CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 295Teaching and Learning ProgrammingLogic, programming, and type systemsSoftware Engineering Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 84 of the 84 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An Empirical Investigation into Programming Language Syntax

Stefik, Andreas, Siebert, Susanna·2013·ACM Transactions on Computing Education
DOI 10.1145/2534973
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent studies in the literature have shown that syntax remains a significant barrier to novice computer science students in the field. While this syntax barrier is known to exist, whether and how it varies across programming languages has not been carefully investigated. For this article, we conducted four empirical studies on programming language syntax as part of a larger analysis into the, so called, programming language wars. We first present two surveys conducted with students on the intuitiveness of syntax, which we used to garner formative clues on what words and symbols might be easy for novices to understand. We followed up with two studies on the accuracy rates of novices using a total of six programming languages: Ruby, Java, Perl, Python, Randomo, and Quorum. Randomo was designed by randomly choosing some keywords from the ASCII table (a metaphorical placebo). To our surprise, we found that languages using a more traditional C-style syntax (both Perl and Java) did not afford accuracy rates significantly higher than a language with randomly generated keywords, but that languages which deviate (Quorum, Python, and Ruby) did. These results, including the specifics of syntax that are particularly problematic for novices, may help teachers of introductory programming courses in choosing appropriate first languages and in helping students to overcome the challenges they face with syntax.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2534973

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 84 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Binkley D., Proceedings of the IEEE 17th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC’09)
  2. 10.5555/646147.679038 · DOI
  3. Brown M. H., Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Visual Languages (VL’91)
  4. Delorey D. P., 2009, Proceedings of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group Conference (PPIG
  5. Feigenspan J., Proceedings of the IEEE 20th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC’12)
  6. Kleinschmager S., Proceedings of the IEEE 20th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC’12)
  7. Pennington N., 1987, Empirical Studies of Programmers: Second Workshop, G. M. Olson, S. Sheppard, E. Soloway, and B. Shneiderman Eds., Greenwood Publishing Group Inc., 100--113
  8. Stefik A., Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC’09)
  9. Vogt W. P., Quantitative Research Methods for Professionals in Education and Other Fields

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–292 of 292

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Stefik, A., & Siebert, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Nevada, Las Vegas (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
ORCID
Stefik, Andreas
Venue
ACM Transactions on Computing Education
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Published
2013-11
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
1-40
ISSN
1946-6226 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1145/2534973
OpenAlex
W2157148654
Cited by
295
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 2
FWCI
25.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
ACM Transactions on Computing Education (publishedVersion)
Funders
Division of Computer and Network Systems (CNS-0940521)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Logic, programming, and type systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
Keywords
programming language syntax, novice programmers, quorum, Python, ruby, Java, Perl, introductory programming

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