A multi-national study of reading and tracing skills in novice programmers
Abstract
A study by a ITiCSE 2001 working group ("the McCracken Group") established that many students do not know how to program at the conclusion of their introductory courses. A popular explanation for this incapacity is that the students lack the ability to problem-solve. That is, they lack the ability to take a problem description, decompose it into sub-problems and implement them, then assemble the pieces into a complete solution. An alternative explanation is that many students have a fragile grasp of both basic programming principles and the ability to systematically carry out routine programming tasks, such as tracing (or "desk checking") through code. This ITiCSE 2004 working group studied the alternative explanation, by testing students from seven countries, in two ways. First, students were tested on their ability to predict the outcome of executing a short piece of code. Second, students were tested on their ability, when given the desired function of short piece of near-complete code, to select the correct completion of the code from a small set of possibilities. Many students were weak at these tasks, especially the latter task, suggesting that such students have a fragile grasp of skills that are a prerequisite for problem-solving.
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.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Robots Are Here: Navigating the Generative AI Revolution in Computing Education
Prather, J., Denny, P., Leinonen, J., Becker, B. A., Albluwi, I., Craig, M., Keuning, H., Kiesler, N., Kohn, T., Luxton-Reilly, A., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education · doi:10.1145/3623762.3633499 · Cited by 396 · 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
Identifying computer science self-regulated learning strategies
Falkner, K., Vivian, R., & Falkner, N. J. G. (2014) · Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science education - ITiCSE '14 · doi:10.1145/2591708.2591715 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Evaluating the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Adaptive Parsons Problems
Ericson, B. J., Foley, J. D., & Rick, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research · doi:10.1145/3230977.3231000 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Towards an Analysis of Program Complexity From a Cognitive Perspective
Duran, R., Sorva, J., & Leite, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research · doi:10.1145/3230977.3230986 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Introducing and Evaluating Exam Wrappers in CS2
Craig, M., Horton, D., Zingaro, D., & Heap, D. (2016) · Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education · doi:10.1145/2839509.2844561 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Computing Education Research Today
Fincher, S. A., Tenenberg, J., Dorn, B., Hundhausen, C., McCartney, R., & Murphy, L. (2019) · The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research · doi:10.1017/9781108654555.003 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Lister, R., Adams, E. S., Fitzgerald, S., Fone, W., Hamer, J., Lindholm, M., McCartney, R., Moström, J. E., Sanders, K., Seppälä, O., Simon, B., & Thomas, L.
- Venue
- ACM SIGCSE Bulletin
- Published
- 2004-06-28
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 119-150
- ISSN
- 0097-8418
- Cited by
- 284
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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