CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1Teaching and Learning ProgrammingScience Education and PedagogyStatistics Education and Methodologies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Data structures and algorithms misconceptions in concept inventories: a systematic literature review

Open access
Tilanterä, Artturi, Korhonen, Ari·2026·Computer Science Education
DOI 10.1080/08993408.2026.2633989
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background and Context Data structures and algorithms (DSA) play a central role in programming. However, misconceptions related to DSA, i.e. students’ mental models which differ from the expert thinking, have been studied to a moderate extent. Concept inventories (CI) are validated tests which measure students’ knowledge utilizing misconceptions. CIs enable teachers to tailor their teaching methods and identify areas where students struggle.Objective This systematic literature review investigates what CIs exist on DSA topics and what misconceptions these CIs contain.Method We performed backward and forward snowballing to collect 52 papers discussing DSA & recursion CIs. The scope was finally reduced to nine reports which (i) describe DSA misconceptions and (ii) have conducted at least one pilot test in the CI development process. Misconceptions were extracted from these reports using their explicit definitions or by interpreting CI questions.Findings We identified seven DSA CIs in the final set of nine reports. We have extracted 92 misconceptions or students’ difficulties from these reports and mapped them onto ACM/IEEE-CS/AAAI Computer Science Curricula 2023.Implications Our catalog of 92 DSA misconceptions and difficulties helps instructors gain pedagogical content knowledge and improve learning materials. Future research should investigate misconceptions on DSA subtopics not covered here but present in the curricula recommendation. Reviews and CI development could be extended to the 22 reports of misconceptions finally excluded from this study.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08993408.2026.2633989

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 104

  1. 10.1007/978-3-031-42682-7_1 · DOI
  2. 10.1080/09500693.2010.512369 · DOI
  3. 10.1145/3441636.3441855 · DOI
  4. 10.1145/3568813.3600120 · DOI
  5. 10.2139/ssrn.2130143 · DOI
  6. 10.1109/FIE49875.2021.9637318 · DOI
  7. 10.1109/VL/HCC51201.2021.9576162 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/j.cola.2022.101184 · DOI
  9. 10.1145/1189136.1189182 · DOI
  10. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
  11. 10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_7 · DOI
  12. 10.1145/362929.362976 · DOI
  13. 10.15388/infedu.2024.05 · DOI
  14. Benander, A. C., & Benander, B. A. (2008). Student monks - teaching recursion in an IS or CS programming course using the towers of Hanoi. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19(4), 455–467. http://jise.org/volume19/n4/JISEv19n4p455.html
  15. 10.1145/3304221.3319771 · DOI
  16. 10.1145/2839509.2844559 · DOI
  17. Chang, C., Denning, P. J., Cross, J. H. I. I., Engel, G., Sloan, R., Carver, D., Eckhouse, R., King, W., Lau, F., Mengel, S., Srimani, P., Roberts, E., Shackelford, R., Austing, R., Cover, C. F., Davies, G., McGettrick, A., Schneider, G. M., & Wolz, U. (2001). Computing curricula 2001 computer science. Association for Computing Machinery https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/education/curricula-recommendations/cc2001.pdf.
  18. 10.1145/3641555.3705221 · DOI
  19. 10.1109/FIE56618.2022.9962584 · DOI
  20. 10.1145/3430665.3456343 · DOI
  21. 10.1145/1138403.1138432 · DOI
  22. 10.1145/2157136.2157148 · DOI
  23. 10.1002/jee.20070 · DOI
  24. 10.1109/FIE.2013.6685158 · DOI
  25. 10.1145/3018109 · DOI
  26. 10.1145/3017680.3017756 · DOI
  27. Fekete, A. (2003). Using counter-examples in the data structures course. Proceedings of the Fifth Australasian Conference on Computing Education - (Vol. 20. pp. 179–186). AUS: Australian Computer Society, Inc.
  28. 10.1145/3641554.3701918 · DOI
  29. Fouh, E., Farghally, M., Hamouda, S., Koh, K. H., & Shaffer, C. A. (2016). Investigating difficult topics in a data structures course using item response theory and logged data analysis. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Educational Data Min- Ing (pp. 370–375). International Educational Data Mining Society. Retrieved from Worcester, MA, USA. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED592711
  30. 10.1007/978-3-030-89022-3_19 · DOI
  31. 10.18260/1-2--5734 · DOI
  32. 10.1080/08993408.2016.1171470 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.compedu.2003.07.004 · DOI
  34. 10.1145/331795.331875 · DOI
  35. 10.1145/3502718.3524794 · DOI
  36. Golam Bari, A. T. M., Gaspar, A., Wiegand, R. P., Vitel, D., Tan, K. C., & Kozakoff, S. J. (2019). On the potential of evolved Parsons puzzles to contribute to concept inventories in computer programming [ings]. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings. American Society for Engineering Education. https://peer.asee.org/33142
  37. 10.1145/1789934.1789935 · DOI
  38. 10.1177/2158244014529773 · DOI · Paper page
  39. 10.1002/jrsm.1378 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1145/3633053.3633064 · DOI
  41. 10.1080/08993408.2017.1414728 · DOI
  42. 10.1145/3218328 · DOI
  43. 10.1080/08993408.2020.1714533 · DOI
  44. 10.1080/03057240.2019.1662774 · DOI
  45. 10.1145/1734263.1734335 · DOI
  46. 10.1119/1.2343497 · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.1007/s42438-024-00530-z · DOI
  48. 10.1002/jee.20104 · DOI
  49. 10.1109/FIE43999.2019.9028697 · DOI
  50. 10.1109/FIE44824.2020.9274045 · DOI
  51. 10.1109/LaTiCE.2013.35 · DOI
  52. 10.1145/2538862.2538902 · DOI
  53. 10.1145/3478431.3499337 · DOI
  54. 10.1145/3664191 · DOI
  55. 10.1017/9781108654555.028 · DOI
  56. 10.1145/3641554.3701888 · DOI
  57. 10.1145/3545945.3569820 · DOI
  58. 10.18260/1-2--40679 · DOI
  59. 10.1007/978-3-030-67209-6_27 · DOI
  60. 10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_4 · DOI
  61. 10.1080/08993408.2018.1562145 · DOI
  62. 10.1145/2676723.2677227 · DOI
  63. 10.1145/2676723.2677232 · DOI
  64. 10.1145/3437800.3439204 · DOI
  65. 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.10.008 · DOI
  66. 10.1109/TE.2017.2715174 · DOI
  67. 10.1145/2445196.2445443 · DOI
  68. 10.1145/2445196.2445212 · DOI
  69. 10.1145/3159450.3159457 · DOI
  70. 10.1145/3291279.3339404 · DOI
  71. 10.1145/3077618 · DOI · Paper page
  72. 10.1007/s10956-015-9592-2 · DOI
  73. 10.3102/0002831213477680 · DOI
  74. 10.1080/10288457.2012.10740750 · DOI
  75. 10.1145/1822090.1822120 · DOI
  76. 10.1080/08993400600913523 · DOI
  77. 10.1080/08993408.2022.2079865 · DOI
  78. 10.1145/1839594.1839612 · DOI
  79. Sorva J. (2012). Visual program simulation in introductory programming education [Doctoral dissertation]. Aalto University School of Science. https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-60-4626-6
  80. 10.1111/bjet.13288 · DOI
  81. 10.1080/08993408.2012.692917 · DOI
  82. 10.1145/3328778.3366903 · DOI
  83. 10.1080/08993408.2014.970779 · DOI
  84. 10.1080/08993400500307677 · DOI
  85. Tew A. E. (2010). Assessing fundamental introductory computing concept knowledge in a language independent manner [Doctoral dissertation].Georgia Institute of Technology. http://hdl.handle.net/1853/37090)
  86. 10.1145/3724363.3729081 · DOI
  87. 10.1145/3632620.3671096 · DOI
  88. 10.1145/3430665.3456337 · DOI
  89. Velázquez-Iturbide, J. A. (2013). Identification and removal of misconceptions on optimization concepts underlying greedy algorithms. Journal of Research and Practice in IT, 45(3/4), 203–217. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.905299985310841 · DOI
  90. 10.1145/3304221.3319749 · DOI
  91. 10.1109/FIE44824.2020.9273920 · DOI
  92. 10.1145/3641554.3701937 · DOI
  93. 10.4018/978-1-4666-7304-5.ch004 · DOI
  94. 10.1145/2899415.2899450 · DOI
  95. 10.1109/TE.2005.849746 · DOI
  96. 10.3847/AER2010024 · DOI
  97. 10.1145/3470654 · DOI
  98. 10.1145/2839509.2844629 · DOI
  99. 10.1109/FIE.2017.8190459 · DOI
  100. 10.18260/1-2--43574 · DOI
  101. 10.1109/FIE44824.2020.9273941 · DOI
  102. 10.1145/3283071 · DOI
  103. 10.1145/3159450.3159528 · DOI
  104. 10.1145/3230977.3231005 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Tilanterä, A., & Korhonen, A.
Affiliations
Aalto University (FI)
Corresponding author
Tilanterä, Artturi
ORCID
Venue
Computer Science Education
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2026-03-08
Pages
1-31
ISSN
  • 0899-3408 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-5175
DOI
10.1080/08993408.2026.2633989
OpenAlex
W7134202027
Cited by
1
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
1.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Computer Science Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Aaltodoc (Aalto University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistics Education and Methodologies
Keywords
data structures and algorithms, misconceptions, concept inventory, student mental models, recursion, pedagogical content knowledge, programming education

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