Cited by 26Teaching and Learning ProgrammingVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesStatistics Education and Methodologies

Comparing and contrasting different algorithms leads to increased student learning

Patitsas, Elizabeth, Craig, Michelle, Easterbrook, Steve·2013·Proceedings of the ninth annual international ACM conference on International computing education research

Abstract

Comparing and contrasting different solution approaches is known in math education and cognitive science to increase student learning -- what about CS? In this experiment, we replicated work from Rittle-Johnson and Star, using a pretest--intervention--posttest--follow-up design (n=241). Our intervention was an in-class workbook in CS2. A randomized half of students received questions in a compare-and-contrast style, seeing different code for different algorithms in parallel. The other half saw the same code questions sequentially, and evaluated them one at a time. Students in the former group performed better with regard to procedural knowledge (code reading & writing), and flexibility (generating, recognizing & evaluating multiple ways to solve a problem). The two groups performed equally on conceptual knowledge. Our results agree with those of Rittle-Johnson and Star, indicating that the existing work in this area generalizes to CS education.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2493394.2493409

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

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Patitsas et al. found that students in the comparing and contrasting condition showed greater learning gains for procedural knowledge and flexibility than students in the worked example condition.

    “They found that students in the comparing and contrasting condition showed greater learning gains for procedural knowledge and flexibility than students in the WE condition [13].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Patitsas, E., Craig, M., & Easterbrook, S.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
Proceedings of the ninth annual international ACM conference on International computing education research
Publisher
ACM
Published
2013-08-12
Pages
145-152
OpenAlex
W2003126661
Cited by
26
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.23
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistics Education and Methodologies
Keywords
algorithmic thinking, carbon disulfide, procedural knowledge, conceptual 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