Theodora Koulouri
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Teaching programming to beginners is a complex task. In this article, the effects of three factors—choice of programming language, problem-solving training, and the use of formative assessment—on learning to program were investigated. The study adopted an iterative methodological approach carried out across 4 consecutive years. To evaluate the effects of each factor (implemented as a single change in each iteration) on students’ learning performance, the study used quantitative, objective metrics. The findings revealed that using a syntactically simple language (Python) instead of a more complex one (Java) facilitated students’ learning of programming concepts. Moreover, teaching problem solving before programming yielded significant improvements in student performance. These two factors were found to have variable effects on the acquisition of basic programming concepts. Finally, it was observed that effective formative feedback in the context of introductory programming depends on multiple parameters. The article discusses the implications of these findings, identifies avenues for further research, and argues for the importance of studies in computer science education anchored on sound research methodologies to produce generalizable results.
- A. Agresti and I. M. Liu. 1999. Modeling a categorical variable allowing arbitrarily many category choices. Biometrics, 55, 3 (Sept. 1999), 936--943.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- V. L. Almstrum, O. Hazzan, M. Guzdial, and M. Petre. 2005, Challenges to computer science education research. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 37, 1 (2005), 191--192. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Beaubouef and J. Mason. 2005. Why the high attrition rate for computer science students: Some thoughts and observations. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 37, 2 (2005), 103--106. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Beck and A. Chizhik. 2013. Cooperative learning instructional methods for CS1: Design, implementation, and evaluation. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. (TOCE) 13, 3 (Aug. 2013), Article 10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Bennedsen and M. E. Caspersen. 2007. Assessing process and product: A practical lab exam for an introductory programming course 1. Inn. Teaching Learning Inf. Comput. Sci. 6, 4 (Oct. 2007), 183--202.Google Scholar
- S. B. Berenson, K. M. Slaten, L. Williams, and C. W. Ho. 2004. Voices of women in a software engineering course: Reflections on collaboration. J. Educ. Res. Comput. (JERIC), 4, 1 (March 2004), Article 3. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Black. 1999. Assessment, learning theories and testing systems. In Learners, Learning and Assessment. Paul Chapman Publishing, London, 118--134.Google Scholar
- P. Black and D. Wiliam. 1998. Assessment and classroom learning. Assess. Educ. 5, 1 (1998), 7--74.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. J. Bostock. 2004. Motivation and electronic assessment. Effective Learning and Teaching in Computing. Routledge Falmer, London. 86--99.Google Scholar
- G. Braught, T. Wahls, and L. M. Eby. 2011. The case for pair programming in the computer science classroom. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. (TOCE), 11, 1, Article 2 (Feb. 2011). Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. L. Brown. 1992. Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. J. Learn. Sci. 2, 2 (1992), 141--178.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. E. Califf and M. Goodwin. 2002. Testing skills and knowledge: Introducing a laboratory exam in CS1. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 34, 1 (Feb. 2002), 217--221. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Carter and R. Boyle. 2002. Teaching delivery issues: Lessons from computer science. J. Inf. Technol. 1, 2 (2002), 65--90.Google Scholar
- A. T. Chamillard and K. A. Braun. 2000. Evaluating programming ability in an introductory computer science course. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 32, 1 (March 2000), 212--216. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Collins. 1992. Toward a design science of education. Springer, Berlin, 15--22.Google Scholar
- A. Collins, D. Joseph, and K. Bielaczyc. 2004. Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. J. Learn. Sci. 13, 1 (2004), 15--42.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Computing Curricula. 2001. IEEE CS, ACM Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula. IEEE Computer Society Press and ACM Press. Retrieved from http://www.acm.org/education/curricula.html.Google Scholar
- Computing Curricula: The overview report. 2005. IEEE CS, ACM Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula. IEEE Computer Society Press and ACM Press. Retrieved from http://www.acm.org/education/curricula.html.Google Scholar
- A. T. Corbett and J. R. Anderson. 1990. The effect of feedback control on learning to program with the LISP tutor. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 796--803.Google Scholar
- A. T. Corbett and J. R. Anderson. 2001. Locus of feedback control in computer-based tutoring: Impact on learning rate, achievement and attitudes. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, 245--252. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Daly and J. Waldron. 2004. Assessing the assessment of programming ability. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 36, 1 (March 2004), 210--213. Google ScholarDigital Library
- DARPA. 2010. Computer Science—Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (CS-STEM) Education Research Announcement (RA). DARPA-RA-10-03.Google Scholar
- P. Denny, A. Luxton-Reilly, and E. Tempero. 2012. All syntax errors are not equal. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’12). 75--80. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Denny, A. Luxton-Reilly, E. Tempero, and J. Hendrickx. 2011. Understanding the syntax barrier for novices. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’11). ACM, New York, 208--212. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.). 1998. The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
- B. Du Boulay. 1986. Some Difficulties of Learning to Program. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2, 1 (1986), 57--73.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Ecclestone. 1998. “Just tell me what to do” barriers to assessment-in-learning in higher education. In Scottish Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Dundee. 25--26.Google Scholar
- A. Ehlert and C. Schulte. 2009. Empirical comparison of objects-first and objects-later. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Computing Education Research Workshop. ACM Press, New York, NY, 15--26. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. H. Goldwasser and D. Letscher. 2008. Using Python to Teach Object-Oriented Programming in CS1. Innov. Technol. Comput. Sci. Ed. (June 2008), 30--32. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Grandell, M. Peltomäki, R. J. Back, and T. Salakoski. 2006. Why complicate things?: Introducing programming in high school using Python. In Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education—Volume 52. Australian Computer Society, Inc., 71--80. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Guzdial. 2009. Education: Teaching computing to everyone. Commun. ACM, 52, 5 (2009), 31--33. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Higgins, P. Hartley, and A. Skelton. 2002. The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies Higher Educ. 27, 1 (2002), 53--64.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Irons. 2010. An Investigation into the Impact of Formative Feedback on the Student Learning Experience Doctoral dissertation. Durham University, Durham, UK.Google Scholar
- M. C. Jadud. 2005. A first look at novice compilation behaviour using BlueJ. Comput. Sci. Educ. 15, 1 (2005), 25--40.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Kasurinen and U. Nikula. 2007. Lower dropout rates and better grades through revised course infrastructure. In Proceedings of the 10th IASTED International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education. ACTA Press, Calgary, Canada. 152--157. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Kölling. 1999. The problem of teaching object-oriented programming, Part 1: Languages. J. Obj. Orient. Prog. 11, 8, 8--15.Google Scholar
- V. Koshy. 2009. Action Research for Improving Educational Practice: A Step-by-Step Guide. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
- S. K. Kummerfeld and J. Kay. 2003. The neglected battle fields of syntax errors. In Proceedings of the Fifth Australasian Conference on Computing Education—Vol. 20. Australian Computer Society, Inc., 105--111. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. B. Lee. 2013. Experience report: CS1 in MATLAB for non-majors, with media computation and peer instruction. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM Press, New York, NY, 35--40. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Lilley and T. Barker. 2007. Students’ perceived usefulness of formative feedback for a computer-adaptive test. Electron. J. e-learning 5 (2007), 31--38.Google Scholar
- T. Lillis and J. Turner. 2001. Student writing in higher education: Contemporary confusion, traditional concerns. Teaching Higher Educ. 6, 1 (2001), 57--68.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. C. Linn and J. Dalbey. 1989. Cognitive consequences of programming instruction. In Studying the Novice Programmer, E. Soloway and J. C. Spohrer (Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 57--81.Google Scholar
- R. Lister, E. S. Adams, S. Fitzgerald, W. Fone, J. Hamer, M. Lindholm, and L. Thomas. 2004. A multi-national study of reading and tracing skills in novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 36, 4 (2007), 119--150. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Ma, J. Ferguson, M. Roper, and M. Wood. 2007. Investigating the viability of mental models held by novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 39, 1 (March 2007), 499--503. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Mannila and M. de Raadt. 2006. An objective comparison of languages for teaching introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 6th Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research: Koli Calling 2006. ACM, New York, 32--37. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Mannila, M. Peltomki, and T. Salakoski. 2006. What about a simple language? Analyzing the difficulties in learning to program. Comput. Sci. Educ. 16, 3 (2006), 211--227.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. McCracken, V. Almstrum, D. Diaz, M. Guzdial, D. Hagan, Kolikant, C. Laxer, L. Thomas, I. Utting, and T. Wilusz. 2001. A multi-national, multi-institutional study of assessment of programming skills of first-year CS students. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 33, 4 (Dec. 2001), 125--180. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. McDowell, L. Werner, H. E. Bullock, and J. Fernald. 2003. The impact of pair programming on student performance, perception and persistence. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, 602--607. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. McGettrick, R. Boyle, R. Ibbett, J. Lloyd, G. Lovegrove, and K. Mander. 2004. Grand challenges in computing: Education. British Computer Society.Google Scholar
- B. N. Miller and D. L. Ranum. 2005. Teaching an introductory computer science sequence with Python. In Proceedings of the 38th Midwest Instructional and Computing Symposium.Google Scholar
- B. Miller and D. Ranum. 2006. Freedom to succeed: A three course introductory sequence using Python and Java. J. Comput. Sci. Colleges 22, 1 (2006), 106--116. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Molina, E. Castro, and E. Castro. 2007. Teaching experiments within design research. Int. J. Interdisc. Social Soc. Sci. 2, 4 (2007), 435--440.Google Scholar
- R. Moreno. 2004. Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instruct. Sci. 32, 1--2 (2004), 99--113.Google ScholarCross Ref
- National Audit Office. Staying the course: The retention of students in higher education. 2007. Report by the National Audit Office, 44. Retrieved from http://www.nao.org.uk/report/staying-the-course-the-retention-of-students-in-higher-education/.Google Scholar
- U. Nikula, O. Gotel, and J. Kasurinen. 2011. A motivation guided holistic rehabilitation of the first programming course. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. (TOCE) 11, 4 (2011), 24. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. D. Oldham. 2005. What happens after Python in CS1? J. Comput. Sci. Colleges 20, 6 (2005), 7--13. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. B. Palumbo. 1990. Programming language/problem-solving research: A review of relevant issues. Rev. Educ. Res. 60, 1 (1990), 65--89.Google ScholarCross Ref
- H. Patterson-McNeill. 2006. Experience: From C++ to Python in 3 easy steps. J. Comput. Sci. Colleges 22, 2 (2006), 92--96. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Pears and L. Malmi. 2009. Values and objectives in computing education research. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. (TOCE), 9, 3 (2009), 15. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Pears, S. Seidman, L. Malmi, L. Mannila, E. Adams, J. Bennedsen, M. Devlin, and J. Paterson. 2007. A survey of literature on the teaching of introductory programming. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 39, 4 (Dec. 2007), 204--223. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Polya. 1973. How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- L. Porter, C. Bailey Lee, B. Simon, Q. Cutts, and D. Zingaro. 2011. Experience report: A multi-classroom report on the value of peer instruction. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, 138--142. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. 2003. Learning from subject review. Retrieved from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/learningFromSubjectReview.pdf.Google Scholar
- R Development Core Team. 2010. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
- A. Radenski. 2006. Python First: A lab-based digital introduction to computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 38, 3 (2006), 197--201. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Randolph, G. Julnes, E. Sutinen, and S. Lehman. 2008. A methodological review of computer science education research. J. Inf. Tech. Educ.: Res. 7, 1 (2008), 135--162.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Reeves. 2011. Can educational research be both rigorous and relevant. Educ. Des. 1, 4 (2011), 1--24.Google Scholar
- V. G. Renumol, D. Janakiram, and S. Jayaprakash. 2010. Identification of cognitive processes of effective and ineffective students during computer programming. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. (TOCE) 10. 3 (2010), 10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Robins, J. Rountree, and N. Rountree. 2003. Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Comput. Sci. Educ. 13, 2 (2003), 137--172.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Rogalski and R. Samurçay. 1990. Acquisition of programming knowledge and skills. Psych. Prog. 18 (1990), 157--174.Google Scholar
- M. B. Rosson, J. M. Carroll, and H. Sinha. 2011. Orientation of undergraduates toward careers in the computer and information sciences: Gender, self-efficacy and social support. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. (TOCE) 11, 3 (2011), 14. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Rust. 2002. The impact of assessment on student learning: How can the research literature practically help to inform the development of departmental assessment strategies and learner-centred assessment practices? Active Learn. Higher Educ. 3, 2 (July 2002), 145--158.Google Scholar
- C. Shannon. 2003. Another breadth-first approach to CS I using python. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 35, 1 (Sept. 2003), 248--251. Google ScholarDigital Library
- V. J. Shute. 2008. Focus on formative feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 78, 1 (2008), 153--189.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. M. Siegfried, D. Chays, and K. G. Herbert. 2008. Will there ever be consensus on cs1. In Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Frontiers in Education: Computer Science and Computer Engineering--FECS. Vol. 8, 18--23.Google Scholar
- B. Simon, M. Kohanfars, J. Lee, K. Tamayo, and Q. Cutts. 2010. Experience report: Peer instruction in introductory computing. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, 341--345. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. E. Slavin. 2003. A reader's guide to scientifically based research. Educ. Leadership 60, 5 (2003), 12--16.Google Scholar
- R. H. Sloan and P. Troy. 2008. CS 0.5: A better approach to introductory computer science for majors. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 40, 1 (2008), 271--275. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Sleeman, R. T. Putnam, J. Baxter, and L. Kuspa. 1988. An introductory Pascal class: A case study of students' errors. Teaching and Learning Computer Programming: Multiple Research Perspectives. RE Mayer (Ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 237--257.Google Scholar
- J. Stamey and S. Sheel. 2010. A boot camp approach to learning programming in a CS0 course. J. Comput. Sci. Colleges 25, 5 (2010), 34--40. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Stefik and S. Siebert. 2013. An empirical investigation into programming language syntax. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. (TOCE) 13, 4 (2013), 19. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Stenhouse. 1975. An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. Heinemann, London.Google Scholar
- J. O. Talton, D. L. Peterson, S. Kamin, D. Israel, and J. Al-Muhtadi. 2006. Scavenger hunt: Computer science retention through orientation. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 38, 1 (2006), 443--447. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. J. Tu and J. R. Johnson. 1990. Can computer programming improve problem-solving ability? ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 22, 2 (1990), 30--33. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Turner and G. Hill. 2007. Robots in problem-solving and programming. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences.Google Scholar
- U.S. Department of Education. 2001. No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.Google Scholar
- M. R. Weaver. 2006. Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses. Assess. Eval. Higher Educ. 31, 3 (2006), 379--394.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. M. Zelle. 1999. Python as a first language. In Proceedings of 13th Annual Midwest Computer Conference. Vol. 2.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Teaching Introductory Programming: A Quantitative Evaluation of Different Approaches
Recommendations
A model for teaching an introductory programming course using ADRI
High failure and drop-out rates from introductory programming courses continue to be of significant concern to computer science disciplines despite extensive research attempting to address the issue. In this study, we include the three entities of the ...
Notional machines and introductory programming education
This article brings together, summarizes, and comments on several threads of research that have contributed to our understanding of the challenges that novice programmers face when learning about the runtime dynamics of programs and the role of the ...
Building Skills in Introductory Programming
TEEM'18: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing MulticulturalityLearning to program is difficult and requires a lot of work, dedication, and training. The difficulties of teaching and learning programming are a cause for concern for everyone where this subject is needed. It is a universal problem. The theme of ...
Comments