skip to main content
research-article

Computer Science Education in North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany—A Case Study

Published:30 April 2015Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In North-Rhine Westphalia, the most populated state in Germany, Computer Science (CS) has been taught in secondary schools since the early 1970s. This article provides an overview of the past and current situation of CS education in North-Rhine Westphalia, including lessons learned through efforts to introduce and to maintain CS in secondary education. In particular, we focus on the differential school system and the educational landscape of CS education, the different facets of CS teacher education, and CS education research programs and directions that are directly connected with these aspects. In addition, this report offers a rationale for including CS education in general education, which includes the educational value of CS for students in today’s information and knowledge society. Through this article, we ultimately provide an overview of the significant elements that are crucial for the successful integration of CS as a compulsory subject within secondary schools.

References

  1. Jürgen Baumert, Erwin Beck, Klaus Beck, Lieslotte Glage, Margareta Götz, Ludwig Freisel, Marcus Hasselhorn, Hans-Peter Langenfeldt, Doris Lemmermöhle, Reinhold Nickolaus, Annette Scheunflug, Kaspar Spinner, and Rolf Werning. 2007. Ausbildung von Lehrerinnen und Lehrern in Nordrhein-Westfalen: Empfehlungen der Expertenkommission zur Ersten Phase (Kurzfassung). Retrieved from http://www.schulministerium.nrw.de/BP/Presse/Pressekonferenzen/Archiv_14LP/2007/Lehrerausbildung/Kurzfassung.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Jürgen Baumert, Andreas Hartinger, Doris Lemmermöhle, Reinhold Nickolaus, Manfred Prenzel, Uta Quasthoff, Hans-Dieter Rinkens, Rolf Werning, and Esther Winther. 2012. Ausbildung von Lehrkräften in Berlin: Empfehlungen der Expertenkommission Lehrerbildung. Retrieved from http://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/sites/default/files/2012-09-26-bericht_kommission.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Nadine Bergner, Jan Holz, and Ulrik Schroeder. 2012. InfoSphere: An extracurricular learning environment for computer science. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE’12), Maria Knobelsdorf and Ralf Romeike (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, 22--29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. BLK. 1986. Bund-Länder-Kommission für Bildungsplanung und Forschungsförderung (BLK): Rahmenkonzept Informationstechnische Bildung in Schule und Ausbildung. In Computer in der Schule -- Pädagogische Konzepte und Projekte -- Empfehlungen und Dokumente (Diskussionsbeiträge zur politischen Didaktik), Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (Ed.), Vol. 246. Franz Spiegel Buch, Bonn, 287--293.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Ulrich Bosler. 1984. Grundbildung Informatik für jeden Schüler. In Informatik als Herausforderung an Schule und Ausbildung (Informatik-Fachberichte), Wolfgang Arlt and Klaus Haefner (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, 93--98. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Torsten Brinda. 2004. Integration of new exercise classes into the informatics education in the field of object-oriented modelling. Education and Information Technolgies 9, 2 (2004), 117--130. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Torsten Brinda and Sigrid Schubert. 2002. Didactic system for object-oriented modelling. In Networking the Learner. Computers in Education, Deryn Watson and Jane Anderson (Eds.). Kluwer, Boston, 473--482. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Martin Bruns, Frank Förster, Wilfried Herget, Horst Hischer, Henning Körner, Manfred Pruzina, Bernard Winkelmann, and Klaus P. Wolff. 1994. Stellungnahme zur Forderung des “Fakultätentages Informatik”, Informatik als obligatorisches Fach in der Sekundarstufe II einzurichten. In Mathematikunterricht und Computer: Neue Ziele oder neue Wege zu alten Zielen?, Horst Hischer (Ed.). Franzbecker, Hildesheim, 162--164.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Jobst-Henning Buch. 1977. Analyse vorhandener Informatik-Curricula einiger Bundesländer anhand einer festgelegten Lernzielstruktur. Paderborner Arbeitspapiere, Beiträge zur Didaktik der Informatik, Vol. 2. FEoLL, Paderborn.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Rainer Busch, Ralph Ballier, Peter Diepold, Michael Drabe, Steffen Friedrich, Klaus M. Füller, Udo Kijek, Bernhard Koerber, Winfried Kreutzer, Wilhelm Peter Ottenbreit, Karl Sarnow, Renate Schulz-Zander, and Christine Seidel. 1995. Schulen an das Netz -- Konzeption, Organisation und Durchführung -- Machbarkeitsstudie. Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), Bonn.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Holger Danielsiek, Ludger Humbert, and Jan Vahrenhold. 2013. Research-based learning revisited: On using a delphi process in informatics teacher education. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution and Perspectives (ISSEP’13) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Ira Diethelm and Roland Mittermeir (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, 196--208. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Holger Danielsiek, Wolfgang Paul, and Jan Vahrenhold. 2012. Detecting and understanding students’ misconceptions related to algorithms and data structures. In Proceedings of the 43rd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SICGSE’12), Laurie A. Smith King, David R. Musicant, Tracy Camp, and Paul T. Tymann (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, 21--26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Peter J. Denning. 2005. Is computer science science? Communications of the ACM 48, 4 (April 2005), 27--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Peter Dresch, Gunter Frobel, and Hans-Jürgen Koschorreck. 1985. Informatik S II. Informatik für die Sekundarstufe II, Vol. 1: Elementare Algorithmen. Ferdinand Schöningh, Paderborn.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Dieter Engbring. 2003. Informatik im Herstellungs- und Nutzungskontext -- Ein technikbezogener Zugang zur fachübergreifenden Lehre. Dissertation. University of Paderborn, Department of Computer Science and Mathematics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Dieter Engbring. 2011. Was ist/kann/soll Informatikunterricht? In Informatik und Schule -- Informatik für Bildung und Beruf -- INFOS 2011--14. GI-Fachtagung 12.--15. September 2011, Münster (Lecture Notes in Informatics), Marco Thomas (Ed.). Köllen Druck + Verlag, Bonn, 97--106.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. European Ministers of Education. 1999. The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999 -- Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education. European Commission. Retrieved from http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-Main_doc/990719BOLOGNA_DECLARATION.PDF.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Christiane Floyd. 1992. Software development and reality construction. In Software Development and Reality Construction, Christiane Floyd, Heinz Züllighoven, Reinhard Budde, and Reinhard Keil-Slawik (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, 86--100.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Hermann-Josef Forneck. 1990. Entwicklungstendenzen und Problemlinien der Didaktik der Informatik. In Beiträge zur Didaktik der Informatik, Günter Cyranek, Hermann-Josef Forneck, and Markus Meier (Eds.). Diesterweg -- Sauerländer, Frankfurt a. M., 18--53.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. GI. 2008. Grundsätze und Standards für die Informatik in der Schule -- Bildungsstandards Informatik für die Sekundarstufe I. Retrieved from http://www.sn.schule.de/∼istandard/docs/bildungsstandards_2008.pdf In German.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Andreas Gramm, Malte Hornung, and Helmut Witten. 2012. Email for you (only?): Design and implementation of a context-based learning process on internetworking and cryptography. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE’12), Maria Knobelsdorf and Ralf Romeike (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, 116--124. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Annemarie Hauf (Ed.). 1977. Tätigkeitsbericht zum Projekt “Informatik in der Schule”. FEoLL, Paderborn. In German.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Matthias Heming and Ludger Humbert. 2008. Mobile programming—the usefulness of mobile phones for teaching informatics. In Informatics Education Contributing across the Curriculum, Roland T. Mittermeir and Maciej M. Sysło (Eds.). Polish Information Processing Society, Toruń, Poland, 54--63. ISSEP 2008—Informatics in Secondary Schools—Evolution and Perspective, Selected Papers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Hans Werner Heymann (Ed.). 1996. Allgemeinbildung und Mathematik. Beltz, Weinheim, Basel.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Jan Holz, Thiemo Leonhardt, and Ulrik Schroeder. 2011. Using smartphones to motivate secondary school students for informatics. In Proceedings of the 11th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. ACM, Koli, Finland, 89--94. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Peter Hubwieser. 2012. Computer science education in secondary schools—The introduction of a new compulsory subject. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 12, 4 (2012), 1--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Peter Hubwieser, Michal Armoni, Torsten Brinda, Valentina Dagiene, Ira Diethelm, Michail N. Giannakos, Maria Knobelsdorf, Johannes Magenheim, Roland Mittermeir, and Sigrid Schubert. 2011. Computer science/informatics in secondary education. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE) -- Working Group Reports (ITiCSE-WGR ’11). ACM, New York, NY, 19--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Peter Hubwieser, Johannes Magenheim, Andreas Mühling, and Alexander Ruf. 2013. Towards a conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge for computer science. In Proceedings of the 9th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER), Beth Simon, Alison Clear, and Quintin I. Cutts (Eds.). ACM Press, New York, NY, 1--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Stephan Hußmann and Christoph Selter (Eds.). 2013. Diagnose und individuelle Förderung in der MINT-Lehrerbildung: Das Projekt dortMINT. Waxmann, Münster.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Wolfgang Klafki (Ed.). 1996. Neue Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik: Zeitgemäße Allgemeinbildung und kritisch-konstruktive Didaktik (5. ed.). Beltz Verlag, Weinheim, Basel.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. KMK. 1972. Vereinbarung zur Gestaltung der gymnasialen Oberstufe in der Sekundarstufe II. Retrieved from http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/pdf/Bildung/AllgBildung/176_Vereinb_Gestalt_Gym_Ob_Sek_II-1972_01.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. KMK. 2004. Einheitliche Prüfungsanforderungen in der Abiturprüfung “Informatik”. KMK, Bonn. Retrieved from http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/1989/1989_12_01_EPA_Informatik.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. KMK. 2013. The Education System in the Federal Republic of Germany 2011/2012. Retrieved from http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/doc/Dokumentation/Bildungswesen_en_pdfs/secondary.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Maria Knobelsdorf and Josh Tenenberg. 2013. The context-based approach IniK in light of situated and constructive learning theories. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution and Perspectives (ISSEP 2013) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Ira Diethelm and Roland Mittermeir (Eds.), Vol. 7780. Springer, Berlin, 103--114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Miloš Lánský. 1977. Einige Reflexionen zur Didaktik der Informatik. In Informatik im Unterricht der Sekundarstufe II: Grundfragen, Probleme und Tendenzen mit Bezug auf allgemeinbildende und berufsqualifizierende Ausbildungsgänge (Schriftenreihe des IDM (Institut für Didaktik der Mathematik)), Heinrich Bauersfeld, Michael Otte, and Hans Georg Steiner (Eds.). Universität, Paderborn, 35--45 (Band I). Arbeitstagung: Bielefeld 12--14 September 1977.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Johannes Magenheim. 2001. Deconstruction of socio-technical information systems with virtual exploration environments as a method of teaching informatics. In Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2001, World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, C. Montgomerie and J. Viteli (Eds.). AACE, Jupiter, 1199--1204.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Johannes Magenheim, Wolfgang Nelles, Thomas Rhode, and Niclas Schaper. 2010. Towards a methodical approach for an empirically proofed competency model. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Informatics in Secondary Schools - Evolution and Perspectives (ISSEP) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Juraj Hromkovič, Richard Královič, and Jan Vahrenhold (Eds.), Vol. 5941. Springer, Berlin, 124--135. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Meinert Arnd Meyer. 2009. What is “Bildungsgangdidaktik”? Rhino Didactics 28 (April 2009), 2. Retrieved from http://rhinodidactics.de/Artikel/bildungsgangdidaktik_en-2009-04-01.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. MSWWF. 2013. Kernlehrplan für die Sekundarstufe II Gymnasium/Gesamtschule in Nordrhein-Westfalen -- Informatik. Retrieved from http://www.standardsicherung.schulministerium.nrw.de/lehrplaene/upload/klp_SII/if/GOSt_Informatik_Endfassung.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Dorothee Müller. 2011. Fachdidaktisch begründete Auswahl von Informatiksystemen für den Unterrichtseinsatz. In Informatik und Schule -- Informatik für Bildung und Beruf -- INFOS 2011--14. GI-Fachtagung 12--15 September 2011, Münster, Marco Thomas (Ed.). Köllen Druck + Verlag, Bonn, 167--176.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. NCTM. 2000. Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=4294967312.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. NRC. 1999. Committee on Information Technology Literacy: Being Fluent with Information Technology. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. NRC—National Research Council.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Kirsten Nygaard. 1986. Program development as a social activity. In Information Processing ’86: Proceedings of the IFIP 10th World Computer Congress, Dublin, H. Kugler (Ed.). IFIP, Elsevier, Amsterdam, North-Holland, 189--198.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Arno Pasternak and Jan Vahrenhold. 2012. Design and evaluation of a braided teaching course in sixth grade computer science education. In Proceedings of the 43rd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SICGSE 2012), Laurie A. Smith King, David R. Musicant, Tracy Camp, and Paul T. Tymann (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, 45--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Wolfgang Paul and Jan Vahrenhold. 2013. Hunting high and low: Instruments to detect misconceptions related to algorithms and data structures. In Proceedings of the 44th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SICGSE 2013), Tracy Camp, Paul T. Tymann, J. D. Dougherty, and Kris Nagel (Eds.). ACM Press, New York, NY, 29--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Simon Peyton Jones, Chris Stephenson, Tim Bell, Quintin Cutts, Judith Gal-Ezer, Sridhar Iyer, Carsten Schulte, Jan Vahrenhold, Sylvia Langfield, ByoungRae Han, Eleni Konidari, and Paul (Pavlos) G. Spirakis. 2011. Computing at school: International comparisons. Retrieved from http://csta.acm.org/About/sub/AboutFiles/IntlComparisonsv5.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Günter Ropohl. 1999. Philosophy of socio-technical systems. Society for Philosophy and Technology 4, 3 (Spring 1999), online resource. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v4_n3html/ROPOHL.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Herbert Stachowiak. 1973. Allgemeine Modelltheorie. Springer, Wien.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Chris Stephenson, Judith Gal-Ezer, Bruria Haberman, and Anita Verno. 2005. The New Educational Imperative: Improving High School Computer Science Education. Final Report of the CSTA Curriculum Improvement Task Force. Association for Computing Machinery/Computer Science Teachers Association, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Chris Stephenson, Judith Gal-Ezer, Margot Philipps, and Jan Vahrenhold. 2010. Professional associations in K-12 computer science. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE 2010, Reyyan Ayfer, John Impagliazzo, and Cary Laxer (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, 329--330. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Marco Thomas. 2002. Informatische Modellbildung -- Modellieren von Modellen als ein zentrales Element der Informatik für den allgemeinbildenden Schulunterricht. Dissertation. University of Potsdam, Department of Computer Science.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Jan Vahrenhold. 2012. On the importance of being earnest: Challenges in computer science education. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE’12), Maria Knobelsdorf and Ralf Romeike (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, 3--4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Tom J. van Weert. 1984. Basislehrgang Informatik -- “Bürgerinformatik” für alle Schüler. In Informatik als Herausforderung an Schule und Ausbildung, Wolfgang Arlt and Klaus Haefner (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, 47--56. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Cameron Wilson, Leigh Ann Sudol, Chris Stephenson, and Mark Stehlik. 2010. Running on Empty: The Failure to Teach K-12 Computer Science in the Digital Age. Association for Computing Machinery/Computer Science Teachers Association. Available via http://www.acm.org/runningonempty.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Computer Science Education in North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany—A Case Study

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader