You are here:

Student preferences and concerns about supplemental instructional material in CS0/CS1/CS2 courses

, University of Baltimore, United States ; , Towson University, United States ; , Community College of Baltimore County, United States

International Journal on E-Learning Volume 16, Number 4, ISSN 1537-2456 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA


Abstract: The concept of flipping the classroom is slowly gaining tractions at all levels of education. An ever-growing set of resources gives unprecedented access to Information Technology (IT), Computer Science (CS), and Information Systems (IS) students to a significant amount of supplemental material. Videos, interactive demonstrations, and sandboxes allow instructors of programming courses to easily implement a flipped classroom model. This work summarizes the preferences and concerns of students regarding computer-based and mobile-based resources for CS0/CS1/CS2 education, giving guidelines for instructors to follow regarding the types of material preferred for each medium.
* Invited as a paper from SITE 2015 *


Vincenti, G., Hilberg, J.S. & Braman, J. (2017). Student preferences and concerns about supplemental instructional material in CS0/CS1/CS2 courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 16(4), 417-441. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 17, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Ben-Bassat Levy, R., Ben-Ari, M., & Uronen, P.A. (2003). The Jeliot 2000 program animation system. Computers& Education, 40(1), 1-15.
  2. Bennedsen, J., & Caspersen, M. (2005). An Investigation of Potential Success factors for an Introductory ModelDriven Programming Course. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ’05), 155-163.
  3. Braman, J., Vincenti, G., Arboleda Diaz, A.M., & Jinman, A. (2009). Learning Computer Science Fundamentals through Virtual Environments. Online Communities and Social Computing, 423-431.
  4. Gomes, A., & Mendes, A.J. (2007). An environment to improve programming education. Proceedings of the 2007 international conference on Computer systems and technologies, Association for Computing Machinery.
  5. Goosen, L. (2008). A brief history of choosing first programming languages. History of Computing and Education, 167-170.
  6. Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2007). Using storytelling to motivate programming. Communications of the ACM, 50(7), 58-64.
  7. Lahtinen, E., Ala-Mutka, K., & Järvinen, H.M. (2005). A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(3), 14-18.
  8. Malmi, L., Karavirta, V., Korhonen, A., Nikander, J., Seppälä, O., & Silvasti, P. (2004). Visual algorithm simulation exercise system with automatic assessment: TRAKLA2. Informatics in Education-An International Journal, 3(2), 267-288.
  9. Park, Y. (2011). A Pedagogical Framework Mobile Learning: Categorizing Educational Applications of Mobile Technologies into Four Types. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Leaning, 12(2), 78-102.
  10. Schultz, L.A. (2011). Student Perceptions of Instructional Tools in Programming Logic: A Comparison of Traditional versus Alice Teaching Environments. Information Systems Education Journal, 9(1). U.S. Department of Education. Science, Technology, Engineering and Math: Education for Global Leadership. Retrieved from, On
  11. Vincenti, G., Braman, J., & Hilberg, S. (2013). Teaching Introductory Programming Through Reusable Learning Objects: A Pilot Study. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 28(3), 38-45.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact