Metacognition and the Expertise of Computer Program Comprehension
Abstract
This study focuses on different components of metacognition and their role in the expertise of computer program comprehension. After the elaboration of the concepts of expertise and metacognition, expert and novice computer programmers are compared in terms of their metacognitive knowledge and the task‐specific awareness. Subject ( N = 24) with two different competence levels, novices and experts, were individually presented an updating program, written in COBOL language. The data about metacognition was mainly derived from subjects’ interviews and thinking‐aloud protocols. Results showed that experts were superior to the novices in their metacognitive knowledge of the program task and of the working strategies. Experts had a definite conception about an ideal working strategy, and they also seemed to work in accordance with this. Furthermore, experts had more adequate awareness of their working than novices. It is concluded that experts have a close interaction between metacognitive knowledge, task‐specific awareness and cognitive monitoring. Among novices, this kind of relationship could not be found.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Expert programmers have advanced metacognitive monitoring and control, in that they are able to identify their specific goals and decompose them into concrete tasks.
“Expert programmers have advanced metacognitive monitoring and control, in that they are able to identify their specific goals and decompose them into concrete tasks [60].”
From The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as [60]
Cites
Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Crafts of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (2018) · Knowing, Learning, and Instruction · doi:10.4324/9781315044408-14 · Cited by 3,674 · see citing works
The Interaction of Domain-Specific and Strategic Knowledge in Academic Performance
Alexander, P. A., & Judy, J. E. (1988) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543058004375 · Cited by 728 · see citing works
Expertise in debugging computer programs: A process analysis
Vessey, I. (1985) · International Journal of Man-Machine Studies · doi:10.1016/s0020-7373(85)80054-7 · Cited by 359 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI
Tankelevitch, L., Kewenig, V., Simkute, A., Scott, A. E., Sarkar, A., Sellen, A., & Rintel, S. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642902 · Cited by 280 · see citing works
“Manual work (whether, when, how to apply GenAI in workflows) Automation strategy: understanding and adapting workflows … …”
Programming, Problem Solving, and Self-Awareness: Effects of Explicit Guidance
Loksa, D., Ko, A. J., Jernigan, W., Oleson, A., Mendez, C. J., & Burnett, M. M. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858252 · Cited by 223 · see citing works
Metacognition and Self-Regulation in Programming Education: Theories and Exemplars of Use
Loksa, D., Margulieux, L., Becker, B. A., Craig, M., Denny, P., Pettit, R., & Prather, J. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Computing Education · doi:10.1145/3487050 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
The Role of Self-Regulation in Programming Problem Solving Process and Success
Loksa, D., & Ko, A. J. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research · doi:10.1145/2960310.2960334 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Metacognitive Difficulties Faced by Novice Programmers in Automated Assessment Tools
Prather, J., Pettit, R., McMurry, K., Peters, A., Homer, J., & Cohen, M. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research · doi:10.1145/3230977.3230981 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Developing Novice Programmers’ Self-Regulation Skills with Code Replays
Xie, B., Lim, J. O., Pham, P. K. D., Li, M., & Ko, A. J. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research V.1 · doi:10.1145/3568813.3600127 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Developer Behaviors in Validating and Repairing LLM-Generated Code Using IDE and Eye Tracking
Tang, N., Chen, M., Ning, Z., Bansal, A., Huang, Y., McMillan, C., & Li, T. J.-J. (2024) · 2024 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) · doi:10.1109/vl/hcc60511.2024.00015 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
- Authors
- Eteläpelto, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Jyväskylä (FI)
- Corresponding author
- Eteläpelto, Anneli
- ORCID
- Eteläpelto, Anneli
- Venue
- Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1993-01
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 243-254
- ISSN
- 0031-3831 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-1170
- OpenAlex
- W1980963690
- Cited by
- 83
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- metacognition, expertise, expert-novice differences, metacognitive knowledge, cognitive monitoring, working strategies, COBOL, think-aloud
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
