research-article

Programming Misconceptions in an Introductory Level Programming Course Exam

Authors:

Einari Kurvinen,

Mikko-Jussi Laakso,

Tapio SalakoskiAuthors Info & Claims

ITiCSE '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

Pages 308 - 313

https://doi.org/10.1145/2899415.2899447

Published: 11 July 2016 Publication History

Abstract

Learning to program is known to be a difficult task, as the students typically lack the intrinsic motivation and find the new skills required difficult to master. It is hence typical for the educators to try to constantly improve their teaching methods to enhance the quality and outcome of the courses. We have developed an educational tool called ViLLE, which allows us to create interactive and automatically assessed programming exercises easily. In these exercises, the students have a near-to-authentic programming environment with compiler output and error messages provided. The same tool was used in our university's introductory programming course's final exam. In this paper, we analyze students' answers to three different coding exercises in this final exam. Since ViLLE automatically stores the program code when compiled, we have an access to previously unseen amounts of iterations of the exercise instead of just the final submission. The data is analyzed to identify typical misconceptions in programming exercises, and to show how the students gradually improve their answers based on the results and error messages. Finally, we discuss how the results of the analysis can be utilized to tackle these misconceptions during the course.

References

[1]

L. Ma, J. Ferguson, M. Roper and M. Wood, "Investigating the Viability of Mental Models Held by Novice Programmers," Covington, Kentucky, 2007.

[2]

K. Goldman, P. Gross, C. Heeren, G. Herman, L. Kaczmarczyk, M. C. Loui and C. Zilles, "Identifying Important and Difficult Concepts in Introductory Computing Courses using a Delphi Process," in SIGCSE, Portland, Oregon, 2008.

Digital Library

[3]

L. C. Kaczmarczyk, E. R. Petrick, J. P. East and G. L. Herman, "Identifying Student Misconceptions of Programming," in SIGCSE, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2010.

Digital Library

[4]

M. Hristova, A. Misra, M. Rutter and R. Mercuri, "Identifying and Correcting Java Programming Errors," in SIGCSE, Reno, Nevada, 2003.

Digital Library

[5]

C.-L. Chen, S.-Y. Cheng and J. M.-C. Lin, "A Study of Misconceptions and Missing Conceptions of Novice Java Programmers," Las Vegas, 2012.

[6]

T. Sirkiä and J. Sorva, "Exploring Programming Misconceptions," in Koli Calling, Tahko, 2012.

Digital Library

[7]

T. Sirkiä, "Recognizing Programming Misconceptions," Aalto University, Espoo, 2012.

[8]

E. Lahtinen, K. Ala-Mutka and H.-M. Järvinen, "A Study of the Difficulties of Novice Programmers," in ITiCSE, Monte de Caparica, 2005.

Digital Library

[9]

E. Kaila, T. Rajala, M.-J. Laakso, R. Lindén, E. Kurvinen, V. Karavirta and T. Salakoski, "Comparing student performance between traditional and technologically enhanced programming course," Sydney, 2015.

[10]

L. Malmi, A. Korhonen and R. Saikkonen, "Experiences in Automatic Assessment on Mass Courses and Issues for Designing Virtual Courses," Aarhus, 2002.

[11]

D. Parsons and P. Haden, "Parson's Programming Puzzles: A Fun and Effective Learning Tool for First Programming Courses," Hobart, 2006.

[12]

M.-J. Laakso, E. Kaila and T. Rajala, ViLLE: designing and utilizing a collaborative exercise-based education tool, Sent to Computers & Education, 2014.

[13]

E. Lokkila, E. Kaila, V. Karavirta, T. Salakoski and M.-J. Laakso, "Redesigning Introductory Computer Science Courses to Use Tutorial-Based Learning," Zagreb, 2015.

[14]

S. Willman, R. Lindén, E. Kaila, T. Rajala, M.-J. Laakso and T. Salakoski, On study habits on an introductory course on programming, 2015.

[15]

J. Holvitie, T. Rajala, R. Haavisto, E. Kaila, M.-J. Laakso and T. Salakoski, "Breaking the Programming Language Barrier: Using Program Visualizations to Transfer Programming Knowledge in One Programming Language to Another," Rome, 2012.

[16]

D. McCall and M. Kölling, "Meaningful Categorisation of Novice Programmer Errors," in IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings, Madrid, Spain, 2014.

Cited By

Sychev ODenisov M(2023)Explain Trace: Misconceptions of Control-Flow StatementsComputers10.3390/computers1210019212:10(192)Online publication date: 24-Sep-2023
https://doi.org/10.3390/computers12100192
Jell LList CKipp M(2023)Towards Automated Interactive Tutoring - Focussing on Misconceptions and Adaptive Level-Specific FeedbackProceedings of the 5th European Conference on Software Engineering Education10.1145/3593663.3593692(226-235)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3593663.3593692
Mazumder SPérez-Quiñones M(2023)Incoming CS1 Students' Misconceptions on Arrays2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10342927(1-9)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10342927
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Programming Misconceptions in an Introductory Level Programming Course Exam
1. Applied computing
  1. Education
    1. E-learning
    2. Interactive learning environments
2. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education

Recommendations

A Curated Inventory of Programming Language Misconceptions
ITiCSE '21: Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1

Knowledge about misconceptions is an important element of pedagogical content knowledge. The computing education research community collected a large body of research on misconceptions, using a diverse set of definitions and approaches. Inspired by this ...
Students’ Misconceptions and Other Difficulties in Introductory Programming: A Literature Review

Efforts to improve computer science education are underway, and teachers of computer science are challenged in introductory programming courses to help learners develop their understanding of programming and computer science. Identifying and addressing ...
Notional machines and introductory programming education

This article brings together, summarizes, and comments on several threads of research that have contributed to our understanding of the challenges that novice programmers face when learning about the runtime dynamics of programs and the role of the ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

ITiCSE '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

July 2016

394 pages

ISBN:9781450342315

DOI:10.1145/2899415

General Chairs:
Alison Clear
Eastern Institute of Technology, New Zealand
,
Ernesto Cuadros-Vargas
San Pablo Catholic University, Peru
,
Program Chairs:
Janet Carter
University of Kent, UK
,
Yvan Tupac
San Pablo Catholic University, Peru

Copyright © 2016 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Bilkent University: Bilkent University
SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 11 July 2016

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

ITiCSE '16

Sponsor:

Bilkent University
SIGCSE

ITiCSE '16: Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Conference 2016

July 11 - 13, 2016

Arequipa, Peru

Acceptance Rates

ITiCSE '16 Paper Acceptance Rate 56 of 147 submissions, 38%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 552 of 1,613 submissions, 34%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

18
Total Citations
View Citations
704
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)55
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5

Reflects downloads up to 27 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Sychev ODenisov M(2023)Explain Trace: Misconceptions of Control-Flow StatementsComputers10.3390/computers1210019212:10(192)Online publication date: 24-Sep-2023
https://doi.org/10.3390/computers12100192
Jell LList CKipp M(2023)Towards Automated Interactive Tutoring - Focussing on Misconceptions and Adaptive Level-Specific FeedbackProceedings of the 5th European Conference on Software Engineering Education10.1145/3593663.3593692(226-235)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3593663.3593692
Mazumder SPérez-Quiñones M(2023)Incoming CS1 Students' Misconceptions on Arrays2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10342927(1-9)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10342927
Adamoli A(2023)An Agile Concept Inventory Methodology to Detect Large Sets of Student Misconceptions in Programming Language CoursesResponsive and Sustainable Educational Futures10.1007/978-3-031-42682-7_1(1-15)Online publication date: 28-Aug-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42682-7_1
Carreira GSilva LMendes AOliveira H(2022)Pyo, a Chatbot Assistant for Introductory Programming Students2022 International Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE)10.1109/SIIE56031.2022.9982349(1-6)Online publication date: 17-Nov-2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/SIIE56031.2022.9982349
Whalley JSettle ALuxton-Reilly A(2021)Analysis of a Process for Introductory DebuggingProceedings of the 23rd Australasian Computing Education Conference10.1145/3441636.3442300(11-20)Online publication date: 2-Feb-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3441636.3442300
Nelson GStrömbäck FKorhonen ABegum MBlamey BJin KLonati VMacKellar BMonga MRößling GKrogstie BGiannakos MSindre GLuxton-Reilly ADivitini M(2020)Differentiated Assessments for Advanced Courses that Reveal Issues with Prerequisite SkillsProceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education10.1145/3437800.3439204(75-129)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3437800.3439204
Hazzan ORagonis NLapidot THazzan ORagonis NLapidot T(2020)Research in Computer Science EducationGuide to Teaching Computer Science10.1007/978-3-030-39360-1_7(119-142)Online publication date: 6-Aug-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39360-1_7
Rytkönen AVirtakoivu VIhantola PFalkner N(2019)Comparative Student Experiences on Electronic Examining in a Programming Course - Case CProceedings of the 19th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3364510.3364522(1-10)Online publication date: 21-Nov-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3364510.3364522
Caceffo RFrank-Bolton PSouza RAzevedo RScharlau BMcDermott RPears ASabin M(2019)Identifying and Validating Java Misconceptions Toward a CS1 Concept InventoryProceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education10.1145/3304221.3319771(23-29)Online publication date: 2-Jul-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3304221.3319771
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents