You are here:

Exploring college students’ program comprehension skills from visual to procedural programming PROCEEDING

, , , University of Pretoria, South Africa

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Austin, TX, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-27-8 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

This study explores college students’ program comprehension skills from visual to procedural programming. Using an action research strategy, two cycles of the Plan-Act-Observe-Reflect was proposed. The methodology was a sequential explanatory mixed method design while quantitative and qualitative phenomenological inquiries were used for data collection. In the first cycle of the study, all students enrolled in the 2015/2016 academic session formed the population for the study and thirteen students were purposively sampled. Survey, assessment, and interview data, observational records, field notes, textual data and reflective journal data were collected. The result of the hypothesis tested shows there was a weak correlation between visual and procedural programming. Causes of low correlation and ways of making improvement in the second cycle were discussed.

Citation

Tijani, F., Callaghan, R. & deVilliers, R. (2017). Exploring college students’ program comprehension skills from visual to procedural programming. In P. Resta & S. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 83-88). Austin, TX, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 15, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Bunderson, C.V. (1989). The validity of the Herrmann Brain dominance instrument. The creative brain, 337-379.
  2. Chen, P., & Du, X. (2012). Improving software comprehension process by Adoption of Cognitive Theories in largescale complex software maintenance-An empirical research of cognitive theories in software maintenance.
  3. Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post 16 learning: a systematic and critical review: The Learning and Skills Research Centre.
  4. Creswell, J.W. (2014). Reseach Design: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Upper Saddle river, New jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
  5. Dillon, E., Anderson, M., & Brown, M. (2012). Comparing mental models of novice programmers when using visual and command line environments. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 50th Annual Southeast Regional Conference.
  6. Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers& Education, 63, 87-97.
  7. Gao, R. (2011). Reforming to improve the teaching quality of computer programming language. Paper presented at the Computer Science& Education (ICCSE), 2011 6th International Conference on.
  8. Govender, I. (2009). Learning to program, learning to teach programming: pre-and inservice teachers' experiences of an object-oriented language.
  9. Katai, Z., & Toth, L. (2010). Technologically and artistically enhanced multi-sensory computer-programming education. Teaching and teacher education, 26(2), 244-251.
  10. Lopez, M., Whalley, J., Robbins, P., & Lister, R. (2008). Relationships between reading, tracing and writing skills in introductory programming. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Fourth international Workshop on Computing Education Research.
  11. Ouahbi, I., Kaddari, F., Darhmaoui, H., Elachqar, A., & Lahmine, S. (2015). Learning Basic Programming Concepts by Creating Games with Scratch Programming Environment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1479-1482.
  12. Özmen, B., & Altun, A. (2014). Undergraduate Students' Experiences in Programming: Difficulties and Obstacles. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 5(3).
  13. Rizvi, M., & Humphries, T. (2012). Scratch programming for undergraduates. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 27(3), 107-107.
  14. Schulte, C. (2008). Block Model: an educational model of program comprehension as a tool for a scholarly approach to teaching. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Fourth international Workshop on Computing Education Research.
  15. Tan, P.-H., Ting, C.-Y., & Ling, S.-W. (2009). Learning difficulties in programming courses: Undergraduates’ perspective and perception. International Conference on Computer Technology and Development. Malaysia.
  16. Verdú, E., Regueras, L.M., Verdú, M.J., Leal, J.P., de Castro, J.P., & Queirós, R. (2012). A distributed system for learning programming on-line. Computers& Education, 58(1), 1-10.
  17. Whalley, J.L., & Robbins, P. (2007). Report on the fourth BRACElet workshop. Journal of Applied Computing and Information Technology, 5(1).
  18. Zhang, Y. (2007). An Ontology-based Program Comprehension Model. (Doctoral Thesis.), Concordia University,, Canada.

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

Slides