Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

it - Information Technology

Methods and Applications of Informatics and Information Technology

Editor-in-Chief: Conrad, Stefan / Molitor, Paul

6 Issues per year

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 60, Issue 2


Instructional methods in computing education judged by computer science teachers and educational experts

Andreas Zendler
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Computer Science, University of Education, Reuteallee 46, Ludwigsburg, 71634, Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-03-22 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/itit-2017-0015


Answers to the questions of which instructional methods are suitable for school, what instructional methods should be applied in teaching individual subjects and how instructional methods support the act of learning represent challenges to general education and education in individual subjects. This article focuses on empirical examinations of instructional methods for computer science education supporting knowledge processes in the act of learning and their integration into the context of significant learning theories. The results of this article show that certain instructional methods are especially predestined for computer science education. They can also be attributed to behavioristic, cognitivist and constructivist learning theories; they are thereby localized and can profit from the empirical findings of the learning theories, especially in practical use on teaching computer science.

Keywords: Computer science education; instructional methods; teaching tools; knowledge processes; act of learning; theory of learning


  • 1.

    S. K. Abell and N. G. Lederman, Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007.Google Scholar

  • 2.

    Association for Computing Machinery. Computer science curriculum 2013. ACM, 2013.

  • 3.

    C. Agneli, D. Kadijevich, and C. Schulte. Improving computer science education. Routledge Chapman & Hall, 2013.Google Scholar

  • 4.

    J. R. Anderson. Cognitive psychology. Worth Publishers, 2013.Google Scholar

  • 5.

    R. Andersson and L. Bendix. eXtreme teaching: a framework for continuous improvement. Comp. Sci. Educ., 16(3):175–184, 2006.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 6.

    M. Baer and M. Paradiso. Neuroscience: Exploring the brain. Lippincott Williams & Wilk, 2015.Google Scholar

  • 7.

    K. Benoit and N. Wiesehomeier. Expert judgment. In S. Pickel, G. Pickel, H.-J. Lauth, and D. Jahn, editors, Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaften, pages 479–516, Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2009.Google Scholar

  • 8.

    J. S. Bruner. The process of education. Harvard University Press, 1966.Google Scholar

  • 9.

    J. K. Burton, D. M. Moore, and S. G. Magliaro. Behaviorism and instructional design. In D. H Jonassen, editor, Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, pages 3–35, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004.Google Scholar

  • 10.

    R. K. Canton. Programmed Instruction in online learning. Cambia Press, 2007.Google Scholar

  • 11.

    M. Carro, A. Herranz, and J. Mariño. A model-driven approach to teaching concurrency. ACM Trans. on Comp. Educ., 13(1): Article No. 5, 2013.Google Scholar

  • 12.

    A. Collins, D. Brown, and E. E. Newman. Cognitive apprenticeship. Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick, editor, Knowing, Learning and Instruction, pages 453–494, Erlbaum, 1989.Google Scholar

  • 13.

    S. Collins Neuroscience for learning and development: How to apply neuroscience and psychology for improved learning and training. Kogan Page, 2015.Google Scholar

  • 14.

    Cornelson. Methodik. www.cornelsen.de/lehrkraefte/suche?such_quelle=servicebox&freitext=Methodik. Accessed: 2017-08-01.Google Scholar

  • 15.

    B. G. Davis. Tools for teaching. Jossey-Bass, 2009.Google Scholar

  • 16.

    D. A. Dillman, J. Smyth, and L. Christian. Internet, mail, and mixed-mode designs: The tailored design method. Wiley & Sons, 2009.Google Scholar

  • 17.

    A. de Freitas and M. M. de Freitas. Classroom live: a software-assisted gamification tool. Comp. Sci. Educ., 23(2):186–206, 2013.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 18.

    R. M. Gagné, W. W. Wagner, K. Golas, and J. M. Keller. Principles of instructional design. Wadsworth Publishing, 2004.Google Scholar

  • 19.

    A. Gartner, M. C. Kohler, and F. Riessman. Children teach children. Learning by teaching. Harper & Row, 1971.Google Scholar

  • 20.

    GI. Bildungsstandards Informatik SI und SII. http://www.informatik-standards.de. Accessed: 2017-08-01.Google Scholar

  • 21.

    P. Ginnis. The teacher’s toolkit. Classroom achievement. Crown House Publishing, 2001.Google Scholar

  • 22.

    M. J. van Gorp and S. Grissom. An empirical evaluation of using constructive classroom activities to teach introductory programming. Comp. Sci. Educ., 11(3):247–260, 2001.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 23.

    N. S. Gowda. Learning and the learner: Insights into the processes of learning and teaching. PHI Learning, 2001.Google Scholar

  • 24.

    J. Grzega and M. Schöner. The didactic model LdL (Lernen durch Lehren) as a way of preparing students for communication in a knowledge society. J. of Edu. for Teach., 34(3):167–175, 2008.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 25.

    G. Gugel. 2000 Methoden für Schule und Lehrebildung. Beltz, 2001.Google Scholar

  • 26.

    K. L. Gwet. Handbook of inter-rater-reliability. Advanced Analytics, 2014.Google Scholar

  • 27.

    W. Hartmann, M. Näf, and R. Reichert. Informatikunterricht planen und durchführen. Springer, 2006.Google Scholar

  • 28.

    J. Hattie. Visible learning. Routledge, 2009.Google Scholar

  • 29.

    O. Hazzan, T. Lapidot, and N. Ragonis. Guide to teaching computer science: an activity-based approach. Springer, 2011.Google Scholar

  • 30.

    S. G. Huber and S. Hader-Popp. Unterrichtsentwicklung durch Methodenvielfalt im Unterricht fördern: das Methodenatelier als schulinterne Fortbildung. In A. Bartz, J. Fabian, S. G. Huber, C. Kloft, H. Rosenbusch, and H. Sassenscheidt, editors, PraxisWissen Schulleitung, pages 30–31, Wolters Kluwer, 2007.Google Scholar

  • 31.

    P. Hubwieser. Didaktik der Informatik: Grundlagen, Konzepte, Beispiele. Springer, 2007.Google Scholar

  • 32.

    L. Humbert. Didaktik der Informatik. Teubner, 2006.Google Scholar

  • 33.

    Y.-C. Hung. The effect of teaching methods and learning style on learning program design in webbased education systems. J. of Educ. Comp. R., 47(4):409–427, 2012.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 34.

    S. Iron, S. Alexander, and S. Alexander. Improving computer science education. Routledge Chapman & Hall, 2004.Google Scholar

  • 35.

    P. Kilpeläinen. Do all roads lead to Rome? (Or reductions for dummy travelers). Comp. Sci. Edu., 20(3):181–199, 2010.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 36.

    E. Koffmann and T. Brinda. Teaching programming and problems solving. In L. Cassel and R. A. Reis, editors, Informatics curricula and teaching methods, pages 125–130, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003.Google Scholar

  • 37.

    LOG IN. Unterrichtsmaterialien für den Informatikunterricht. http://www.log-in-verlag.de/informatikunterricht. Accessed: 2017-08-01.Google Scholar

  • 38.

    D. Mareschal and B. Butterworth. Educational neuroscience. Wiley & Sons, 2013.Google Scholar

  • 39.

    M. D. Merill. First Principles. Educ. Technology, Res. and Dev., 50(3):43–59, 2002.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 40.

    S. B. Merriam and R. S. Caffarella. Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. Bass, 2006.Google Scholar

  • 41.

    H. Meyer. Unterrichtsmethoden. In H. Kiper, H. Meyer, and W. Topsch, editors, Einführung in die Schulpädagogik, pages 109–121, Cornelsen, 2012.Google Scholar

  • 42.

    C. Mitchell and L. Sackney. Profound improvement building capacity for learning communities. Routledge, 2011.Google Scholar

  • 43.

    D. R. Olson. Jerome Bruner: The cognitive revolution in educational theory. Continuum, 2007.Google Scholar

  • 44.

    S. Petrina Advanced teaching methods for the technology classroom. Information Science Publishing, 2006.Google Scholar

  • 45.

    G. Petty. Teaching today: a practical guide. Nelson Thornes, 2009.Google Scholar

  • 46.

    B. Sabitzer. Neurodidactics – a new stimulus in ICT and computer science education. In L. Gómez Chova, I. Candel Torres and A. López Martìnez, editors, INTED 2011 Proceedings CD. International Association of Technology, Education and Development (IATED), March 2011.Google Scholar

  • 47.

    S. D. Sala and M. Anderson. Neuroscience in education: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Oxford University Press, 2011.Google Scholar

  • 48.

    J. W. Santrock. Educational psychology. Mcgraw-Hill, 2011.Google Scholar

  • 49.

    S. Schubert and A. Schwill. Didaktik der Informatik. Spektrum, 2012.Google Scholar

  • 50.

    C. Schulte. Uncovering structure behind function: the experiment as teaching method in computer science education. In WiPSCE’12 Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, pages 40–47, Wiley, 2012.Google Scholar

  • 51.

    M. Seiffert and B. Koerber. Neue Methoden braucht der Unterricht. LOG IN, 138:3, 2003.Google Scholar

  • 52.

    R. E. Slavin, Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Pearson Education, 2014.Google Scholar

  • 53.

    A. J. Spurgin. Human reliability assessment theory and practice. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2009.Google Scholar

  • 54.

    R. Tennyson, F. Schott, N. Seel, and S. Dijkstra. Instructional design: International perspective: Theory, research, and models (volume 1). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997.Google Scholar

  • 55.

    The Center for Teaching and Learning. 150 teaching methods. http://teaching.uncc.edu/learning-resources/articles-books/best-practice/instructional-methods/150-teaching-methods. Accessed: 2017-08-01.Google Scholar

  • 56.

    N. Thota and R. Whitfield. Holistic approach to learning and teaching introductory object-oriented programming. Comp. Sci. Educ., 20(2):103–127, 2010.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 57.

    F. E. Weinert. Ansprüche an das Lernen in der heutigen Zeit. In MSW – Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (Ed.), Fächerübergreifendes Arbeiten – Bilanz und Perspektiven. Ritterbach, 1997.

  • 58.

    J. Wiechmann Direkte Instruktion. In J. Wiechmann, editor, Zwölf Unterrichtsmethoden, pages 35–39, Beltz, 2011.Google Scholar

  • 59.

    A. Woolfolk. Educational psychology. Pearson, 2015.Google Scholar

  • 60.

    A. Zendler and D. Klaudt. Booklet I: Instructional methods to computer science education. epubli, 2015.Google Scholar

  • 61.

    A. Zendler and D. Klaudt. Instructional methods to computer science education as investigated by computer science teachers. Journal of Computer Science, 11(8):915–927, 2015.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 62.

    A. Zendler. Computer science education teaching methods—an overview of the literature. International Journal of Research Studies in Computing, 4(2):3–11, 2015.Google Scholar

  • 63.

    A. Zendler, C. Seitz, and D. Klaudt. Instructional methods in the context of significant learning theories. In A. Zendler, editor, Elements of empirical computer science education, 2018.Google Scholar

About the article

Andreas Zendler

Andreas Zendler studied psychology and computer science at the University of Regensburg and the University of Potsdam. 1988 Dr phil. in experimental psychology. 1997 Dr rer. nat. in computer science. 2000 habilitation in computer science. From 1988 until 2004 consultant for software engineering with Softlab. Since 2005 professor for computer science education at the University of Education Ludwigsburg. Research areas: Empirical computer science education, experimental designs in educational studies, data science.

Received: 2017-08-09

Revised: 2018-01-18

Accepted: 2018-02-05

Published Online: 2018-03-22

Published in Print: 2018-04-25

Citation Information: it - Information Technology, Volume 60, Issue 2, Pages 79–90, ISSN (Online) 2196-7032, ISSN (Print) 1611-2776, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/itit-2017-0015.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in