ABSTRACT
A recent study about the effectiveness of subgoal labeling in an introductory computer science programming course both supported previous research and produced some puzzling results. In this study, we replicate the experiment with a different student population to determine if the results are repeatable. We also gave the experimental task to students in a follow-on course to explore if they had indeed mastered the programming concept. We found that the previous puzzling results were repeated. In addition, for the novice programmers, we found a statistically significant difference in performance based on whether the student had previous programming courses in high school. However, this performance difference disappears in a follow-on course after all students have taken an introductory computer science programming course. The results of this study have implications for how quickly students are evaluated for mastery of knowledge and how we group students in introductory programming courses.
- Atkinson, R.K. et al. 2003. Aiding Transfer in Statistics: Examining the Use of Conceptually Oriented Equations and Elaborations During Subgoal Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology. 95, 4 (2003), 762.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Atkinson, R.K. et al. 2000. Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of educational research. 70, 2 (2000), 181--214.Google Scholar
- Atkinson, R.K. 2002. Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology. 94, 2 (2002), 416.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Atkinson, R.K. and Derry, S.J. 2000. Computer-based examples designed to encourage optimal example processing: A study examining the impact of sequentially presented, subgoal-oriented worked examples. Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (2000).Google Scholar
- Bennedsen, J. and Caspersen, M.E. 2005. An investigation of potential success factors for an introductory model-driven programming course. Proceedings of the first international workshop on Computing education research (2005), 155--163. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bergin, S. and Reilly, R. 2005. Programming: factors that influence success. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (2005), 411--415. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bjork, R.A. 1994. Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing. MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Bransford, J. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Campbell, V. and Johnstone, M. 2010. The significance of learning style with respect to achievement in first year programming students. Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC), 2010 21st Australian (2010), 165--170. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Catrambone, R. 1996. Generalizing solution procedures learned from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition; Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 22, 4 (1996), 1020.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Catrambone, R. 1994. Improving examples to improve transfer to novel problems. Memory & Cognition. 22, 5 (1994), 606--615.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Catrambone, R. 1998. The subgoal learning model: Creating better examples so that students can solve novel problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 127, 4 (1998), 355.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chi, M. et al. 1989. Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive science. 13, 2 (1989), 145--182.Google Scholar
- Denny, P. et al. 2008. Evaluating a new exam question: Parsons problems. Proceeding of the Fourth international Workshop on Computing Education Research (Sydney, Australia, 2008), 113--124. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eiriksdottir, E. and Catrambone, R. 2011. Procedural instructions, principles, and examples how to structure instructions for procedural tasks to enhance performance, learning, and transfer. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 53, 6 (2011), 749--770.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Evans, G.E. and Simkin, M.G. 1989. What best predicts computer proficiency? Communications of the ACM. 32, 11 (1989), 1322--1327. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hagan, D. and Markham, S. 2000. Does it help to have some programming experience before beginning a computing degree program? ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (2000), 25--28. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Johnson, W.L. and Soloway, E. 1985. PROUST: Knowledge-based program understanding. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on. 3 (1985), 267--275. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kalyuga, S. 2007. Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review. 19, 4 (2007), 509--539.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Leeper, R.R. and Silver, J.L. 1982. Predicting success in a first programming course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin. 14, 1 (1982), 147--150. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Leppink, J. et al. 2013. Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior research methods. 45, 4 (2013), 1058--1072.Google Scholar
- Lister, R. et al. 2004. A multi-national study of reading and tracing skills in novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (2004), 119--150. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lopez, M. et al. 2008. Relationships between reading, tracing and writing skills in introductory programming. Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on computing education research (2008), 101--112. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Margulieux, L.E. et al. 2012. Subgoal-labeled instructional material improves performance and transfer in learning to develop mobile applications. Proceedings of the ninth annual international conference on International computing education research (2012), 71--78. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Margulieux, L.E. and Catrambone, R. 2014. Improving problem solving performance in computer-based learning environments through subgoal labels. Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference (2014), 149--150. Google ScholarDigital Library
- McCracken, M. et al. 2001. A multi-national, multi-institutional study of assessment of programming skills of first-year CS students. Working group reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education (Canterbury, UK, 2001), 125--180. Google ScholarDigital Library
- van Merriënboer, J.J. and Sweller, J. 2005. Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational psychology review. 17, 2 (2005), 147--177.Google Scholar
- Morrison, Briana B. et al. 2015. Subgoals, Context, and Worked Examples in Learning Computing Problem Solving. ICER 2015 (Aug. 2015). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Palmiter, S. and Elkerton, J. 1993. Animated demonstrations for learning procedural computer-based tasks. Human-Computer Interaction. 8, 3 (1993), 193--216. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Parsons, D. and Haden, P. 2006. Parson's Programming Puzzles: A Fun and Effective Learning Tool for First Programming Courses. Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education - Volume 52 (Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 2006), 157--163. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Plass, J.L. et al. 2010. Cognitive load theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Renkl, A. and Atkinson, R.K. 2002. Learning from examples: Fostering self-explanations in computer-based learning environments. Interactive learning environments. 10, 2 (2002), 105--119.Google Scholar
- Rochester Institute of Technology 2014. Undergraduate Course Descriptions.Google Scholar
- Rountree, N. et al. 2004. Interacting factors that predict success and failure in a CS1 course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (2004), 101--104. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Simon et al. 2006. Predictors of success in a first programming course. Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education-Volume 52 (2006), 189--196. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Soloway, E. and Ehrlich, K. 1984. Empirical studies of programming knowledge. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on. 5 (1984), 595--609. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sweller, J. et al. 1998. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review. 10, 3 (1998), 251--296.Google Scholar
- Sweller, J. et al. 2011. Cognitive load theory. Springer.Google Scholar
- Sweller, J. 2010. Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational psychology review. 22, 2 (2010), 123--138.Google Scholar
- van Gog, Tamara and Paas, Fred 2012. Cognitive Load Measurement. Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer.Google Scholar
- Ventura Jr, P.R. 2005. Identifying predictors of success for an objects-first CS1. (2005).Google Scholar
- Watson, C. et al. 2014. No tests required: comparing traditional and dynamic predictors of programming success. Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (2014), 469--474. Google ScholarDigital Library
- White, G. and Sivitanides, M. 2003. An empirical investigation of the relationship between success in mathematics and visual programming courses. Journal of Information Systems Education. 14, 4 (2003), 409.Google Scholar
- Wiedenbeck, S. 2005. Factors affecting the success of non-majors in learning to program. Proceedings of the first international workshop on Computing education research (2005), 13--24. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wilson, B.C. and Shrock, S. 2001. Contributing to success in an introductory computer science course: a study of twelve factors. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (2001), 184--188. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Learning Loops: A Replication Study Illuminates Impact of HS Courses
Recommendations
Computer programming and novice programmers
ISDOC '12: Proceedings of the Workshop on Information Systems and Design of CommunicationComputer Programming is one of the skills very useful and can be a very rewarding career. However teaching and learning of computer programming is referred as one of the disciplines that face great challenges. Drop out, unmotivated and high levels ...
Relationship of early programming language to novice generated design
SIGCSE '06: Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science educationWhat measurable effect do the language and paradigm used in early programming classes have on novice programmers' ability to do design? This work investigates the question by using data collected from 136 "first competency" students as part of a multi-...
An empirical view of inheritance
For some years software engineering researchers have been advocating object-oriented (OO) methods as a powerful approach to overcome many of the difficulties associated with software development. A central concept within OO is the use of the inheritance ...
Comments