3.8 Article

Reevaluating the relationship between explaining, tracing, and writing skills in CS1 in a replication study

期刊

COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 355-383

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/08993408.2022.2079866

关键词

Introductory programming; programming skills; skill hierarchy; replication; structural equation modeling

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DUE 21-21424]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study replicates a hierarchy of code reading, tracing, and writing skills for introductory programming students and explores the validity of other possible hierarchies. However, analyzing student performance alone is insufficient for determining a teaching order.
Background and Context: Lopez and Lister first presented evidence for a skill hierarchy of code reading, tracing, and writing for introductory programming students. Further support for this hierarchy could help computer science educators sequence course content to best build student programming skill. Objective: This study aims to replicate a slightly simplified hierarchy of skills in CS1 using a larger body of students (600+ vs. 38) in a non-major introductory Python course with computer-based exams. We also explore the validity of other possible hierarchies. Method: We collected student score data on 4 kinds of exam questions. Structural equation modeling was used to derive the hierarchy for each exam. Findings: We find multiple best-fitting structural models. The original hierarchy does not appear among the best candidates, but similar models do. We also determined that our methods provide us with correlations between skills and do not answer a more fundamental question: what is the ideal teaching order for these skills? Implications: This modeling work is valuable for understanding the possible correlations between fundamental code-related skills. However, analyzing student performance on these skills at a moment in time is not sufficient to determine teaching order. We present possible study designs for exploring this more actionable research question.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据