Page 93 - Getting the Picture Modeling and Simulation in Secondary Computer Science Education

4.3.5
spectrum of possibilities the modeling offers to them. Some teachers
would rely mainly on their observation of students while they work
on the projects, again without elaborating on specific quality criteria.
Additionally, teacher 10 would talk to his students to ascertain
whether they understand what they are doing. Teacher 6 would also
assess the quality of the report the students wrote for the customer.
Teacher 7 would have his students present their models, he would
assess the product (i.e. model and project documentation) and
additionally the process (SCRUM) and he stresses the importance of
reflection, together with number of other teachers. He adds, “even if
they didn’t succeed, I find you can’t say they don’t know what modeling
is”. Teacher 5 is not sure what to say: “if the model works, is that
sufficient?” 4
Investigating CS Teachers’ Initial PCK on Modeling and Simulation
Differential Features and Typification
We found two characteristics that distinguish among teachers:
• Knowledge of goals and objectives (M1). Teachers 1, 2, 4, and 6 stress the importance of conceptual objectives such as learning how to employ programming or how to make models, while teachers 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 put more emphasis on broader motivational and practical objectives such as enhancing insight or preparing for the
future.
• Knowledge of assessment (M4). Teachers 1, 2, 4, 8, 9 and 10
predominantly put to use product-based assessment stressing the quality of the students’ product, while teachers 3, 5, 6 and 7 prefer process-based assessment stressing the importance of the employed working procedures.
Combining these two differential features leads to four groups of teachers as shown in Table 5:
Conceptual objectives
Product
M4
Table 5: Distinct groups of teachers
M1
Practical and motivational objectives 8, 9, 10
3, 5, 7
1, 2, 4,
Process 6
91