The Impact of Training Method on Programming Learning Performance

Authors: Chechen Liao, Chin Yi Yang

Abstract:

Although several factors that affect learning to program have been identified over the years, there continues to be no indication of any consensus in understanding why some students learn to program easily and quickly while others have difficulty. Seldom have researchers considered the problem of how to help the students enhance the programming learning outcome. The research had been conducted at a high school in Taiwan. Students participating in the study consist of 330 tenth grade students enrolled in the Basic Computer Concepts course with the same instructor. Two types of training methods-instruction-oriented and exploration-oriented were conducted. The result of this research shows that the instruction-oriented training method has better learning performance than exploration-oriented training method.

Keywords: Learning performance, programming learning, TDD, training method.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1094072

References:

[1] A. Robins, J. Rountree, and N. Rountree "Learning and teaching programming: a review and discussion,” Computer Science Education, (33-2), 2003, pp. 137-172.
[2] J. Tony "The Motivation of students of programming,” ACM SIGCSE, (33:3), 2001, pp. 53-56.
[3] A. Goold, and R. Russell "Factors affecting performance in first-year computing,” SIGCSE Bull., (32:2), 2000, pp. 39-43.
[4] P. Byrne, and G. Lyons "The effect of student attributes on success in programming,” ITiCSE: Proceedings of the 6th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science. ACM press, 2001, pp. 49-52.
[5] B. Susan, and R. Ronan "Programming: factors that influence success,” Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 2005.
[6] D. Christopher, L. David, and O. James "Automatic test-based assessment of programming: areview,”ACM Journal of Educational Resources in Computing, (5:3), September 2005, Article 4.
[7] L. David, and O. James "Automatic test-based assessment of programming: a review,” ACM Journal of Educational Resources in Computing, (5:3), September 2005, Article 4.
[8] L. R. Chien, D. J. Buehrer, and C. Y. Yang, "DICE, a Parse-Tree based on-line assessment system for a programming language course,” The Third Conference on Computer and Network Technology, 2007.
[9] R.P. Bostrom, L. Olfman, and M. K. Sein, "The importance of learning style in end-user training,” MIS Quarterly, (14:1), 1990, pp. 101-119
[10] D.P. Ausubel, The psychology of meaningful verbal learning, New York, Grune and Stratton, 1963.
[11] S.D. Davis, "Training novice users of computer systems: the roles of the computer interface,” Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University Bloomingtom, IN, 1989.
[12] H.W. Chou, and T.B. Wang "The influence of learning style and training method on self-efficacy and learning outcome in WWW homepage design training,” International Journal of Information Management, (20:6), December 2000, pp.455-472.
[13] H. W. Chou, "Influences of cognitive style and training method on training effectiveness,” Computers and Education, (37:1), 2001, pp. 11-25.
[14] J. Bruner, Toward a Theory of Instruction, New York: W. W. Norton, 1966.
[15] H. Taba, "Learning by discovery: psychological and educational rationale,” The Elementary School Journal, (63:6), 1963, pp. 308-316.
[16] J. Brynda, "End user training: lend me your ear, I will teach you a PC package,” Computing Canada, (18:1), 1992, pp. 48.
[17] A. P. Goldstein, and M. A. Sorcher, Changing Supervisor Behavior, New York: Pergamon, 1974.
[18] D. A. Norman, "Some observations on mental models” in Mental Models, A.L. Stevens and D. Genter (ends.), Lawrence Kawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1983, pp. 7-14.
[19] K. Beck, Test Driven Development: By Example, Addison-Wesley, 2003
[20] C.G. Jones, "Test-driven development goes to school," Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, Vol. 20, 2004, pp. 220-231.
[21] S. H. Edwards, "Teaching software testing: automatic grading meets test-first coding.” In Proceedings of the OOPSLA’03 Conference. Poster presentation, 2003, 318-319.
[22] B. S. Bloom, M. D. Englehart, E.J. Furst, W.H. Hill, and D. R. Krathwohl, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Claasification of Educational Goal. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New Work: MaKay, 1956.
[23] D.R. Krathwohl, B. S. Bloom, and B. B. Masia, Taxonomy of educational objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 2: Affective Domain. New York: McKay, 1964.
[24] E.J. Simpson, "The Classification of Educational Objectives, Psychomotor Domain,” Illinois Teacher Home Economics, 1966, 10, pp. 110-144.
[25] B. S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: the Classification of Educational Goals. Longman, New York, 1984.
[26] S. Gupta, and R.P. Bostrom "End-user training methods: what we know, need to know,” Proceedings of 2006 SIGMIS CPR Conference, 2006, pp. 172-182.