Cited by 89Teaching and Learning ProgrammingSoftware Engineering ResearchStatistics Education and Methodologies

Investigating novice programming mistakes: educator beliefs vs. student data

Brown, Neil C.C., Altadmri, Amjad·2014·Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on International computing education research

Abstract

Educators often form opinions on which programming mistakes novices make most often - for example, in Java: "they always confuse equality with assignment", or "they always call methods with the wrong types". These opinions are generally based solely on personal experience. We report a study to determine if programming educators form a consensus about which Java programming mistakes are the most common. We used the Blackbox data set to check whether the educators' opinions matched data from over 100,000 students - and checked whether this agreement was mediated by educators' experience. We found that educators formed only a weak consensus about which mistakes are most frequent, that their rankings bore only a moderate correspondence to the students in the Blackbox data, and that educators' experience had no effect on this level of agreement. These results raise questions about claims educators make regarding which errors students are most likely to commit.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2632320.2632343

Cites

21 of 21 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?

  • Prior research such as the reported mismatch between educators' beliefs about students' mistakes and logged data about mistakes might be explained in part by students asking for help from educators only when they really need help, which might differ from how they employ automated systems.

    “prior research such as the reported mismatch between educators' beliefs about students' mistakes and logged data about mistakes [9] might be explained in part by students asking for help from educators only when they really need help, which might differ from how they employ automated systems.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 22 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brown, N. C. C., & Altadmri, A.
Affiliations
University of Kent (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on International computing education research
Publisher
ACM
Published
2014-07-28
Pages
43-50
OpenAlex
W2013831574
Cited by
89
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 2
FWCI
5.92
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER) (publishedVersion)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistics Education and Methodologies
Keywords
coding errors, Java, programmer experience, error rate, programming education, method calls

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