On Teaching Problem-solving Paradigms in K– 12 Education
Available for iPad,
iPhone, and Android
Available for iOS,
Android, and Windows
its own characteristics by using appropriate tasks. For example, reactive systems
that respond to external triggers (such as
games, in which the user uses different
keys) are especially suitable to demonstrate an event-driven problem-solving
When considering not only the choice
of a paradigm, but also the choice of the
first paradigm, additional issues become
relevant (one example of this is the issue
of object-first vs. object-second, which
have been long-debated in the context
of undergraduate CS education [ 7]). For
example, what way of thinking is more
natural? Gordon et al. have argued [ 11]
that the fact that young students exhibit
certain habits of minds when working with
Scratch [ 14] may indicate that thinking
in scenarios (as in event-driven design or
scenario-based design) is more natural
to them than imperative thinking. Other factors concern the effect of the first
paradigm on students’ conceptions when
learning a new one [e.g., 2]. Working in a
specific paradigm may also affect students
in other ways, such as the way and the
extent to which they perceive the users of
the solutions they develop [ 3].
Thus, the issue of a problem-solving
paradigm is central to CS curricular design,
as an educational goal by itself, as a means
for achieving other educational goals, and
as a lens to look through when resolving
CS educational dilemmas.
1. Alexandron, G., Armoni, M., Gordon, M., and Harel,
D. Teaching scenario-based programming: an
additional paradigm for the high school computer
science curriculum. In press.
2. Alexandron, G., Armoni, M., Gordon, M., and Harel,
D. The effect of previous programming experience
on the learning of scenario-based programming, In
Proceedings of Koli Calling 2012, New York, NY: ACM
press (2012), 151–159.
3. Alexandron, G., Armoni, M., Gordon, M., and Harel,
D. Scenario-based programming, usability-oriented
perception, ACM Transactions on Computing
Education, 14, 3, article 21, (2014), 23.
4. Alexandron, G., Armoni, M., Gordon, M., and Harel,
D. Teaching nondeterminism through programming.
Informatics in Education, 15, 1 (2016), 1–23.
5. Armoni, M. Continuity and Consistency in Computing
Education: The spectrum from middle school to
undergraduate programs. ACM Inroads, 5, 4 (2016),
6. Ben-Ari, M., and Ben-David Kolikant, Y. Thinking
parallel: the process of learning concurrency. In
Proceedings of the 4th ACM Annual Conference on
Innovation and Technology in Computer Science
Education (ITiCSE 1999), New York, N Y: ACM press
7. Bruce, K. B. Controversy on how to teach CS 1: a
discussion on the SIGCSE-members mailing list.
SIGCSE Bulletin, 36, 4 (2005), 29–34.
8. Bruner, J. S. The Process of Education. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press. (1960).
9. Castro, B., Diaz, T., Gee, M., Justice, R., Kwan, D.,
Seshadri, P., and Dodds, S. MyCS at 5: assessing
a middle-years CS curriculum. In Proceedings of
47th Technical Symposium on Computer Science
Education (SIGCSE 2016), New York, NY: ACM press
10. Gal-Ezer, J., Beeri, C., Harel, D., and Yehudai, A. A
high school program in computer science. Computer,
28, 10 (2005),73–80.
11. Gordon, M., Marron, M., and Meerbaum-Salant, O.
Spaghetti for the main course? Observations on
the naturalness of scenario-based programming.
In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference
on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science
Education (ITiCSE 2012), New York, NY: ACM press
12. Hazzan, O. Reducing abstraction levels when
learning abstract algebra concepts. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 40 (1999),71–90.
13. Lapidot, T., Levy, D., and Paz, T. Teaching functional
programming for high school students. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on
Mathematics / Science Education and Technology
(M/SET2000), Waynesville, NC: AACE (2000),
14. Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., and Ben-Ari, M.
Habits of programming in Scratch. In Proceedings of
the 16th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and
Technology in Computer Science Education (I TiCSE
2011), New York, NY: ACM press (2011), 168–172.
15. Al Sabbagh, S., Gedawy, H., Alshikhabobakr, H.,
and Razak, S. Computing curriculum in middle
schools: an experience report. In Proceedings of
the 22th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and
Technology in Computer Science Education (I TiCSE
2017), New York, N Y: ACM press (2017), 13–16.
16. Scherz, Z., and Haberman, B. Logic programming
based curriculum for high school students: the use of
abstract data types. In Proceedings of 26th Technical
Symposium on Computer Science Education
(SIGCSE 1995), New York, NY: ACM press (1995),
17. Schwill, Andreas. Fundamental ideas of computer
science. Bulletin-European Association for
Theoretical Computer Science, 53, (1994), 274.
18. Sfard, A. On the dual nature of mathematical
conceptions: reflections on processes and objects as
different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 22 (1991), 1–36.
Department of Science Teaching
Weizmann Institute of Science,
Rehovot, 76100 Israel
DOI: 10.1145/3148533 Copyright held by author.