Cited by 118Teaching and Learning ProgrammingLogic, programming, and type systemsStatistics Education and Methodologies

Further evidence of a relationship between explaining, tracing and writing skills in introductory programming

Open access
Lister, Raymond, Fidge, Colin, Teague, Donna·2009·Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education

Abstract

This paper reports on a replication of earlier studies into a possible hierarchy of programming skills. In this study, the students from whom data was collected were at a university that had not provided data for earlier studies. Also, the students were taught the programming language Python, which had not been used in earlier studies. Thus this study serves as a test of whether the findings in the earlier studies were specific to certain institutions, student cohorts, and programming languages. Also, we used a non–parametric approach to the analysis, rather than the linear approach of earlier studies. Our results are consistent with the earlier studies. We found that students who cannot trace code usually cannot explain code, and also that students who tend to perform reasonably well at code writing tasks have also usually acquired the ability to both trace code and explain code.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/1562877.1562930

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Prior work in introductory programming has shown that code-reading and tracing skills are essential to problem-solving activities including code-writing.

    “Prior work in introductory programming has shown that code-reading and tracing skills are essential to problem-solving activities including code-writing [49,55,57].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lister, R., Fidge, C., & Teague, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Technology Sydney (AU)
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
Venue
Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education
Publisher
ACM
Published
2009-07-06
Pages
161-165
OpenAlex
W2071792242
Cited by
118
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.87
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE) (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, programming, and type systems
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistics Education and Methodologies
Keywords
programming skills, code tracing, code explanation, writing software, skill hierarchy, introductory programming, Python, replication study, non-parametric analysis

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