Students' understanding of computer science soft ideas: the case of programming paradigm

ABSTRACT

The article presents a research that focused on how the concept programming paradigm is understood in general, and on the understanding of the following three programming paradigms, in particular: functional, procedural, and object-oriented. The research population included seventeen prospective computer science teachers who were participating in a "Programming Paradigms" course. Research observations are organized within a framework that categorizes students' thinking about the concept of programming paradigm in three levels of abstraction.

REFERENCES

• 1: Harold Abelson , Gerald J. Sussman, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996
• 2: Allen L. Ambler , Margaret M. Burnett , Betsy A. Zimmerman, Operational versus definitional: a perspective on programming paradigms, Computer, v.25 n.9, p.28-43, September 1992 [doi>10.1109/2.156380]
• 3: T. T. Carey , M. M. Shepherd, Towards empirical studies of programming in new paradigms, Proceedings of the 1988 ACM sixteenth annual conference on Computer science, p.72-78, February 1988, Atlanta, Georgia, United States [doi>10.1145/322609.322618]
• 4: Coorder, C. (1990). Teaching Hard Teaching Soft: A Structured Approach to Planning and Running Effective Training Courses, Gower.
• 5: Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking, in D. Tall (ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 95--123.
• 6: Harel, G. and Kaput, J. (1991). The role of conceptual entities in building advanced mathematical concepts and their symbols, in D. Tall (ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 82--94.
• 7: Robert W. Floyd, The paradigms of programming, Communications of the ACM, v.22 n.8, p.455-460, Aug. 1979 [doi>10.1145/359138.359140]
• 8: Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolution, University of Chicago.
• 9: Barbara Liskov , John Guttag, Program Development in Java: Abstraction, Specification, and Object-Oriented Design, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 2000
• 10: Ravi Sethi, Programming languages (2nd ed.): concepts and constructs, Addison Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Redwood City, CA, 1996
• 11: Sfard, A (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin, Educational Studies in Mathematics <b>22</b>, pp. 1--36.
• 12: Sfard, A and Linchevski, L. (1994). The gains and the pitfalls of reification---the case of algebra, Educational Studies in Mathematics 26, pp. 191--228
• 13: Allen B. Tucker, Programming Languages: Principles and Paradigms, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 2001
• 14: Tall, D. and Gray, E. (1994) Duality, ambiguity and flexibility: A proceptual view of simple arithmetic, The Journal for Research in Mathematics Education <b>26</b>(2), pp. 115--141.
• 15: Sherry Turkle, The second self: computers and the human spirit, Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York, NY, 1984
• 16: Van Roy P. and Haridi S. (2002). Teaching programming with the kernel language approach, PLI2002 Workshop on Functional and Declarative Programming in Education.
• 17: Peter Van Roy , Seif Haridi, Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer Programming, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004
• 18: Peter Van Roy , Joe Armstrong , Matthew Flatt , Boris Magnusson, The role of language paradigms in teaching programming, Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, p.269-270, February 19-23, 2003, Reno, Navada, USA
• 19: David A. Watt, Programming language concepts and paradigms, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1990

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.3 COMPUTERS AND EDUCATION
      K.3.2 Computer and Information Science Education
          Subjects: Computer science education

Keywords:
abstraction, programming languages, programming paradigm, student conception