|
THE IMPACT OF COMBINING FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS AND WORKED EXAMPLES IN PROGRAM VISUALIZATION TOOL ON IMPROVING STUDENTS’ HELD MENTAL MODELS OF POINTERS’ VALUE AND ADDRESS ASSIGNMENT
DOI: 10.23951/2782-2575-2022-2-53-64
Previous studies have shown that the lack of a useful mental model of pointers is one of the reasons why many novice programmers fail the data structures course. This study had two main objectives: to analyze the status of mental models of pointers (focusing on value and address assignment); and to evaluate the impact of combining worked-examples and follow-up questions in CeliotM program visualization (PV) tool in the learning of pointers. The subjects of the study were sixty-two second-year undergraduate students taking a course on data structures (PMT 221) at the College of Natural and Mathematical Sciences (CNMS) of the University of Dodoma. Data were collected using pretest and posttest questionnaires. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The results showed that 56.5% of the students had incorrect mental models of pointers. The results also showed that using the proposed strategy improved the students’ mental models of pointers from 56.5% to 87.1%. These results contribute to our understanding of the most common misconceptions that novice students may have when learning pointers. The findings of this study confirm previous studies that when the new innovative teaching strategies are used in combination with PV tools in teaching and learning programming can help improve students’ programming comprehension.
Ключевые слова: programming, program visualization, threshold concept, pointers, mental model, follow-up questions
Библиография:
1. Hind M. Pointer Analysis: Haven’ t We Solved This Problem Yet? ACM 1-58113-413-4/01/0006. 2001.
2. Kumar A.N., Road R.V. Learning the Interaction Between Pointers and Scope in. 2001;45–8.
3. Daly J. The Usage of Pointers, Arrays, and Structures. 2012;1–12.
4. Adcock B., Bucci P., Heym W.D., Hollingsworth J.E., Long T., Weide B.W. Which Pointer Errors Do Students Make? 2007;9–13.
5. Sanders K, Mccartney R. Threshold Concepts in Computing: Past, Present, and Future. 2016;91–100.
6. Lahtinen E., Ala-Mutka K., Järvinen H.M. A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. Proc 10th Annu SIGCSE Conf Innov Technol Comput Sci Educ. 2005;14–8.
7. Kumar A, Kumaresan S. Use of Mathematical Software for Teaching and Learning Mathematics. 2001:373–88.
8. Johnson-laird P.N. Mental models and human reasoning. 2001.
9. Johnson-laird P.N. Mental models and human reasoning. 2010.
10. Ma L., Ferguson J., Roper M., Wood M. Investigating the Viability of Mental Models Held by Novice Programmers. 2007;499–503.
11. Heinsen Egan M., McDonald C. Program visualization and explanation for novice C programmers. Conf Res Pract Inf Technol Ser. 2014;148:51–7.
12. Norman D.A. Some observations on mental models. Ment Model. 1983;7(112):7–14.
13. Mccauley R., Hanks B., Fitzgerald S., Murphy L. Recursion vs. Iteration: An Empirical Study of Comprehension Revisited. 2015;350–5.
14. Danielsiek H., Paul W., Vahrenhold J. Detecting and understanding students’ misconceptions related to algorithms and data structures. In: Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education. 2012:21–6.
15. Winslow L.E. Programming Pedagogy – A Psychological Overview. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 1996;28(3):17–23.
16. Sorva J. Notional Machines and Introductory Programming Education. 2013;13(2).
17. Moreno A. Animation Re-designing Program Animation. University of Eastern Finland;2014.
18. Edwards-Leis C. Challenging learning journeys in the classroom : Using mental model theory to inform how pupils think when they are generating solutions. 2010:153–62.
19. Rørnes K.M. Mental Models in Programming Python. 2019.
20. Almadhoun E., Parham-Mocello J. Exploratory Study on Accuracy of Students’ Mental Models of a Singly Linked List. In: 2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE; 2021:1–9.
21. Mtaho A.B. Devising a New Congruent Visualization Framework for Minimizing Learners ’ Cognitive Load in Teaching a Learning Data Structures and Algorithms. The University of Dodoma; 2020.
22. Sorva J., Karavirta V., Malmi L. A review of generic program visualization systems for introductory programming education. ACM Trans Comput Educ. 2013;13(4).
23. Dehnadi S., Bornat R. The camel has two humps (working title). Middlesex Univ UK [Internet]. 2006;1–21. Available from: http://mrss.dokoda.jp/r/http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper1.pdf
24. Petre M., & de Quincey E. A gentle overview of software visualisation. PPIG News Letter, 2006:1–10. (Original work published).
25. Wright A.F., & Laboratories A. Taxonomies of Visual Programming and Program Visualization*. 1990;0:97–123. (Original work published).
26. Bergin J., Patiho-matt M., Brodlie K., Mcnally M., College A., Goldweber M., … Wilson J. An overview of visualization: Report of the Working Group on Visualization. 1996:192–200. (Original work published).
27. Scott A.S. Using Flowcharts , Code and Animation for Improved Comprehension and Ability in Novice Programming Certificate of Research. 2010 (March); 430. Retrieved from http://dspace1.isd.glam.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/10265/460/1/Dr Andrew Scott – PhD Thesis.pdf (Original work published).
28. Moreno A., Myller N., & Sutinen E. Visualizing Programs with Jeliot 3. 2004. (Original work published).
29. Helminen J., & Malmi L. Jype – A Program Visualization and Programming Exercise Tool for Python Categories and Subject Descriptors. 2010:153–162. (Original work published).
30. Jonathan F.C., Karnalim O., & Ayub M. Extending The Effectiveness of Algorithm Visualization with Performance Comparison through Evaluation-integrated Development. 2016:16–21. (Original work published).
31. Nikander J., Helminen J., & Korhonen A. Algorithm Visualization System for Teaching Spatial Data Algorithms. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 2010;9:201–225. https://doi.org/10.28945/1305 (Original work published).
32. Hidalgo-Céspedes J., Mar’in-Raventós G., & Lara-Villagrán V. (2016). Learning principles in program visualizations: A systematic literature review. Proceedings – Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, 2016-Novem. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2016.7757692 (Original work published).
( 3.27 MB ) 
( 2.7 MB )
Выпуск: 2, 2022
Серия выпуска: Issue 2
Рубрика:
Страницы: 53 — 64
Скачиваний: 383