ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Not seeing the forest for the trees: novice programmers and the SOLO taxonomy
Full text PdfPdf (239 KB)
Source Annual Joint Conference Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education archive
Proceedings of the 11th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education table of contents
Bologna, Italy
SESSION: CS eduacation research I table of contents
Pages: 118 - 122  
Year of Publication: 2006
ISBN:1-59593-055-8
Also published in ...
Authors
Raymond Lister  University of Technology, Sydney, Broadway, Australia
Beth Simon  University of California, San Diego, CA
Errol Thompson  Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand
Jacqueline L. Whalley  Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
Christine Prasad  Unitec, Auckland, New Zealand
Sponsors
SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 9,   Downloads (12 Months): 115,   Citation Count: 18
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1140124.1140157
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

This paper reports on the authors use of the SOLO taxonomy to describe differences in the way students and educators solve small code reading exercises. SOLO is a general educational taxonomy, and has not previously been applied to the study of how novice programmers manifest their understanding of code. Data was collected in the form of written and think-aloud responses from students (novices) and educators (experts), using exam questions. During analysis, the responses were mapped to the different levels of the SOLO taxonomy. From think-aloud responses, the authors found that educators tended to manifest a SOLO relational response on small reading problems, whereas students tended to manifest a multistructural response. These results are consistent with the literature on the psychology of programming, but the work in this paper extends on these findings by analyzing the design of exam questions.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Adelson, B. When novices surpass experts: The difficulty of a task may increase with expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 3 (1984), 483--495.
 
2
Biggs, J. B. & Collis, K. F. Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). New York, Academic Press, 1982.
 
3
Chase, W. C., & Simon, H. A. Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4 (1973), 55--81.
 
4
Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R. & Farr, M. J. (Eds.) The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
 
5
Corritore, C. & Wiedenbeck, S. What Do Novices Learn During Program Comprehension? Int. J. of Human-Computer Interaction, 3, 2 (1991), 199--222.
 
6
Ericsson K, and Smith, J. (Eds) Toward a General Theory of Expertise : Prospects and Limits. Cambridge University Press,England, 1991.
7
8
9
 
10
Rist, R. Learning to Program: Schema Creation, Application, and Evaluation. In Fincher, S and Petre, M. (Eds) Computer Science Education Research. Routledge Falmer, 2004.
 
11
Robins, A., Rountree, J. & Rountree, N. Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13, 2 (2003), 137 -- 172.
 
12
 
13
 
14
Whalley, J, Lister, R, Thompson, E, Clear, T, Robbins, P, Prasad, C. (2006) An Australasian Study of Reading and Comprehension Skills in Novice Programmers, using the Bloom and SOLO Taxonomies. In Proceedings of the Eighth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE2006) (Hobart, Australia, January 16-19, 2006), 243--252. http://crpit.com/Vol52.html {April 2006}
 
15
 
16

CITED BY  18

Collaborative Colleagues:
Raymond Lister: colleagues
Beth Simon: colleagues
Errol Thompson: colleagues
Jacqueline L. Whalley: colleagues
Christine Prasad: colleagues