Strategies for Computer-Based Programming Instruction: Program Completion vs. Program Generation
Abstract
Two instructional strategies were implemented in a two-and-a-half hour computer-based training program that was designed to teach elementary turtle graphics programming techniques to novice undergraduate students ( N = 40). Learning activities that either emphasized the completion of existing programs or the generation of new programs were studied for the two strategies. In the completion group, the information needed to perform the program completion tasks appeared to be largely available in the to-be-completed programs; in the generation group, students frequently had to search for useful examples while they were performing their program generation tasks. It is hypothesized that during practice, the direct availability of examples in the form of incomplete computer programs facilitates the acquisition of programming language templates, especially because students cannot complete a program without carefully studying it so that “mindful abstraction” is explicitly provoked. Data in this study on learning outcomes support this hypothesis: the completion group showed a superior use of programming language templates in both a program construction test and a multiple choice test that measured the knowledge of language statements.
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?
Few studies have specifically compared WEs to traditional problem solving, especially in novice programming environments.
“Though a number of studies have explored the impact of WEs in the domain of programming [2,3,12,14,[22][23][24], few of these studies have specifically compared WEs to traditional problem solving [22], especially in novice programming environments [23].”
From Exploring the Impact of Worked Examples in a Novice Programming Environment (2019) · cites this paper as [23]
Merriënboer and Croock found that incomplete worked examples improved novice's programming performance and post-test scores, compared with those who only had the worked examples as a reference.
“Merriënboer and Croock found that incomplete WEs, in which students are given part of a WE and asked to complete the rest, improved novice's programming performance and post-test scores, compared with those who only had the WEs as a reference [23].”
From Exploring the Impact of Worked Examples in a Novice Programming Environment (2019) · cites this paper as [23]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 16 · Cited by 207
- Authors
- Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & De Croock, M. B. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Twente, The Netherlands
- Venue
- Journal of Educational Computing Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1992-08
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 365-394
- ISSN
- 0735-6331 (ISSN-L)
- 1541-4140
- OpenAlex
- W1993693161
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 24.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Educational Computing Research (publishedVersion)
- University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion)
- University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- programming instruction, program completion, code generation, turtle graphics, novice programmers, computer-based training
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