Comparing and contrasting different algorithms leads to increased student learning
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
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?
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].”
From Exploring the Impact of Worked Examples in a Novice Programming Environment (2019) · cites this paper as [13]
Cites
Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought
de Jong, T. (2010) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0 · Cited by 1,180 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Exploring the Impact of Worked Examples in a Novice Programming Environment
Zhi, R., Price, T. W., Marwan, S., Milliken, A., Barnes, T., & Chi, M. (2019) · Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education · doi:10.1145/3287324.3287385 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
- 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