the idea that curriculum of technology education is a product of a political process. The research then analysed the framework curriculum to see whose voices could be heard in the curriculum. This study illuminates the relation between society level decisions and curriculum level goals.
The second example of society level reports that have a potential to affect the degree and course level goals and content is the feedback reports from the industry and alumni.
These sources provide the experience based feedback on what kind of skills and knowledge is currently needed in working life. These previously mentioned examples illustrate the connections between society and a degree, as well as course level goals and content. Many of the reports do not solely rely on research, but rely on ongoing development work and experience based knowledge.
Category 7: Teacher(s)/teaching organisation/society – studying
The focus of this category is on the relation of the teacher(s)/teaching organisation/society to the relation of student(s)/community of students/citizens to the goals and content of a course or a degree or the general goals of education (Figure 19).
Next, this complex relation is discussed further. For simplicity’s sake in the following paragraphs “teacher(s)” refers to the teacher(s)/teaching organisation/society.
Figure 19 The relation between teacher(s)/teaching organisation/society to the relation of student(s)/community of students/citizens to the goals and content Previously, category five (the relation of students/community of students/citizens to the goals and content) was divided into three subcategories. These concentrated on the way
students understood or felt about the goals and content, the way students acted to achieve the goals and what were the results of their actions. In a similar manner, category seven can be divided into three sub-categories. The first subcategory concentrates on teachers’ understanding of the first subcategory (5.1) of category five:
what do teachers think about how students understand goals and content or of what students’ attitudes are towards goals and content. The second subcategory concentrates on teacher’s conceptions of the students’ actions to achieve goals. The third subcategory focuses on teacher’s pedagogical actions to enhance students’ studying process. This is a large subcategory that includes a variety of topics, such as discussions on the pedagogical means used and the learning environments created. The three subcategories are:
7.1 The conceptions of teacher(s)/organisation/society of students’
understanding/attitude on goals/content.
7.2 The conceptions of teacher(s)/organisation/society of students’ actions towards achieving goals (e.g., studying)
7.3 Pedagogical activities of teacher(s)/organisation/society
Subcategory 7.1 focuses on how teacher(s)/organisation/society understand students’
understanding or attitude on goals or content. This category could include studies that about the teachers’ conceptions of how useful students find the course, or studies that shed light on teachers’ conceptions of how students understand some particular concepts. For example, the study by Haberman et al. (2003) emphasises the importance of teachers’ awareness of students’ conceptual understanding.
The studies by Lahtinen et al. (2005) and Schulte and Bennedsen (2006) are examples of studies that analysed, among the other things, teachers’ conceptions of which course topics are difficult for students to learn. The study by Kinnunen, McCartney, Murphy and Thomas (2007) had a slightly different focus. The research focused on CS teachers’
perceptions of student success. This study belongs also to category 7.2 since it highlights teachers’ perceptions of aspects that affect students’ studying process.
Subcategory 7.3 concentrates on pedagogical actions. The range of studies that belong to this category is wide. On the one hand there is research that analysed which course topics teachers found difficult to teach (Dale 2006). On the other hand, there is research that introduced pedagogical actions to enhance learning. For example, the study by Vagianou (2006) introduced a concept of program working storage to smooth transition of students in introductory programming courses from the end-user stance to the programmer stance. Other pedagogical actions that have been reported were changes in course curriculum to improve students’ understanding of course material or general motivation to take the course (de Raadt et al. 2007; Forte and Guzdial 2005).
Category 8: Student(s)/community of students/citizens – the pedagogical means that teacher(s)/teaching organisation/society can use to enhance learning
The last category focuses on the conceptions of the student(s)/community of students/citizens of the pedagogical actions of the teacher(s)/teaching organisations/society (Figure 20). An example of a study that would fall into this category would be a study that analyses the course feedback the students have given to the teacher or the feedback that the graduating students give to the university concerning their studies as a whole. The studies by Cantwell-Wilson (2002) and
Ventura (Ventura 2005) focused on several aspects that can be placed into the didactic triangle. One of the things that they discussed was how students perceived the learning
Ventura (Ventura 2005) focused on several aspects that can be placed into the didactic triangle. One of the things that they discussed was how students perceived the learning