Supporting Diverse Novice Programming Cohorts through Flexible and Incremental Visual Constructivist Pathways

ABSTRACT

Novice programmers rely mainly on formative assignments to develop their problem solving skills. Such assignments can be made more engaging by structuring them into visual tasks with instant feedback. Constructivist theory however, suggests such tasks can facilitate learning only if they are designed considering student mental models. Designing such tasks is difficult given the diversity of students in introductory programming courses. This paper presents a flexible and incremental visual constructivist model that enables different pathways for individual students. Formative and summative evaluations based on assignment tasks suggest such an approach can help improve learning outcomes and student satisfaction significantly even when students have varying cognitive abilities.

References

1. R. Baecker, Sorting Out Sorting: A Case Study of Software Visualization for Teaching Computer Science, MIT Press, 1998.
2. M. Ben-Ari, Bricolage forever, Eleventh Psychology of Programming Interest Group Workshop, 1999, pp. 53--57.
3. M. Ben-Ari, Constructivism in Computer Science Education, Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20 (2001), pp. 45--73.
4. J. Bonar and E. Soloway, Preprogramming knowledge: A major source of misconceptions in novice programmers, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989.
5. N. B. Dale, Most Difficult Topics in CS1:Results of an Online Survey of Educators, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 38 (2006), pp. 49--53.
6. M. De_Raadt, M. Hamilton, R. Lister, J. Tutty, B. Baker, Q. Cutts, J. Hamer, M. Petre, Simon, I. Box, S. Fincher, P. Haden, A. Robins and K. Sutton, Approaches to learning in computer programming students and their effect on success., Annual International Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Sydney, Australia, 2005.
7. A. Eckerdal, R. Mccartney, J. E. Moström, M. Ratcliffe, K. Sanders and C. Zander, Putting Threshold Concepts into Context in Computer Science Education, in ACM, ed., ITiCSE'06, 2006.
8. J. Gal-Ezer, T. Vilner and E. Zur, Teaching Algorithm Efficiency at CS1 Level: A Different Approach, Computer Science Education, 14 (2004), pp. 235--248.
9. S. Hansen and E. Eddy, Engagement and Frustration in Programming Projects, 38th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, ACM, Covington, 2007.
10. L. Hohmann, M. Guzdial and E. Soloway, SODA: A computer-aided design environment for the doing and learning of software design, Computer Assisted Learning 4th International Conference, Nova Scotia, Canada, 1992, pp. 307--319.
11. A. Koohang, L. Riley and T. Smith, E-Learning and Constructivism: From Theory to Application, Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5 (2009).
12. A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev and S. M. Miller, Vygotsky's Educational Theory In Cultural Context, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
13. C. Lewis and G. M. Olson, Can Principles of Cognition Lower the Barriers to Programming?, Empirical Studies of Programmers: Second Workshop, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1987, pp. 248--263.
14. L. Ma, J. Ferguson, M. Roper and M. Wood, Investigating and improving the models of programming concepts held by novice programmers Computer Science Education, 21 (2011), pp. 57--80.
15. R. E. Mayer, Different problem-solving competencies established in learning computer programming with and without meaningful models, Journal of Educational Psychology, 67 (1975), pp. 725--734.
16. R. E. Mayer, The psychology of how novices learn computer programming, ACM Computing Surveys, 3 (1981), pp. 121--141.
17. M. Mccracken, Y. Kolikant, V. Almstrum, C. Laxer, D. Diaz, L. Thomas, M. Guzdial, I. Utting, D. Hagan and T. Wilusz, A multi-national, multi-instititional study of assessemnt of programming skills of first-year CS students., ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33 (2001), pp. 125--140.
18. T. Naps, G. Rößling, J. Anderson, U. W. Oshkosh, S. Cooper, B. Koldehofe, C. Leska, J. Rantakokko, W. Dann, A. Korhonen, L. Malmi, R. J. Ross, M. Kuittinen and M. Mcnally, Evaluating the Educational Impact of Visualization ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 35 (2003), pp. 124--136.
19. T. L. Naps, Et Al., Exploring the Role of Visualization and Engagement in Computer Science Education, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35 (2002), pp. 131--152.
20. J. F. Pane and B. A. Myers, Usability Issues in the Design of Novice Programming Systems, Carnegie Mellon University, 1996.
21. J. F. Pane, C. A. Ratanamahatana and B. A. Myers, Studying the Language and Structure in Non-Programmers' Solutions to Programming Problems, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54 (2001), pp. 237--264.
22. K. Powers, S. Ecott and L. Hirsgfield, Through the Looking Glass: Teaching CS0 with Alice, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 39 (2007), pp. 2007.
23. T. Sirkia and J. Sorva, Exploring Programming Misconceptions An Analysis of Student Mistakes in Visual Program Simulation Exercises, 12th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research ACM, Koli, 2012.
24. D. C. Smith, A. Cypher and J. Spohrer, KidSim: Programming Agents Without a Programming Language, Comm. of the ACM, 37 (1994), pp. 54--67.
25. J. Sorva, V. Karavirta and L. Malmi, A Review of Generic Program Visualization Systems for Introductory Programming Education, ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 13 (2013).
26. M. Sprankle and J. Hubbard, Problem Solving & Programming Concepts, Pearson Education, 2011.
27. J. L. Whalley, R. Lister and E. Thompson, An Australasian Study of Reading and Comprehension Skills in Novice Programmers, using Bloom and SOLO Taxonomies, ACE2006, Hobart, 2006.

Index Terms

• Social and professional topics

  • Professional topics

    • Computing education

      • Computing education programs

        • Computer science education