Engaging students in active exploration of programming worked examples

被引:4
作者
Garces, Sebastian [1 ]
Vieira, Camilo [2 ]
Ravai, Guity [1 ]
Magana, Alejandra J. [3 ]
机构
[1] Purdue Univ, Dept Comp & Informat Technol, W Lafayette, IN 47907 USA
[2] Univ Norte, Dept Educ, Barranquilla, Colombia
[3] Purdue Univ, Sch Engn Educ, Dept Comp & Informat Technol, 401 N Grant St,Knoy Hall Technol, W Lafayette, IN 47906 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Programming; Novice; Learning; Strategies; Commenting; Debugging; Worked examples; Schemata; Models; Cognitive load; COGNITIVE LOAD; DESIGN; ARCHITECTURE; INSTRUCTION; CHALLENGES; STRENGTHS;
D O I
10.1007/s10639-022-11247-6
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Worked examples can help novice learners develop early schemata from an expert's solution to a problem. Nonetheless, the worked examples themselves are no guarantee that students will explore these experts' solutions effectively. This study explores two different approaches to supporting engineering technology students' learning in an undergraduate introductory programming course: debugging and in-code commenting worked examples. In a Fall semester, students self-explained worked examples using in-code comments (n = 120), while in a Spring semester, students debugged worked examples (spring n = 101). Performance data included the midterm and final exams. Prior exposure to programming courses was taken from a survey at the beginning of each semester. Findings suggest that both the debugging and explaining forms of engagement with worked examples helped students with no prior programming experience to succeed in the course. For the worked examples to be effective, those need to be provided with some explicit form of engagement (i.e., debugging or self-explaining). Combining both strategies following explaining first and debugging second may result in a more effective approach.
引用
收藏
页码:2869 / 2886
页数:18
相关论文
共 46 条
[1]  
Atkinson RK, 2000, REV EDUC RES, V70, P181, DOI 10.2307/1170661
[2]  
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015, EMPL MAJ OCC GROUP 2
[3]  
Campe S., 2020, Computer Science Education, V30, P22, DOI [10.1080/08993408.2019.1648119, DOI 10.1080/08993408.2019.1648119]
[4]   Active-Constructive-Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities [J].
Chi, Michelene T. H. .
TOPICS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCE, 2009, 1 (01) :73-105
[5]  
Chiu J. L., 2014, APPL SCI LEARNING ED, P91
[6]   Teaching complex molecular simulation algorithms: Using self-evaluation to tailor web-based exercises at an individual level [J].
Dahlen, Oda ;
Lervik, Anders ;
Aaroen, Ola ;
Cabriolu, Raffaela ;
Lyng, Reidar ;
van Erp, Titus S. .
COMPUTER APPLICATIONS IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION, 2020, 28 (04) :779-791
[7]   MODELS AND THEORIES OF PROGRAMMING STRATEGY [J].
DAVIES, SP .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MAN-MACHINE STUDIES, 1993, 39 (02) :237-267
[8]   Using the SOLO Taxonomy to Understand Subgoal Labels Effect in CS1 [J].
Decker, Adrienne ;
Margulieux, Lauren E. ;
Morrison, Briana B. .
ICER '19 - PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2019 ACM CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL COMPUTING EDUCATION RESEARCH, 2019, :209-217
[9]  
desJardins, 2015, FORTUNE
[10]   Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective [J].
Ertmer, Peggy A. ;
Newby, Timothy J. .
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY, 2013, 26 (02) :43-64