Cited by 34Teaching and Learning ProgrammingEducational Assessment and PedagogyEngineering Education and Curriculum Development

Towards a Competence Model for the Novice Programmer Using Bloom's Revised Taxonomy - An Empirical Approach

Kiesler, Natalie·2020·Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

Abstract

This work addresses the demand of an empirically developed competence model for programming as challenging core tier of computer science curricula. The presented paper investigates the application of Bloom's revised taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing by Anderson and Krathwohl for the specification of currently used learning objectives in programming education. Accordingly, 129 module descriptions of beginner level programming courses from 35 German universities constitute the sample. Learning goals are evaluated using Mayring's qualitative content analysis. In addition, seven guided interviews with computer science professors as experts are categorized according to Mayring's qualitative analysis method. As a result, a model comprised of deductively-inductively built cognitive categories is proposed, proving the adequacy of Bloom's revised taxonomy for computer science and programming in particular. The categories depict current operationalized learning objectives and cognitive competencies of novice programmers, as well as additional non-cognitive competencies. Thus, the results can help classify competency levels and support the didactic design of introductory programming classes and assessment. This research also constitutes a basis for the development of a measuring instrument of programming competence in the future.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3341525.3387419

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • An examination of course syllabi showed that reading and tracing code is often an afterthought in computing courses.

    “Although the ability to both read and trace code has always been important [19,128], an examination of course syllabi showed that this is often an afterthought [37,112,114].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kiesler, N.
Affiliations
Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
Corresponding author
Kiesler, Natalie
Venue
Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education
Publisher
ACM
Published
2020-06-15
Pages
459-465
OpenAlex
W3033498077
Cited by
34
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 2
FWCI
6.68
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Engineering Education and Curriculum Development
Keywords
Bloom's revised taxonomy, competence model, novice programmers, introductory programming education, learning objectives, cognitive skills, non-cognitive skills, competency assessment, computer science curriculum

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review