ACM Digital Library home
ACM home
Advanced Search
10.1145/3293881.3295782acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiticseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Modelling competencies for computing education beyond 2020: a research based approach to defining competencies in the computing disciplines

ITiCSE 2018 Companion: Proceedings Companion of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science EducationJuly 2018Pages 148–174https://doi.org/10.1145/3293881.3295782
Published:02 July 2018Publication History
  • 33citation
  • 1,592
  • Downloads
Metrics
Total Citations33
Total Downloads1,592
Last 12 Months430
Last 6 weeks77

ITiCSE 2018 Companion: Proceedings Companion of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

Modelling competencies for computing education beyond 2020: a research based approach to defining competencies in the computing disciplines
Pages 148–174
PreviousChapterNextChapter

ABSTRACT

How might the content and outcomes of tertiary education programmes be described and analysed in order to understand how they are structured and function? To address this question we develop a framework for modelling graduate competencies linked to tertiary degree programmes in the computing disciplines. While the focus of our work is computing the framework is applicable to education more broadly.

The work presented here draws upon the pioneering curricular document for information technology (IT2017), curricular competency frameworks, other related documents such as the software engineering competency model (SWECOM), the Skills Framework for the Information Age (SFIA), current research in competency models, and elicitation workshop results from recent computing conferences.

The aim is to inform the ongoing Computing Curricula (CC2020) project, an endeavour supported by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and the IEEE Computer Society. We develop the Competency Learning Framework (CoLeaF), providing an internationally relevant tool for describing competencies. We argue that this competency based approach is well suited for constructing learning environments and assists degree programme architects in dealing with the challenge of developing, describing and including competencies relevant to computer and IT professionals.

In this paper we demonstrate how the CoLeaF competency framework can be applied in practice, and though a series of case studies demonstrate its effectiveness and analytical power as a tool for describing and comparing degree programmes in the international higher education landscape.

References

  1. Steve Alsop. 2005. Beyond Cartesian Dualism: Encountering Affect in the Teaching and Learning of Science. Vol. 29. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, Germany.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Massimo Amadio. 2013. A rapid assessment of curricula for general education focusing on cross-curricular themes and generic competencies or skills. Paper commissioned for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2013-2014, Teaching and Learning: Achieving Quality for All. UNESCO/International Bureau of Education, Geneva.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Lorin W. Anderson, David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock. 2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, abridged edition. White Plains, NY: Longman (2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Michael Armstrong and John F Lorentzen. 1996. A handbook of personnel management practice. Kogan page, London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. David Paul Ausubel, Joseph Donald Novak, and Helen Hanesian. 1968. Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Vol. 6. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Ronald Barnett. 1994. The Limits of Competence: Knowledge, Higher Education and Society. Open University Press, Bristol, PA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Jonathan Baron. 1985. Rationality and intelligence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ilse Baumgartner and Venky Shankararaman. 2013. Actively linking learning outcomes and competencies to course design and delivery: experiences from an undergraduate Information Systems program in Singapore. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference. IEEE, Berlin, Germany, 238–246.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Anders Berglund, Mats Daniels, and Arnold Pears. 2006. Qualitative Research Projects in Computing Education Research: An Overview. Australian Computer Science Communications 28, 5 (2006), 25–34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Harm Biemans, Renate Wesselink, Judith Gulikers, Sanne Schaafsma, Jos Verstegen, and Martin Mulder. 2009. Towards competence-based VET: dealing with the pitfalls. Journal of Vocational Education & Training 61, 3 (Sept. 2009), 267–286.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Stephen Billett. 2009. Realising the educational worth of integrating work experiences in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 34, 7 (Nov. 2009), 827–843.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Morten Blomhøj and Tomas Højgaard Jensen. 2007. What’s all the Fuss about Competencies? In Modelling and Applications in Mathematics Education, Werner Blum, Peter L. Galbraith, Hans-Wolfgang Henn, and Mogens Niss (Eds.). Vol. 10. Springer US, Boston, MA, 45–56.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Benjamin S. Bloom. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay (1956), 20–24. Modelling Competencies for Computing Education beyond 2020 ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, CyprusGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Hilda Borko, Dan Liston, and Jennifer A. Whitcomb. 2007. Apples and fishes: The debate over dispositions in teacher education. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Eric Brechner. 2003. Things They Would Not Teach Me of in College: What Microsoft Developers Learn Later. In Companion of the 18th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA ’03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 134–136. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Kathrin Bröker. 2014. Identification and measurement of computer science competencies in the area of software development, software engineering and programming. In ICER ’14 Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on International computing education research. ACM Press, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom, 141–142. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Panuchart Bunyakiati and Chadarat Phipathananunth. 2017. Checking Software Engineering Curricula with respect to SE2014 Curriculum Guidelines. In 2017 International Conference on Management Engineering, Software Engineering and Service Sciences. ACM Press, Wuhan, China, 44–48. 3034950.3034982 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Vivien Burr. 2003. Social constructionism. Routledge, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Margaret Carr, Jane McChesney, Bronwen Cowie, Robert Miles-Kingston, and Lorraine Sands. 2010. Dispositions, disciplines, and marble runs: a case study of resourcefulness. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences-Volume 1. International Society of the Learning Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA, 215–221. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Erin A. Cech. 2014. Embed social awareness in science curricula. Nature 505 (23 Jan. 2014), 477–478. https://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.14549!/menu/ main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/505477a.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. O*NET Resource Center. 2018. https://www.onetcenter.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Elaine Chapman. 2003. Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment 8, 13 (2003), 1–7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Guy Claxton. 2002. Building learning power: Helping young people become better learners. Vol. 9. TLO, Bristol, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Arthur L. Costa and Bena Kallick. 2000. Discovering & Exploring Habits of Mind. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Peter J. Denning. 2017. Remaining Trouble Spots with Computational Thinking. Commun. ACM 60, 6 (May 2017), 33–39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. John Dewey. 1922. Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social psychology. New York (1922), 41.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Stuart E. Dreyfus and Hubert L. Dreyfus. 1980. A Five-Stage Model of the Mental Activities Involved in Directed Skill Acquisition. Technical Report ORC-80-2. CALIFORNIA UNIV BERKELEY OPERATIONS RESEARCH CENTER. http: //www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA084551Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Carol S. Dweck. 2006. Mindset: The new psychology of success. Ballantine Books, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. 2006. Professional standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, Washington, D.C.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Michael Eraut. 1998. Concepts of competence. Journal of Interprofessional Care 12, 2 (Jan. 1998), 127–139.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Wendy Faulkner. 2001. The technology question in feminism: A view from feminist technology studies. Women’s Studies International Forum 24, 1 (Jan. 2001), 79–95.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Wendy Faulkner. 2007. ‘Nuts and Bolts and People’: Gender-Troubled Engineering Identities. Social Studies of Science 37, 3 (2007), 331–356.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. PISA Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2018. Preparing Our Youth for an Inclusive and Sustainable World: The OECD PISA Global Competency Framework. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/ pisa-2018-global-competence.htmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Dominique Foray and Bengt-Åke Lundvall. 1998. The knowledge-based economy: from the economics of knowledge to the learning economy. The Economic Impact of Knowledge (1998), 115–121.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. K–12 Computer Science Framework. 2016. http://k12cs.orgGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Stephen Frezza. 2002. Integrating testing and design methods for undergraduates: teaching software testing in the context of software design. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. IEEE, Boston, MA, USA, S1G–1–S1G–4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Stephen Frezza. 2016. Considering the Engineering Mindset – A Response to Does Engineering Education Breed Terrorists?. In Philosophical and Educational Perspectives in Engineering and Technological Literacy, John Heywood and Alan Cheville (Eds.), Vol. 3. ASEE, 1–7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Stephen Frezza, Mats Daniels, and Aaron Wilkins. 2019. Assessing Students’ IT Professional Values in a Global Project Setting. ACM Transactions on Computing Education Special Issue on Global Software Eningeering Education, TBD (2019), 33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Stephen Frezza, Sreela Sasi, and Jaehoon Seol. 2003. Report from the trenches: applying the seek to BSSE program development. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Vol. 3. IEEE, Boulder, CO, USA, S3C–8–13 vol.3.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Ursula Fuller and Bob Keim. 2007. Should we assess our students’ attitudes?. In Proceedings of the Seventh Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research. ACM, Koli National Park, Finland, 187–190. http://crpit.com/confpapers/ CRPITV88Fuller.pdf Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI). 2016. Bildungsstandards Informatik für die Sekundarstufe II. https://dl.gi.de/bitstream/handle/20.500.12116/2350/ 57-GI-Empfehlung-Bildungsstandards-Informatik-SekII.pdf?sequence=1& isAllowed=yGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI). 2016. Empfehlungen für Bachelorund Masterprogramme im Studienfach Informatik an Hochschulen {Recommendation for bachelor and masterprogrammes in the field of informatics at universities}. https://dl.gi.de/bitstream/handle/20.500.12116/2351/58-GI-Empfehlungen_ Bachelor-Master-Informatik2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=yGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Silvia Gherardi. 2000. Practice-based theorizing on learning and knowing in organizations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Gerald Grant. 1979. On competence: a critical analysis of competence-based reforms in higher education. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. 592 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Rom Harré and Grant Gillett. 1994. The discursive mind. Sage Publications, Washington, DC, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. R.W. Hartel and E.A. Foegeding. 2006. Learning: Objectives, Competencies, or Outcomes? Journal of Food Science Education 3, 4 (May 2006), 69–70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Terrence Hoffmann. 1999. The meanings of competency. Journal of European Industrial Training 23, 6 (Aug. 1999), 275–286. 03090599910284650Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Peter Hubwieser and Sue Sentance. 2018. Taxonomies and Competency Models. In Computer Science Education: Perspectives on Teaching and Learning in School (1st ed.), Sue Sentance, Erik Barendsen, and Carsten Schulte (Eds.). Bloomsbury Academic, London, 221–242.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Mizuko Ito, Kris Gutiérrez, Sonia Livingstone, Bill Penuel, Jean Rhodes, Katie Salen, Juliet Schor, Julian Sefton-Green, and S. Craig Watkins. 2013. Connected Learning. BookBaby, Cork. OCLC: 896797842.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Elizabeth A. Jones and Richard A. Voorhees. 2002. Defining and Assessing Learning: Exploring Competency-Based Initiatives. Report of the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative Working Group on Competency-Based Initiatives in Postsecondary Education. Technical Report NCES-2002-175; NCES- 2002-159. National Center for Education Statistics., Washington, DC. https: //eric.ed.gov/?id=ED473245Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Viggo Kann and Anna-Karin Högfeldt. 2016. Effects of a Program Integrating Course for Students of Computer Science and Engineering. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE ’16). ACM, Memphis, Tennessee, USA, 510–515. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. 2844610Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Declan Kennedy, A. Hyland, and Norma Ryan. 2009. Learning outcomes and competencies. In Best of the Bologna Handbook. Vol. 33. DUZ International, Berlin, Germany, 59–76. https://curriculum.gov.mt/en/ Teachers%20Learning%20Outcomes/Documents/Training%20Material/ Paper-LoS-and-Competences-Bologna.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Thomas R. Koballa Jr and Shawn M. Glynn. 2013. Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning. In Handbook of research on science education. Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 89–116.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Karoline Koeppen, Johannes Hartig, Eckhard Klieme, and Detlev Leutner. 2008. Current Issues in Competence Modeling and Assessment. Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology 216, 2 (Jan. 2008), 61–73. 1027/0044-3409.216.2.61Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Matthias Kramer, Peter Hubwieser, and Torsten Brinda. 2016. A Competency Structure Model of Object-Oriented Programming. In 2016 International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTICE). IEEE-CS, Mumbai, India, 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. David R Krathwohl, Benjamin S Bloom, and Bertram B Masia. 1982. Taxonomy of educational objectives: Book 2 Affective Domain (2 ed.). Longman, London. OCLC: 258048912.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. George D. Kuh. 2009. The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New directions for institutional research 2009, 141 (2009), 5–20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Nina Lopez, Susan Patrick, Chris Sturgis, Antonia Rudenstine, Dixie Bacallao, Sydney Schaef, Maria Worthen, Dale Frost, Natalie Truong, and Ashley Jones. 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Quality and Equity by Design. Technical Report. CompetencyWorks. https://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ CompetencyWorks-QualityAndEquityByDesign.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Daniel R. Lynch, Jeffrey S. Russell, Jeffrey C. Evans, and Kevin G. Sutterer. 2009. Beyond the Cognitive: The Affective Domain, Values, and the Achievement of the Vision. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 135, 1 (Jan. 2009), 47–56. 1(47) ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, Cyprus S. Frezza et al.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Ference Marton and Shirley Booth. 1997. Learning and Awareness. Routledge, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Roger McDermott, Mats Daniels, Åsa Cajander, Mats Cullhed, Tony Clear, and Cary Laxer. 2012. Student reflections on collaborative technology in a globally distributed student project. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. IEEE, Madrid, Spain, 1–6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Martin Mulder. 2014. Conceptions of professional competence. In International handbook of research in professional and practice-based learning. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 107–137.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Martin Mulder. 2017. Competence Theory and Research: A Synthesis. In Competence-based Vocational and Professional Education. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1071–1106.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Webster’s new collegiate dictionary. 1979.. G. & C. Merriam Co, Springfield, Mass.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Aletta Nylén, Åsa Cajander, Mats Daniels, and Arnold Pears. 2017. Why are we here?: Student perspectives on the goal of STEM higher education. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. IEEE, Indianapolis, IN, USA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. Aletta Nylén, Åsa Cajander, Mats Daniels, Arnold Pears, and Roger McDermott. 2017. Why are we here? : Student perspectives on the goal of STEM higher education. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. IEEE, Indianapolis, IN.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Council of Chief State School Officers. 2013. Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions: The Innovation Lab Network State Framework for College, Career, and Citizenship Readiness, and Implications for State Policy. Technical Report. https://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/ED542708.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. The Royal Academy of Engineering, The Institution of Engineering and Technology, and The British Computer Society. 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Engineering Values in IT. Technical Report. The Royal Academy of Engineering, 3 Carlton House Terrace, London. 44 pages. https://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/ engineering-values-in-itGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula. 2015. Software Engineering 2014 Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society and the Association for Computing Machinery. https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/education/se2014.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula. 2016. Computer Engineering 2016 Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Computer Engineering. IEEE Computer Society and the Association for Computing Machinery. https: //www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/education/ce2016-final-report.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Honor J. Passow. 2012. Which ABET Competencies Do Engineering Graduates Find Most Important in their Work? Journal of Engineering Education 101, 1 (Jan. 2012), 95–118.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. Honor J. Passow and Christian H. Passow. 2017. What Competencies Should Undergraduate Engineering Programs Emphasize? A Systematic Review. Journal of Engineering Education 106, 3 (July 2017), 475–526. 20171Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. James W. Pellegrino and Margaret L. Hilton (Eds.). 2012. Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. David N. Perkins, Eileen Jay, and Shari Tishman. 1993. Beyond Abilities: A Dispositional Theory of Thinking. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 39, 1 (1993), 1–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23087298Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. David N. Perkins and Shari Tishman. 2006. Learning that matters: Towards a dispositional perspective on education and its research needs. A report prepared for the Spencer Foundation (2006), 43.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. Frédéric Perrier and Jean-Baptiste Nsengiyumva. 2003. Active science as a contribution to the trauma recovery process: Preliminary indications with orphans from the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. International Journal of Science Education 25, 9 (2003), 1124.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  80. Anne-Kathrin Peters, Waqar Hussain, Åsa Cajander, Tony Clear, and Mats Daniels. 2015. Preparing the Global Software Engineer. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Global Software Engineering. IEEE-CS, Ciudad Real, Spain, 61–70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. Jean Piaget. 1937. La construction du réel chez l’enfant. Delachaux |& Niestle, Oxford, England.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Eetu Pikkarainen. 2014. Competence as a Key Concept of Educational Theory: A Semiotic Point of View. Journal of Philosophy of Education 48, 4 (Nov. 2014), 621–636.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  83. Andrew Porter, Jennifer McMaken, Jun Hwang, and Rui Yang. 2011. Common core standards: The new US intended curriculum. Educational Researcher 40, 3 (2011), 103–116.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. John Preston. 2017. Competence Based Education and Training (CBET) and the End of Human Learning: The Existential Threat of Competency. Springer, Berlin, Germany. Google-Books-ID: T7DLDgAAQBAJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Degree Programme in Computer Science Programme objectives and Engineering. 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. https://www.kth.se/student/kurser/program/CDATE/20182/mal?l=en#Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  87. Alex Radermacher and Gursimran Walia. 2013. Gaps Between Industry Expectations and the Abilities of Graduates. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 525–530. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  88. Ron Ritchhart. 2002. Intellectual character: What it is, why it matters, and how to get it. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  89. Emil Rodolfa, Russ Bent, Elena Eisman, Paul Nelson, Lynn Rehm, and Pierre Ritchie. 2005. A Cube Model for Competency Development: Implications for Psychology Educators and Regulators. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 36, 4 (2005), 347–354.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  90. Mihaela Sabin, Hala Alrumaih, and John Imipagliazzo. 2018. A Competencybased Approach toward Curricular Guidelines for Information Technology Education. In 2018 Global Engineering Education Conference. IEEE, Tenerife, 1214–1221.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  91. Mihaela Sabin, Svetlana Peltsverger, Bill Paterson, Ming Zhang, and Hala Alrumaih. 2017. IT2017 Report: Putting It to Work. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education (SIGITE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 95–96. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  92. Minna Salminen-Karlsson. 2011. The problem in the eye of the beholder: Working with gender reforms in computer engineering. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology 3, 2 (July 2011), 445–459. http://genderandset. open.ac.uk/index.php/genderandset/article/view/164Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  93. Deborah L. Schussler. 2006. Defining Dispositions: Wading Through Murky Waters. The Teacher Educator 41, 4 (March 2006), 251–268. 1080/08878730609555387Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  94. Phil Scott, Hilary Asoko, and J. Leach. 2007. Student Conceptions and Conceptual Learning in Science. In Handbook of Research on Science Education, Sandra K. Abell and Norman G. Lederman (Eds.). Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 31–56.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  95. Miguel-Angel Sicilia. 2010. How Should Transversal Competence Be Introduced In Computing Education? SIGCSE Bull. 41, 4 (Jan. 2010), 95–98. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  96. IEEE Computer Society. 2014. Software Engineering Competency Model (SWECOM). Technical Report Version 1.0. IEEE-CS. https://www.computer.org/web/ peb/swecomGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  97. Brian M. Stack and Jonathan G. Vander Els. 2017. Breaking With Tradition :The Shift to Competency-Based Learning in PLCs at Work (Why You Should Switch to Student-Centered Learning for All). Solution Tree Press, Bloomington, IN. https://www.solutiontree.com/breaking-with-tradition.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  98. NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  99. Angela Stoof, Rob L Martens, and Jeroen JG Van Merriënboer. 2000. What is competence? A constructivist approach as a way out of confusion. Onderwijs Research Dagen (ORD), Leiden, The Netherlands (2000).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  100. Task Group on Information Technology Curricula. 2017. Information Technology Curricula 2017: Curriculum Guidelines for Baccalaureate Degree Programs in Information Technology. Association for Computing Machinery and IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  101. Juan Carlos Tedesco, Renato Opertti, and Massimo Amadio. 2013. The Curriculum Debate: Why It Is Important Today. IBE Working Papers on Curriculum Issues No. 10. UNESCO International Bureau of Education, Paris, France.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  102. Matti Tedre and Erkki Sutinen. 2008. Three traditions of computing: what educators should know. Computer Science Education 18, 3 (Sept. 2008), 153–170.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  103. European Parliament and the Council of European Union. 2006. Recommendations of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 of Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. Technical Report Doc. 2006/962/EC. European Union, Brussels.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  104. Neena Thota, Anders Berglund, and Tony Clear. 2012. Illustration of paradigm pluralism in computing education research. Australian Computer Science Communications 34, 2 (2012), 103–112. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  105. Heikki Topi. 2017. Information Systems in CC2020: Comparing Key Structural Elements of Curriculum Recommendations in Computing. In 2017 Proceedings of SIGED: IAIM Conference. Association for Information Systems Electronic Library (AISeL). http://aisel.aisnet.org/siged2017/9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  106. J. Trevelyan. 2012. Understandings of value in engineering practice. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. IEEE, Seattle, WA, USA, 1–6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  107. Marcel Van der Klink and Jo Boon. 2002. The investigation of competencies within professional domains. Human Resource Development International 5, 4 (2002), 411–424.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  108. Marcel Van der Klink, Jo Boon, and Kathleen Schlusmans. 2007. Competences and Vocational Higher Education: Now and in Future. European journal of vocational training 40, 1 (2007), 67–82.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  109. Richard A. Voorhees. 2001. Competency-Based Learning Models: A Necessary Future. New Directions for Institutional Research 2001, 110 (2001), 5–13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  110. Franz Emanuel Weinert. 2001. Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In Defining and selecting key competencies, Dominique Simone Rychen and Modelling Competencies for Computing Education beyond 2020 ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, Cyprus Laura Hersh Salganik (Eds.). Hogrefe & Huber, Seattle, WA, 45–65.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  111. Wim Westera. 2001. Competences in education: A confusion of tongues. Journal of Curriculum Studies 33, 1 (2001), 75–88.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  112. Jonathan Winterton, Françoise Delamare-Le Deist, and Emma Stringfellow. 2006. Typology of knowledge, skills and competences: clarification of the concept and prototype. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. OCLC: ocm71257428.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  113. Charles Woodruffe. 1991. Competent by any other name. Personnel Management 23, 9 (1991), 30–33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Modelling competencies for computing education beyond 2020: a research based approach to defining competencies in the computing disciplines

    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

    Get this Publication

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ITiCSE 2018 Companion: Proceedings Companion of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education
      July 2018
      235 pages
      ISBN:9781450362238
      DOI:10.1145/3293881

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 2 July 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate490of1,403submissions,35%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    View Table of Contents
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!