Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Students’ Conceptions of Programming in the Context of Game Design

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Digital Transformation of Education and Learning - Past, Present and Future (OCCE 2021)

Part of the book series: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology ((IFIPAICT,volume 642))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 929 Accesses

Abstract

Several attempts have been made to understand novice programmers’ difficulties and misconceptions in introductory programming. Most studies in the field of students’ conceptions of (object-oriented) programming have only focused on identifying (mis-)conceptions without including popular contexts like game design. Since digital games are an important part of students’ everyday life, exploring students’ conceptions of digital games and their programming may give some recognisable patterns which might be helpful for teaching. This paper presents a brief overview of an empirical qualitative pilot study with the aim to investigate undergraduate students’ conceptions of (object-oriented) programming in the context of the game Tetris®. For this study, we interviewed four students who were 19 to 21 years old, and analysed the transcripts using qualitative text analysis. Moreover, an online survey provided qualitative data from 25 participants. The first findings show that students’ conceptions are based on the rules of the game, and first indications about influence factors could be found. As a result of these investigations, implications were made for the future main study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    “one of the best-selling video game franchises of all time” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetris].

  2. 2.

    The course OOP 1 (based on objects-later) has started in October 2020, so the students have attended the course already for 3–4 weeks.

  3. 3.

    See Appendix A.

  4. 4.

    https://save-society.org/browser-game/tetris/.

  5. 5.

    In the following text the quoted person is written in square brackets after the quotation.

References

  1. Qian, Y., Lehman, J.: Students’ misconceptions and other difficulties in introductory programming. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 18(1), 1–24 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., Kattmann, U., Komorek, M., Parchmann, I.: The model of educational reconstruction – a framework for improving teaching and learning science1. In: Jorde, D., Dillon, J. (eds.) Science Education Research and Practice in Europe, pp. 13–37. SensePublishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands, Cultural Perpectives in Science Education (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Diethelm, I., Hubwieser, P., Klaus, R.: Students, teachers and phenomena: Educational reconstruction for computer science education. In: Laakso, M.J., McCartney, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research - Koli Calling 2012, pp. 164–173. ACM Press, New York, NY (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Eckerdal, A., Thunè, M., Berglund, A.: What does it take to learn ‘programming thinking’? In: Anderson, R., Fincher, S.A., Guzdial, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1st International Computing Education Research Workshop, pp. 135–142. ACM Press, New York, NY (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Holland, S., Griffiths, R., Woodman, M.: Avoiding object misconceptions. SIGCSE Bull. 29(1), 131–134 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Noa, R., Ronit, S.: A diagnostic tool for assessing students’ perceptions and misconceptions regards the current object “this.” In: Pozdniakov, S.N., Dagienė, V. (eds.) ISSEP 2018. LNCS, vol. 11169, pp. 84–100. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02750-6_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Shmallo, R., Ragonis, N.: Understanding the “this” reference in object oriented programming: misconceptions, conceptions, and teaching recommendations. Educ. Inf. Technol. 26(1), 733–762 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10265-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sorva, J.: Students’ understandings of storing objects. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research, Koli Calling 2007, vol. 88, pp. 127–135. Australian Computer Society, Melbourne, VIC (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sajaniemi, J., Kuittinen, M., Tikansalo, T.: A study of the development of students’ visualizations of program state during an elementary object-oriented programming course. J. Educ. Resour. Comput. 7(4), 1–31 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1145/1316450.1316453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sorva, J.: The same but different students’ understandings of primitive and ob ject variables. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computing Education Research, Koli 2008, pp. 5–15. ACM, New York, NY (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Xinogalos, S.: Object-oriented design and programming: an investigation of novices’ conceptions on objects and classes. Trans. Comput. Educ. 15(3), 13:1-13:21 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ragonis, N., Ben-Ari, M.: A long-term investigation of the comprehension of OOP concepts by novices. Comput. Sci. Educ. 15(3), 203–221 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sanders, K., et al.: Student understanding of object-oriented programming as expressed in concept maps. In: Dougherty, J.D., Rodger, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. p. 332. ACM Press, New York, NY (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Teif, M., Hazzan, O.: Partonomy and taxonomy in object-oriented thinking. In: Unknown (ed.) Working Group Reports on ITICSE on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, p. 55. ACM, New York, NY (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Overmars, M.: Teaching computer science through game design. Computer 37(4), 81–83 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rais, A.E., Sulaiman, S., Syed-Mohamad, S.M.: Game-based approach and its feasibility to support the learning of object-oriented concepts and programming. In: Harun, M.F. (ed.) 5th Malaysian Conference in Software Engineering (MySEC), 2011, pp. 307–312. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wong, Y.S., Yatim, M.H.M., Tan, W.H.: Use computer game to learn object- oriented programming in computer science courses. In: IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2014, pp. 9–16. IEEE, 3–5 April 2014

    Google Scholar 

  18. Xinogalos, S., Satratzemi, M., Malliarakis, C.: Microworlds, games, animations, mobile apps, puzzle editors and more: what is important for an introductory programming environment? Educ. Inf. Technol. 22(1), 145–176 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9433-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Denner, J., Campe, S., Werner, L.: Does computer game design and programming benefit children? A meta-synthesis of research. Trans. Comput. Educ. 19(3), 1–35 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Troiano, G.M., et al.: Exploring how game genre in student- designed games influences computational thinking development. In: Bernhaupt, R., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–17. ACM, New York, NY (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kuckartz, U., Radiker, S.: Analyzing Qualitative Data with MAXQDA: Text, Audio, and Video. Springer, Cham, Switzerland (2019)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Armstrong, D.J.: The quarks of object-oriented development. Commun. ACM 49(2), 123–128 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computing Education Research Group, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45127, Essen, Germany

    Fatma Batur & Torsten Brinda

Authors
  1. Fatma Batur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Torsten Brinda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fatma Batur .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

    Don Passey

  2. Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

    Denise Leahy

  3. Technology, Pedagogy and Education Association, London, UK

    Lawrence Williams

  4. Samtaim Ltd., Helsinki, Finland

    Jaana Holvikivi

  5. University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland

    Mikko Ruohonen

Appendices

A Interview Guideline

The questions of part I will be asked on the different survey dates recurrently, whereas part II will be asked just the first time.

Part I - Game Design:

  1. 1.

    What do you associate with the term “programming”?

  2. 2.

    Play the game Tetris®.

  3. 3.

    Do you know this game? How would you explain it to a friend? What is the goal of the game?

  4. 4.

    How would you describe the different parts of the game? Which function could they have?

  5. 5.

    How would you program this game? Please describe a possible approach by drawing or writing your ideas.

    • Which function could have the playing field?

    • How could the controls work?

    • How does the game start or end? Can you describe it in detail?

  6. 6.

    Additional: Which expansion could you imagine for this game? How could you implement it/them?

  7. 7.

    Later on: Which topics of the class have caused the change of your conception(s)/idea(s)? Was there anything in particular that helped you construct this new understanding?

  8. 8.

    What features and content of the learning materials presented in the class did you find beneficial to your understandings of programming concepts? How did it (they) help your learning experience?

  9. 9.

    So far, how would you evaluate your programming skills? Choose a number between 0 for very low and 10 for very high.

Part II - Individual Background:

  1. 1.

    Do you play digital games in your free time? If yes, how often and with which devices?

  2. 2.

    Do you have any experience in programming? Have you ever had any CS classes or programming courses?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Batur, F., Brinda, T. (2022). Students’ Conceptions of Programming in the Context of Game Design. In: Passey, D., Leahy, D., Williams, L., Holvikivi, J., Ruohonen, M. (eds) Digital Transformation of Education and Learning - Past, Present and Future. OCCE 2021. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 642. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97986-7_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97986-7_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-97985-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-97986-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation