1. Beaver, Kangaroo and Classroom Situations: A Promising Symbiosis

2. History ISSEP 2010 P.K. Antonitsch/A. Grossmann/P. Micheuz
Problem-solving contests for students of all standards:
1978: Australian Mathematics Competition
1991: Kangourou des Mathématiques«
2004: Informacinių technologijų konkursas Bebras (Bebras International Contest on informatics and Computer Fluency) .
Kangaroo and Beaver share common roots, share a common „format“ (multiple choice tasks, where the problems are easy to conceive) and aim at common goals.
ISSEP P.K. Antonitsch/A. Grossmann/P. Micheuz

3. Common Goals ISSEP 2010 P.K. Antonitsch/A. Grossmann/P. Micheuz
Common goal: Promote interest in problem-solving by posing problems from the field of Mathematics/Informatics. Are „Math Kangaroo“ and „Informatics Beaver“ all the same? A classification of problems can help to see similarities and differences:
Beaver: Classification originates in a classification given by V. Dagiene and G. Futschek at ISSEP3 in Torun/Poland (2008):
Information Comprehension
Algorithmic Thinking
Using Computer Systems
Structures, Patterns and Arrangements
Logical Puzzles and Games
ICT and Society
Kangaroo: Classification was derived by clustering Kangaroo-tasks with respect to topics in Mathematics classes:
Numbers and Computations -> DEALING WITH NUMBERS + ALGORITHMS
Equations, Inequations and Functions
Combinatorics
Geometry
Logic, Cryptic and Magic Puzzles
ISSEP P.K. Antonitsch/A. Grossmann/P. Micheuz

4. Interchangeable Tasks (1)
category »structures, patterns and arrangements«
Of course, there are tasks that belong to categories overlapping the border between the „Kangaroo-domain“ and the „Beaver-domain“ and that could be part of both contests. We call these tasks „interchangable tasks“.
ISSEP P.K. Antonitsch/A. Grossmann/P. Micheuz

5. Interchangeable Tasks (2)
category »combinatorics with shapes«
ISSEP P.K. Antonitsch/A. Grossmann/P. Micheuz

6. Common Goals ISSEP 2010 P.K. Antonitsch/A. Grossmann/P. Micheuz
But we have to be careful: Even tasks that seem to belong to the same category might cover different aspects or require different approaches. We call problems of that kind „related problems“
ISSEP P.K. Antonitsch/A. Grossmann/P. Micheuz

7. Related Tasks (1) category »algorithmic thinking«
Informatics Beaver 2005 (grades 9 and 10)
Example: Practising algorithmic thinking by „inventing“ a „new“ algorithm and becoming „part of the algorithm“, on the other hand:
ISSEP P.K. Antonitsch/A. Grossmann/P. Micheuz

8. Related Tasks (2) category »algorithms«
Math Kangaroo 2007 (grades 9 and 10):
Let a and b be the solutions of the quadratic equation x2 – 3x + 1 = 0. What is the value
of a3 + b3?
A) 12 B) 14 C) 16 D) 18 E) 24
category »algorithms«
Using known formulae/algorithms and solving the problem „from the outside“
ISSEP P.K. Antonitsch/A. Grossmann/P. Micheuz

9. Common Goals ISSEP 2010 P.K. Antonitsch/A. Grossmann/P. Micheuz
Furthermore, there are tasks that are specific to either the Kangaroo-contest or the Beaver-contest.
ISSEP P.K. Antonitsch/A. Grossmann/P. Micheuz

10. Specific Tasks ISSEP 2010 P.K. Antonitsch/A. Grossmann/P. Micheuz
Conclusion: Math-Kangaroo and Informatics-Beaver are well-distinguishable problem-solving contests, linked by interchangeable tasks and complementing each other due to related and specific tasks.
ISSEP P.K. Antonitsch/A. Grossmann/P. Micheuz

11. Why should we care? ?
All of that sounds quite nice – but: Why should we care about contests when thinking about teaching/learning Informatics at school? Is there something that we can learn from contests?
ISSEP P.K. Antonitsch/A. Grossmann/P. Micheuz

12. Because: Contests are »Play«
Problem-solving contests like „Kangaroo“ or „Beaver“ create a play-like situation, because
most of the problems are easy to survey and the representation contains a first notion of the solution!!
contestants/players have to be active (this is a real difference to most classroom situations!)
they have a certain goal and the contestants get feedback about their „performance“
they are a „free activity“ (nobody is forced to participate
they are „outside ordinary life“ (at school)
and being a good „player“ pays off in ordinary life (successful contestants are honoured by their school-communities).
ISSEP P.K. Antonitsch/A. Grossmann/P. Micheuz

13. What Can We Learn? ?
The reasons why we should care are what we could learn for teaching in general and teaching Informatics in particular. It is not a „must“ for all the times, but – from personal experience – creating game-like/play-like situations in class motivates (some/most) students to become active, because
they are allowed to be active (or better: forced to be active)
there is no assessment-situation
they are free to join the game at different levels.
These aspects do NOT need an explicit game-situation. Designing an „inspiring“ learning environment (a learing environment that allows learners to try this and that and to see some kind of – personal – success) and making use of adequate tools might do (personal experience: Scratch, crossroads-simulation).
ISSEP P.K. Antonitsch/A. Grossmann/P. Micheuz

14. Thank You!
ISSEP P.K. Antonitsch/A. Grossmann/P. Micheuz