Overview
There are many teaching methods out there — partly because teachers have different personalities and preferences, but also because different standards and outcomes genuinely call for different approaches. In the TLP course you were exposed to a wide range of teaching strategies. Here, the context shifts: you are designing a specific course, and the goal is to revisit a focused set of methods through the lens of how they could or should apply to that course.
Your activities for this Competency are:
- Read about general and CS-specific teaching methods
- Reflect on how those methods connect to the CS standards
- Apply this thinking in a graded Competency Demo activity
Readings
- Read this article on general teaching methods:
- Read about at least three of the following CS-specific teaching methods. You encountered some of these in the TLP course, but these readings are largely new. Read the ones that interest you most or that seem most relevant to the course you are designing.
- Parsons Problems — Solving Parsons Problems vs. Fixing or Modifying Code
- POGIL
- What is POGIL? (from pogil.org)
- What is CS-POGIL? — including the two videos on this page
- Pair Programming — Agile Alliance overview
- Peer Instruction — Zingaro & Porter (2014)
- Problem Centric Programming — MICS 2013 paper
- Studio Based Learning — Local PDF
- Themed Instruction — Media Computation and Games
Deliverable, Part 1 — Standards and Methods
Return to the Iowa CS Standards from Week 2:
Write a reflection on how the standards can be addressed through the teaching methods you read about. There is no single prescribed approach — what matters is that your response is thoughtful, well written, and makes genuine connections between methods and standards.
Two reasonable starting points: you could work through the standards by grade band and concept, discussing which methods seem most appropriate for each; or you could flip it and start from specific methods, drawing out which standards and grade bands each method addresses best. Either direction (or another approach entirely) is fine. What I am looking for is breadth and depth — don't focus narrowly on one or two grade bands or techniques, but also don't reduce this to a simple matching exercise. Explain why you see particular connections and how the integration would work in practice.
Deliverable, Part 2 — A Method You Would Use
Choose one strategy from the readings that fits your style and pedagogical approach. Address the following:
- What is the idea behind this strategy?
- Why does it appeal to you for your classroom?
- For what grade band(s) and content or outcome type(s) do you think it is most appropriate?
Your response should have enough detail that a fellow educator could read it and come away ready to have a substantive conversation with you about the strategy.
Deliverable, Part 3 — A Second Method You Would Use
Choose a second strategy and address the same three questions:
- What is the idea behind this strategy?
- Why does it appeal to you for your classroom?
- For what grade band(s) and content or outcome type(s) do you think it is most appropriate?
Deliverable, Part 4 — A Method You Would Not Use
Of all the strategies you read about, which one interests you most yet is one you would probably never use in your own classroom? Address the following:
- What is the idea behind this strategy?
- What about it interests you?
- Why would you probably not use it in your classroom?
Your response should have enough detail that a fellow educator could read it and come away ready to have a substantive conversation with you about the strategy.
Evaluation
- Submit a single document containing all four parts above.
- Deadline: no later than Sunday, July 12.
- This is evaluated as a competency demo.
- Each part will be evaluated on a scale of 0–4. The entire set will be assigned a combined grade that is not necessarily the mathematical average of those scores.