=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2755/paper11
|storemode=property
|title=Fostering Reflection in CS Teacher Education. A Video-Based Approach to Unveiling, Analyzing and Teaching Novices' Programming Processes
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2755/paper11.pdf
|volume=Vol-2755
|authors=Johannes Fischer,Nora Romahn,Martin Weinert
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/issep/0001RW20
}}
==Fostering Reflection in CS Teacher Education. A Video-Based Approach to Unveiling, Analyzing and Teaching Novices' Programming Processes==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2755/paper11.pdf
Fostering Re ection in CS Teacher Education
A Video-Based Approach to Unveiling, Analyzing and
Teaching Novices' Programming Processes
1 2 3
Johannes Fischer , Nora Romahn , and Martin Weinert
1
TU Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany johannes.fischer@cs.tu-dortmund.de
2
TU Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany nora.romahn@tu-dortmund.de
3
TU Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany martin.weinert@cs.tu-dortmund.de
Abstract. We focus on novice programming processes in secondary ed-
ucation. In Germany, prospective high-school CS teachers often face the
problem that they have only very little access to actual school classrooms
during their teacher preparation programmes. They only learn about
teaching programming from a very abstract point of view in lectures or
seminars, usually with a focus on research rather than on practice. Once
they arrive in schools as graduated teachers, they are often faced with
completely new situations and rst have to learn how the pupils learn,
program, debug, and think. To bridge this gap between university educa-
tion and actual school practice, we propose a new methodology that we
are currently integrating into our curriculum. Our main approach is to
activate re ective processes in prospective high-school teachers by rst
having them watch video-material from actual programming lessons at
school, and then giving them exercises that let them re ect on the ma-
terial they have just seen, e.g. by asking them about possible misconcep-
tions, or letting them speculate about the pupils' thought processes. The
goal of this article is to develop a theory (supported by learning theories)
on how such videos and accompanying exercises should be composed in
order to activate deep re ective processes. We believe that our method-
ology is general enough to be applicable to a wide range of programming
processes, independent of actual programming languages or paradigms,
age of the pupils and students, or other external factors.
Keywords: Re ection · Video-based learning · Computing Education · Inter-
active learning environments · E-learning
1 Introduction
Programming is an important topic of computer science courses in school. It is
not only the primary experience and fundamental activity of computer scientists,
but also enables the demysti cation of the machine. It allows, for example, to
move from being a consumer of software to become a creator thereof. Therefore
it is important to provide learners with high quality programming lessons.
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons
License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
To ensure this quality, it is mandatory to properly educate teachers about
how students learn [21,23]. As the National Research Council notes, research on
learning and transfer has uncovered important principles for structuring learning
experiences that enable people to use what they have learned in new settings
[5, p.4]. An example of this is the necessity for teachers to pay attention to
students' interpretations and provide guidance when necessary. [5, p.11] Hence,
teachers' knowledge about learning processes directly in uences their students'
learning outcomes.
An important part of this knowledge is the understanding of student be-
haviour, particularly what students do while coding. Its importance comes from
the value that this knowledge can provide in dierent ways. Luxton-Reilly et
al. [14] mention the prediction of students' success, identi cation and mitigation
of students' di culties and improvements of students' success rates through al-
teration of their behaviour. They also note the signi cant potential to learn
about student learning through analysis of coding bahaviour. [14] With these
bene ts in mind it is clear that teachers should be educated about what students
particularly do while they code.
While the literature review of Luxton-Reilly et al. [14] focusses on studies con-
ducted at university level, we believe that these statements hold for K12 as well.
Therefore, we propose a methodology that aims at unveiling students' program-
ming processes and developing methods to teach these ndings to prospective
computing education teachers. The main questions that are guiding our research
are:
RQ1 Which unexpected phenomena can be observed in programming students?
RQ2 Which theories might explain those phenomena and how are they signif-
icant for CS teachers?
RQ3 How should a university course be designed in order to foster re ection
on those phenomena in prospective CS teachers?
RQ4 How can videos showing programming students be incorporated into such
a course?
Because of their qualitative nature we mainly use qualitative content analysis
[15] to answer the rst two questions. These questions ask for the exploration
of processes happening in CS classrooms. To get meaningful results, we chose
to visit actual school classes, observe the pupils while programming, and sub-
sequently describe their processes. Since description is based on interpretation,
this motivates our choice of qualitative content analysis.
The last two research questions are highly dierent in nature and require a
dierent approach. The main dierence is that we want to develop, analyse and
re ne our own instructional approaches in our university courses for prospective
high school teachers. To accomplish this, we use a design-based research setting
[2,10,9]. This means that we rst formulate the learning outcomes as implicitly
done in RQ3 and then conduct teaching experiments aimed at achieving them.
Incorporating ndings from the experiments into subsequent ones and repeating
this process will eventually increase comprehension of the learning processes
during those courses.
Re ection is generally agreed to be important for professional development
[4] and has a long tradition of research [6,19,4,24]. There are approaches to
incorporate video-based instruction into teacher training in dierent subjects
[20,22,13,3] and even in computer science [1]. However, those approaches focus
on teachers' instructional practices rather that pupils' learning processes. There
are also approaches using vignettes [16] that are not video-based. To the best
of our knowledge there are no previous approaches using video-vignettes of pro-
gramming pupils to foster prospective teachers' re ective thoughts.
In this paper we describe our framework in detail. In Sect. 2, we de ne some
terms that have been used liberally above. In Sect. 3, we discuss the concept of
re ection and its signi cance to our project. In Sect. 4, we present the consider-
ations serving as the basis for the video material we use. In Sect. 5, we describe
our course design. Finally, in Sect. 6, we give an outline on which further steps
are required to achieve the long-term goals.
2 Terminology and Structure of the Project
Because our project takes place on multiple levels of the educational system,
it is reasonable to de ne how we refer to dierent actors and entities. To this
end, we use the nested tetrahedron model [11]. It is a general model of academic
instruction for structuring and labelling its main components.
2.1 The Didactic Tetrahedron
(a) Didactic Tetrahedron [11]
(b) Nested Didactic Tetrahedron [11]
Fig. 1: Didactic tetrahedra
The didactic tetrahedron identi es four components as important parts of
learning processes in institutionalized learning settings (see also Fig. 1a). The
rst dimension ( L ) refers to the persons who experience the learning process. The
second dimension ( T ) references the actors who facilitate the learning process.
The third dimension is called subject matter ( SM ) and describes what the
learners are learning.
The dimensions mentioned so far constitute the classic didactic triangle.
What turns it into a tetrahedron is the last dimension ( A ), which considers any
thing that serves a didactic purpose. Its importance arises from the idea that
human actions manifest themselves as interactions with the world, or rather
artefacts therein. (See below for concrete examples of artefacts.)
We will now model the subject of the rst two research questions (RQ1 and
RQ2), which refer to the school level.
Learners (L) Our main focus lies on pupils in higher secondary education,
while we do not exclude other learners categorically. The important aspect
with respect to our analyses is that the learners should only have little prior
programming experience and work with a text-based programming language.
These learners will mainly be referred to as pupils.
Teachers (T) The role of the teacher is carried out by the regular CS teacher
of the class. However, since we focus heavily on processes happening during
learning, the teacher plays a rather minor role.
Subject matter (SM) We focus on programming in general and require the
learners to be active. Any task that asks for programming related activities
lies in that scope, while, for example, a lecture on syntax would not.
Artefacts (A) The artefacts that the pupils will interact with depend on the
concrete tasks they are working on. In general, they will always create or
modify a source code, using a programming language and programming en-
vironment of some kind, using input devices such as keyboard and mouse.
This means that we do not focus on unplugged activities, even if they involve
working on program code, or on programs running on external hardware like
microcontrollers or roboters.
2.2 The Nested Didactic Tetrahedron
With RQ3 and RQ4 we introduce the university as a second level at which we
want to analyse learning processes. Since this second level might cause termino-
logical confusion, we use an extension of the didactic tetrahedron as a conceptual
framework to describe the remaining parts of our project.
Since the learning processes at university level are similar to the ones at
school, the didactic tetrahedron from Sect. 2.1 would be su cient. However, now
the complete learning processes at school level will act as the subject matter at
university level. This means that the tetrahedron from Fig. 1a acts as the vertex
'subject matter' of the tetrahedron at university level.
Fig. 1b illustrates the relationship of the two tetrahedra and conceptualizes
the learning processes at the university level. The dierentiation between the
two tetrahedra is accomplished by adding a leading U to the labels. We can now
describe the aspects of our project that are related to teacher training.
Learners (UL) Our focus lies on university students with the goal of becoming
school teachers. These learners will be referred to as students.
Teachers (UT) The learning processes at university level will happen during
computer science teacher training courses. Because of that the teachers (UT)
are the course instructors.
Subject matter (USM) Our main goal at university level is to enable the
students (UL) to re ect (see Sect. 3) on their teaching and the pupils' learn-
ing processes. To achieve that, we want them to rst gain knowledge about
pupils' learning processes and their associated diagnostics.
Artefacts (UA) The main artefacts that the students will use are videos show-
ing pupils programming and exercises related to those videos. Sections 4
and 5 will explain those two artefacts in greater detail. The nal goal of our
project is to provide a digital learning platform that includes both the videos
and the exercises.
3 Re ection
Like a computer programmer, a teacher needs to nd and x problems in his
or her instructional approaches. The task of debugging them requires the ability
of what is called re ection. And since assuring the e cacy of one's teaching
activities is an important part of a teacher's competencies, the development of
the ability to re ect on pupils' learning processes should be an integral part of
teacher training curricula. As Clará [4] notes, this importance is unanimously
agreed upon in the eld of teacher education. However, he also notes that the
degree of agreement is similar to the degree of ambiguity about what re ection
actually is. The purpose of this section is not to trace the discourse on re ection,
but rather nd a usable de nition for our project.
To nd a suitable de nition, we take a look at the very roots. According to
Dewey [6], re ection is the
active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed
form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the
further conclusions to which it tends. (p.6)
From this quote we derive the three major foci that we associate with re-
ection. They are (a) beliefs and (supposed) knowledge, (b) grounds, or rather
reasons, and (c) derived conclusions.
Additionally, for (a) Dewey dierentiates between descriptions and inter-
pretations [4]. Here, descriptions represent the observatory part, since they are
explications of (assumably) non-judgemental observations. On the contrary, in-
terpretations are constructions of meaning. In this case, the term constructions
means the creation of something that has not existed before, what in the case
of mental constructs is denoted by inference.
We want the students' to re ect on all aspects of the pupils' programming
processes. Beliefs and knowledge (a) will therefore be addressed by a detailed de-
scription and interpretation of the pupils' actions. A possible statement could be:
The pupil tries to declare a variable by typing the words 'Int', 'init' and 'Init', be-
fore giving up. That statement contains an observed action (typing of words) and
its interpretations (attempt of variable declaration; resignation). Based on the
given statement, a proposition for an underlying reason (b) might be: The pupil
seems unaware of the correct keyword for integer variables and case-sensitivity,
since he inputs words similar to 'int' while varying capitalisation. A conclu-
sion (c) might be the proposition of an action that should be taken, like: The
pupils should be in some way instructed on the importance of correct notation
of keywords. Another possibility is a description of an alteration in the personal
point of view on something: Until I saw the pupils struggle, I didn't think that
syntactical rules could be a challenge. Finally, even general statements of (hypo-
thetical) facts might serve as conclusions: This example shows that the syntax of
a programming language is in no way trivial to learn.
All the given examples would be interpreted as indicators of re ective pro-
cesses. To summarize what we mean by the term re ection, it can be described
as a reconstruction of the scienti c investigation of the programming processes.
However, we do not require the students' analyses to be as rigorous as our own,
but rather a small scale version thereof.
It is still open how such re ective processes might be fostered and how to
support them. One answer might be suggested directly by Deweys and Schöns
works: Clará [4] notes that a key aspect of re ection lies in the clari cation of
incoherences of given situations. It is therefore crucial to confront the students
with examples featuring factors that lead to irritation, which nally results in
the perception of incoherences.
To be able to perform such confrontations, we use video recordings of pro-
gramming pupils. How these videos are composed and recorded will be described
in the next section.
4 Video-Based Re ection
In the previous section we argued that we want to confront the students with
their incoherent understandings in order to achieve re ection. Based on our
research focus, these confrontations will be about viewing pupils' programming
processes. We identify the following properties that the material (USM) should
ful l.
Authenticity: Inauthentic situations would be perceived by the students as
staged. This would directly resolve any incoherences in the understanding,
as the students could possibly just argue that the pupil's perceived behaviour
can be attributed to the arti cial situation.
Informativeness: The material needs to enable the viewers to derive reason-
able and useful conclusions for themselves. Material that does not allow for
statements on important topics cannot be used in education on that topic.
Therefore our material in question has to provide referenceable actions of
the pupils.
Anonymity: As there should be as few restrictions as possible on the usage
and dissemination of the material, we want it to be practically completely
anonymised so that it does not allow for the identi cation of the pupils.
These properties are in uenced by the Critical Incident Technique [8,7,16].
With informativeness we require our videos to show incidents, but we do not
expect them to leave the observer with as little doubt as they would need to
critical in Flanagan's sense [8]. The properties are also in uenced by
qualify as
the termvignette, as described by Jeries and Maeder [12].
To achieve these goals, we decided to use videos as the primary medium.
The main dierence to vignettes is that our videos show real work rather than
hypothetical stories. Nonetheless, we use the term video vignettes to refer to the
combination of our videos and exercises.
Videos can meet the demands mentioned above if certain conditions are en-
sured. To assure authenticity we prefer recordings of pupils' regular working en-
vironments (classroom equipped with computers) over laboratory settings. We
believe that this is already a quite strong criterion for authenticity. We further
keep the setting for recording as little invasive as possible (see last paragraph of
this section).
A trade-o exists between the demands on informativeness and anonymity,
as anonymisation in its essence means the exclusion of certain information. An
example is the removal of facial recordings, which grants non-identi ability, but
at the same time prohibits observations of the pupil's emotional state. Therefore,
a compromise has to be made between the demands on informativeness and
anonymity. We try to accomplish this compromise by replacing the information
lost through anonymisation with supplementary information. For example, the
information lost by excluding facial recordings is partly reintroduced by adding
video recordings of the pupils' input devices, hands and notes. These might
enable the students to get a hint of emotions if they are intense enough to result
in motor responses of the hands. Additionally, that view also indicates actions
like pointing at the screen, which might be useful as well. Since the learners (L)
often work in pairs, they are practically required to communicate verbally with
each other, so we also add transcribed versions of the audio recordings.
The screen recordings can be realized in two ways: either by software running
on the system that is being recorded, or by additional hardware. Since the videos
will be recorded in schools and the speci c features of the computer systems
(hardware and software) can be quite dierent from school to school, we ruled
out a software solution. The hardware solution does not require any software to
be installed or run on the recorded systems. It consists of a video grabber that
is installed between the computer and the screen and intercepts the video signal
before passing it through to the screen. Altogether this provides the exibility
that is needed to record in unknown settings.
The nal aspect of our videos is another supplementation used to support the
interpretation of what is seen in the videos: eye-tracking data. As Przybylla [17]
notes, eye-tracking data can demonstrate how someone constructs understanding
of a program. While that note was made primarily on a research setting, we think
that students can bene t in the same way. At the very least, eye-tracking data
can be used as a rough indicator of what might be of interest for the pupils (e.g.,
do they even look to the bottom right corner of the screen when a compiler error
message appears? ). Since we emphasize non-intrusiveness over precision, this led
to the choice of a remote system installed in front of the monitor (instead of a
head mounted one). Fig. 2a shows how a pupil's workstation looks with all our
hardware installed.
(a) Workstation with recording hardware:
(1) Camera recording notes, (2) Eye-
tracker, (3) Framegrabber, and (4) Camera
recording input devices (b) Example of a nal video.
Fig. 2: Recording hardware and video example
Fig. 2b shows the composition of the nal videos. They consist of the three
views discussed above: the large view at the top, showing the pupils' screen.
This view also features a gazeplot that visualizes the eye-tracking data. At the
bottom there are two smaller views showing the notes and input devices.
5 Course Design
We use a design-based research approach [2,10,9] to gain knowledge about the
students' learning processes while simultaneously developing a course that can
be used in teacher training. The design-based research process consists of cycles
that repeatedly re ne a design. This re nement is achieved by conducting design
experiments and drawing theories from them that are used to modify the next
design cycle.
First cycle
In the rst design cycle we had the challenge that there were no videos available
that we could use. We dealt with that issue by incorporating video production
into the course. This led to a design containing six steps for the students to
complete:
1. Read literature on misconceptions [18].
2. Present the literature in class.
3. Learn our speci c video production processes.
4. Record videos during lessons at a school.
5. Attend an analysis session.
6. Write a term paper.
The approach has been evaluated using a written survey after course com-
pletion as well as qualitative observations during the course.
Observations First, we describe our qualitative observations during the course.
Our rst nding is that video production bound a lot of time in rather techni-
cal activities, like learning how to handle the recording devices or how to edit
the recordings. During that time the students neither learned anything about
pupils' work nor were they encouraged to perform re ective thought processes.
We therefore agreed to remove video production from the course design.
During the analysis session students had to look for interesting situations in
the videos. The term interesting situation had not been de ned explicitly in order
to nd out which situations the students would perceive as interesting, but was
highly in uenced by their prior reading of literature on misconceptions. Apart
from this, we would have liked them to identify other di culties as well, but
this did not happen. We concluded from this that students do not automatically
re ect in the sense of Sect. 3 and need more ne-grained instructions.
Empirical Evaluation Next, we describe the insights we got from the survey
that we conducted after the course had been completed. The survey was a vol-
untary online questionnaire. The students participated after their term papers
were graded. Seven of the eleven course participants completed the survey. In
the survey we asked them about their opinion on the relevancy of the course
topics for teachers. We also asked how the course in uenced those opinions and
whether they learned to perform the corresponding actions (e.g. to draw con-
clusions based on pupils' conceptions). Additionally, we asked what activities
should be removed, done less of, done more of, or be added to the course.
First, we present the reported changes in opinions during the course. Re-
garding the knowledge of pupils' typical conceptions and the ability to draw
conclusions, about half of the participants stated that they see them more im-
portant than before the course. The other half answered that their opinion had
not changed. Therefore we investigated what opinion that group had before,
and found that they already strongly agree on the importance of the concepts
in question.
Approximately the same distribution of opinions can be found in regards
to identifying pupils' conceptions: Half of the participants see the topic more
important than before and now totally agree on the importance for teachers. The
other half did not change their opinion and does not totally, but mostly agree
on the importance. However in this analysis we see a single student that did not
change his or her opinion and mostly disagrees on the importance. Investigating
that student's other answers showed that he or she seems to see no value in the
programming process. We assume this because he or she agreed strongly on the
statement that videos cannot help to grade the nal products in a fairer way.
Additionally he or she does not agree that the work process should be observed
and taken into account during grading.
This opinion raises the question if we should address the signi cance of the
programming process explicitly during further development of our tasks. To an-
swer that question, we investigated whether there were more students with a
similar opinion. In fact we found another one that gave similar answers to those
questions. In contrast to the rst student, this one agrees that teachers should
be able to identify pupils' conceptions by observing their work processes. This
student seems not to regard the process as an integral part of programming. We
will emphasize the role of the programming process more in our future tasks.
Finally we present suggestions that the participants gave for improving the
course. The rst comment was that the classroom visit was perceived as great,
because it gave insights into future practice. It was suggested to do multiple
visits and ideally do them in multiple classes. These statements support the
need for a connection between the theoretical aspects of teacher training and
future practice. However, classroom visits take a lot of time, which is limited
during courses at the university.
Another participant reported that he or she did not feel able to draw con-
clusions from pupils' conceptions ((c) from Sect. 3). He or she asked to include
examples of possible conclusions and explanations on how to draw them. Since
this is a rather creative and especially situational process, case studies in the
form of video recordings might be particularly helpful to that end. We will use
frequent group discussions as the main tool to foster this process. We expect
that the discussions will allow review and enrichment of suggested conclusions
by other participants.
A similar point was addressed by a dierent participant. He or she asked to
include the discussion of assistive measures and how to conduct interviews with
pupils. He or she motivated that with a lack of guidance on how to deal with
misconceptions. We will integrate those topics into the course. While there were
presentations on how to address misconceptions, that information seems to not
have been received well, as the next suggestion will show.
One participant suggested to summarize the information from the presenta-
tions of the other students. While one might argue that for a university student
it should be obvious that they should take notes by themselves, we will take note
of the fact that it seems not to be that obvious from the students point of view.
An explanation might be that the students do not perceive the presentations of
their fellow students as important with regards to their own learning goals of the
course. In future iterations we should at least explicitly tell the students that we
expect them to learn the topics from those presentations.
6 Conclusions and Future Work
We introduced a new methodology to foster prospective programming teachers'
re ection processes. Our approach is based on video vignettes showing pupils
work on programming tasks, accompanied with appropriate exercises to encour-
age re ection.
Future work includes both work on school and university level. Our goal on
school level is to build a larger repertoire of videos, thereby contributing to an
understanding of how pupils program. The long term vision for this collection
would be to identify and categorize components of programming processes that
allow to induce hypotheses.
At the university level we follow our design research setting of conducting
and analysing design experiments. The students' (UL) work processes and term
papers will be analysed similarly to those of the pupils with qualitative content
analysis [15]. The goals at this level are to learn about how students learn the
speci c content, how they can be supported in that and to develop concrete
tasks for them.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
under Grant No.: 16DHB2130.
References
1. Broneak, C., Lucarelli, C., Rosato, J.: Exploring the Use of Video Re ection as a
Professional Development Tool. In: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on
International Computing Education Research. p. 293. ICER '19, Association for
Computing Machinery (2019)
2. Brown, A.L.: Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in
Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings. The Journal of the Learn-
ing Sciences 2(2), 141178 (1992)
3. Cannings, T., Talley, S.: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice in Preser-
vice Education: The Use of Video Case Studies. In: Proceedings of the 3.1 and 3.3
Working Groups Conference on International Federation for Information Process-
ing: ICT and the Teacher of the Future. CRPIT '03, vol. 23, pp. 1720. Australian
Computer Society, Inc. (2003)
4. Clarà, M.: What is Re exion? Looking for Clarity in an Ambiguous Notion. Journal
of Teacher Education 66(3), 261271 (2015)
5. Council, N.R.: How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School:
Expanded Edition. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2000).
https://doi.org/10.17226/9853
6. Dewey, J.: How we think. D. C. Heath & Co., Boston (1910)
7. Finch, J.: The Vignette Technique in Survey Research. Sociology 21, 105114
(1987)
8. Flanagan, J.C.: The Critical Incident Technique. Psychological Bulletin 51(4),
327358 (1954)
9. Geldreich, K., Simon, A., Hubwieser, P.: A Design-Based Research Approach for
introducing Algorithmics and Programming to Bavarian Primary Schools. Theoret-
ical Foundation and Didactic Implementation. MedienPädagogik 33, 5375 (2019)
10. Gravemeijer, K., Cobb, P.: Design research from a learning design perspective.
Educational design research (Jan 2006)
11. Huÿmann, S., Kranefeld, U., Kuhl, J., Schlebrowski, D.: DoPro L - Das Dort-
munder Pro l für inklusionsorientierte Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung, chap.
Das geschachtelte Tetraeder und inklusionsorientierte Designprinzipien als Mod-
elle für Entwicklung und Forschung in einer inklusionsorientierten Lehrerinnen-
und Lehrerbildung, pp. 1125. Waxmann Verlag GmbH (2018)
12. Jeries, C., Maeder, D.W.: Comparing Vignette Instruction and Assessment Tasks
to Classroom Observations and Re ections. The Teacher Educator 46, 161175
(2011)
13. Kale, U., Hur, J.W., Yerasimou, T., Brush, T.: A Model for Video-Based Virtual
Field Experience. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning
Sciences. pp. 944945. ICLS '06, International Society of the Learning Sciences
(2006)
14. Luxton-Reilly, A., Simon, Albluwi, I., Becker, B.A., Giannakos, M., Kumar, A.N.,
Ott, L., Paterson, J., Scott, M.J., Sheard, J., Szabo, C.: Introductory Program-
ming: A Systematic Literature Review. In: Proceedings Companion of the 23rd
Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Ed-
ucation. pp. 55106. ITiCSE 2018 Companion, ACM, New York, NY, USA (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1145/3293881.3295779
15. Mayring, P.: Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures
and software solutions. Klagenfurt (2014)
16. Pieper, U., Vahrenhold, J.: Critical Incidents in K12 Computer Science Class-
rooms Towards Vignettes for Computer Science Teacher Training. In: Proc.
SIGCSE'20 (2020), to appear
17. Przybylla, M.: Programming Code Reading Skills: Stages of Development Encoun-
tered in Eye-Tracking Data. In: Busjahn, T., Schulte, C., Tamm, S., Bednarik, R.
(eds.) Eye Movements in Programming Education II: Analyzing the Novice's Gaze.
Proceedings of the Second International Workshop (2014)
18. Qian, Y., Lehman, J.: Students' Misconceptions and Other Di culties in In-
troductory Programming: A Literature Review. TOCE 18(1), 1:11:24 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1145/3077618
19. Schön, D.A.: Educating the Re ective Practitioner. John Wiley & Sons Inc (1987)
20. Seidel, T., Stürmer, K.: Modeling and Measuring the Structure of Professional
Vision in Preservice Teachers. American Educational Research Journal 51(4), 739
771 (2014)
21. Sentance, S., Csizmadia, A.P.: Computing in the curriculum: Challenges
and strategies from a teacher's perspective. EAIT 22(2), 469495 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9482-0
22. Shrader, G., Fishman, B., Barab, S., O'Neill, K., Oden, G., Suthers, D.: Video
Cases for Teacher Learning: Issues of Social and Organizational Design for Use. In:
Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning:
Foundations for a CSCL Community. pp. 708709. CSCL '02, International Society
of the Learning Sciences (2002)
23. Webb, M., Davis, N., Bell, T., Katz, Y.J., Reynolds, N., Chambers, D.P., Syslo,
M.M.: Computer science in K-12 school curricula of the 2lst century: Why, what
and when? EAIT 22(2), 445468 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9493-
x
24. Zeichner, K.M., Liston, D.P.: Teaching Student Teachers to Re ect. Harvard Ed-
ucational Review 57(1), 2348 (1987)