Cited by 226Teaching and Learning ProgrammingInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsProblem and Project Based Learning

Programming, Problem Solving, and Self-Awareness: Effects of Explicit Guidance

Open access
Loksa, Dastyni, Ko, Amy J., Jernigan, Will, Oleson, Alannah, Mendez, Christopher J., Burnett, Margaret M.·2016·Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

More people are learning to code than ever, but most learning opportunities do not explicitly teach the problem solving skills necessary to succeed at open-ended programming problems. In this paper, we present a new approach to impart these skills, consisting of: 1) explicit instruction on programming problem solving, which frames coding as a process of translating mental representations of problems and solutions into source code, 2) a method of visualizing and monitoring progression through six problem solving stages, 3) explicit, on-demand prompts for learners to reflect on their strategies when seeking help from instructors, and 4) context-sensitive help embedded in a code editor that reinforces the problem solving instruction. We experimentally evaluated the effects of our intervention across two 2-week web development summer camps with 48 high school students, finding that the intervention increased productivity, independence, programming self-efficacy, metacognitive awareness, and growth mindset. We discuss the implications of these results on learning technologies and classroom instruction.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2858036.2858252

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Metacognitive capabilities-specifically, an ability to maintain agency and critical judgment when presented with external solutions-are essential to the effective use of GenAI for programming.

    “This growing body of evidence underscores the importance of metacognitive capabilities-specifically, an ability to maintain agency and critical judgment when presented with external solutions-as essential to the effective use of GenAI for programming.”

    From The Effects of GitHub Copilot on Computing Students' Programming Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Processes in Brownfield Coding Tasks (2025) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Introduction says metacognitive awareness matters for learning to code, and the Discussion and Future Work section links recognizing effective and ineffective strategies to more independent problem solving. The paper studies introductory programming with instructional prompts and hints; it does not establish that maintaining agency and critical judgment over GenAI-generated solutions is essential to using GenAI effectively. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [24]24. M. Havenga, 2011. Problem-solving processes in computer programming: a case study." In Southern African Computer Lecturers' Association (SACLA) Conference Proceedings, 91-99.
  2. [26]26. Learning Programming #chi4good, CHI 2016, San Jose, CA, USA
  3. [50]50. Learning Programming #chi4good, CHI 2016, San Jose, CA, USA
  4. [53]53. Robert H. Sloan and Patrick Troy. 2008. CS 0.5: a better approach to introductory computer science for majors. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40, 1: 271-275.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Loksa, D., Ko, A. J., Jernigan, W., Oleson, A., Mendez, C. J., & Burnett, M. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA
  • Oregon State University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2016-05-07
Pages
1449-1461
OpenAlex
W2407505401
Cited by
223
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 1
FWCI
20.48
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1240786, 1314399, 1153625)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
Keywords
programming problem solving, self-awareness, metacognition, growth mindset, programming self-efficacy, problem-solving stages, context-sensitive help, high school students, learner autonomy, 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