Utilizing programming traces to explore and model the dimensions of novices' code‐writing skill
Abstract
Studies have found that most novice programmers have low proficiency in writing code. However, it is unclear what subskills compose code writing and which subskills novice programmers struggle with. This study utilizes programming traces to identify latent subskills that constitute code writing so that teachers can offer specific instruction on the weak subskills. Data were collected from an undergraduate course teaching introductory computer science in Java. Six hundred and fourteen students made submissions to homework programming questions in a web‐based learning system. Based on the submission traces, we computed 11 features related to correctness and time students spent on their submissions. We conducted an exploratory factor analysis on two‐thirds of students selected randomly and identified four factors. The first factor, code style proficiency, was mainly related to code style errors. The second, syntactic proficiency, concerned compiler errors. The third is semantic proficiency, which concerns runtime and logic errors. The fourth, syntactic debugging proficiency, concerned the success rate and time required for fixing compiler and code style errors. A confirmatory factor analysis conducted on the remaining one‐third of the data supported the four‐factor structure. The factor model showed measurement invariance between the data set where the model was developed and two new datasets, one from the same sample but collected at a different time point and another from a different sample and context (onsite course vs. online course). The factors were related to prior programming abilities, programming language familiarity, and future exam performance. These associations provided validity evidence for the factor model.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004 · Cited by 4,369 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Typically, the measurement invariance test includes four sequential steps [47]: (1) the configural invariance model for the model structure equivalence; (2) the metric invariance model for factor loading equivalences; (3) the scalar invariance model for item intercept equivalences; and (4) the…”
MethodRutkowski, L., & Svetina, D. (2014) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164413498257 · Cited by 767 · see citing works
An Empirical Investigation into Programming Language Syntax
Stefik, A., & Siebert, S. (2013) · ACM Transactions on Computing Education · doi:10.1145/2534973 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Zhang, Y., Paquette, L., Pinto, J. D., & Fan, A. X.
- Venue
- Computer Applications in Engineering Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2023-03-10
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1041-1058
- ISSN
- 1061-3773
- 1099-0542
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 3
- Language
- en
- Funders
- China Scholarship Council (201806040180)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review