Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3328778.3366846acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Investigating Novices' In Situ Reflections on Their Programming Process

Published: 26 February 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Prior work on novice programmers' self-regulation have shown it to be inconsistent and shallow, but trainable through direct instruction. However, prior work has primarily studied self-regulation retrospectively, which relies on students to remember how they regulated their process, or in laboratory settings, limiting the ecological validity of findings. To address these limitations, we investigated 31 novice programmers' self-regulation in situ over 10 weeks. We had them to keep journals about their work and later had them to reflect on their journaling. Through a series of qualitative analyses of journals and survey responses, we found that all participants monitored their process and evaluated their work, that few interpreted the problems they were solving or adapted prior solutions. We also found that some students self-regulated their programming in many ways, while others in almost none. Students reported many difficulties integrating reflection into their work; some were completely unaware of their process, some struggled to integrate reflection into their process, and others found reflection conflicted with their work. These results suggest that self-regulation during programming is highly variable in practice, and that teaching self-regulation skills to improve programming outcomes may require differentiated instruction based on students self-awareness and existing programming practices.

References

[1]
Carl Martin Allwood. 1986. Novices on the computer: a review of the literature. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 25, 6 (1986), 633--658.
[2]
Susan Bergin, Ronan Reilly, and Desmond Traynor. 2005. Examining the role of self-regulated learning on introductory programming performance. In Proceedings of the first international workshop on Computing education research. ACM, 81--86.
[3]
Katerine Bielaczyc, Peter L Pirolli, and Ann L Brown. 1995. Training in selfexplanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and instruction 13, 2 (1995), 221--252.
[4]
Michelene TH Chi, Miriam Bassok, MatthewWLewis, Peter Reimann, and Robert Glaser. 1989. Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive science 13, 2 (1989), 145--182.
[5]
Ryan Chmiel and Michael C Loui. 2003. An integrated approach to instruction in debugging computer programs. Vol. 3. IEEE.
[6]
Katrina Falkner, Rebecca Vivian, and Nickolas JG Falkner. 2014. Identifying computer science self-regulated learning strategies. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science education. ACM, 291-- 296.
[7]
Zhexue Huang. 1997. A fast clustering algorithm to cluster very large categorical data sets in data mining. DMKD 3, 8 (1997), 34--39.
[8]
Facebook Inc. [n. d.]. React: A JavaScript library for building user interfaces. ([n. d.]). http://reactjs.org/
[9]
Paul Luo Li, Andrew J Ko, and Jiamin Zhu. 2015. What makes a great software engineer?. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering-Volume 1. IEEE Press, 700--710.
[10]
Soohyun Nam Liao, Sander Valstar, Kevin Thai, Christine Alvarado, Daniel Zingaro, William G. Griswold, and Leo Porter. 2019. Behaviors of Higher and Lower Performing Students in CS1. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 196--202. https://doi.org/10.1145/3304221.3319740
[11]
Dastyni Loksa and Andrew J Ko. 2016. The role of self-regulation in programming problem solving process and success. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM, 83--91.
[12]
Dastyni Loksa, Andrew J Ko, Will Jernigan, Alannah Oleson, Christopher J Mendez, and Margaret M Burnett. 2016. Programming, problem solving, and selfawareness: effects of explicit guidance. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1449--1461.
[13]
Briana B Morrison, Lauren E Margulieux, and Mark Guzdial. 2015. Subgoals, context, and worked examples in learning computing problem solving. In Proceedings of the eleventh annual international conference on international computing education research. ACM, 21--29.
[14]
Roy D Pea and D Midian Kurland. 1984. On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New ideas in psychology 2, 2 (1984), 137--168.
[15]
Marian Petre. 2009. Insights from expert software design practice. In Proceedings of the the 7th joint meeting of the European software engineering conference and the ACM SIGSOFT symposium on The foundations of software engineering. ACM, 233--242.
[16]
James Prather, Raymond Pettit, Brett A Becker, Paul Denny, Dastyni Loksa, Alani Peters, Zachary Albrecht, and Krista Masci. 2019. First Things First: Providing Metacognitive Scaffolding for Interpreting Problem Prompts. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 531--537.
[17]
R Keith Sawyer. 2006. The new science of learning. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences 1 (2006), 18.
[18]
Gregory Schraw. 1998. Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional science 26, 1--2 (1998), 113--125.
[19]
Judy Sheard, S Simon, Margaret Hamilton, and Jan Lönnberg. 2009. Analysis of research into the teaching and learning of programming. In Proceedings of the fifth international workshop on Computing education research workshop. ACM, 93--104.
[20]
David R Thomas. 2003. A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis. (2003).
[21]
Barry J Zimmerman. 2008. Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American educational research journal 45, 1 (2008), 166--183.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Novice programmers inaccurately monitor the quality of their work and their peers’ work in an introductory computer science courseProceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference10.1145/3636555.3636848(35-45)Online publication date: 18-Mar-2024
  • (2024)Scaffolding Novices: Analyzing When and How Parsons Problems Impact Novice Programming in an Integrated Science AssignmentProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3632620.3671110(42-54)Online publication date: 12-Aug-2024
  • (2024)Investigating Students' Usage of Self-regulation of Learning Scaffoldings in a Computer-based Programming Learning EnvironmentProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3626252.3630885(1244-1250)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Investigating Novices' In Situ Reflections on Their Programming Process

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SIGCSE '20: Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
    February 2020
    1502 pages
    ISBN:9781450367936
    DOI:10.1145/3328778
    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

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 26 February 2020

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. metacognition
    2. programming
    3. self-regulation

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    Conference

    SIGCSE '20
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,595 of 4,542 submissions, 35%

    Upcoming Conference

    SIGCSE Virtual 2024
    1st ACM Virtual Global Computing Education Conference
    December 5 - 8, 2024
    Virtual Event , NC , USA

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)150
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)17
    Reflects downloads up to 04 Oct 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Novice programmers inaccurately monitor the quality of their work and their peers’ work in an introductory computer science courseProceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference10.1145/3636555.3636848(35-45)Online publication date: 18-Mar-2024
    • (2024)Scaffolding Novices: Analyzing When and How Parsons Problems Impact Novice Programming in an Integrated Science AssignmentProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3632620.3671110(42-54)Online publication date: 12-Aug-2024
    • (2024)Investigating Students' Usage of Self-regulation of Learning Scaffoldings in a Computer-based Programming Learning EnvironmentProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3626252.3630885(1244-1250)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2024
    • (2024)The effects of pre-training types on cognitive load, self-efficacy, and problem-solving in computer programmingJournal of Computing in Higher Education10.1007/s12528-024-09407-3Online publication date: 27-Jun-2024
    • (2023)The Effects of Worked-Out Example and Metacognitive Scaffolding on Problem-Solving ProgrammingJournal of Educational Computing Research10.1177/0735633123117445461:6(1312-1331)Online publication date: 16-May-2023
    • (2023)What Learning Strategies are Used by Programming Students? A Qualitative Study Grounded on the Self-regulation of Learning TheoryACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/363572024:1(1-26)Online publication date: 6-Dec-2023
    • (2023)FindMyself: A Mobile Self-Reflection App to Support Students in Career Decision-MakingProceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia10.1145/3626705.3627774(463-476)Online publication date: 3-Dec-2023
    • (2023)A Think-Aloud Study of Novice DebuggingACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/358900423:2(1-38)Online publication date: 8-Jun-2023
    • (2023)Developing Novice Programmers’ Self-Regulation Skills with Code ReplaysProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3568813.3600127(298-313)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2023
    • (2023)Investigating Programming Students Problem Comprehension Ability and its Association With Learning PerformanceIEEE Transactions on Education10.1109/TE.2022.320490666:2(156-162)Online publication date: Apr-2023
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Get Access

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media