What do teachers teach in introductory programming?

ABSTRACT

In this article, we try to create a general, worldwide picture of teachers' opinion about what should be taught in introductory programming courses. We focus on the debate about restructuring CS1. The study explores what teachers believe is important to teach, what they actually teach, and what students find most difficult (according to their teachers). what is the general approach to teaching (programming language, IDE, object-orientation or not, type of institution), what topics are taught, and what role do the areas that novices find difficult play in introductory programming course.In addition, we explore how these specific topics fit into a larger conceptual classification: Earlier studies of topics taught in introductory programming focuses only on one dimension of a given topic - either relevance or difficulty. In this study, we evaluate each topic regarding three dimensions: relevance, difficulty and the cognitive level (according to Bloom's taxonomy). This allows giving a more faceted picture of teachers' beliefs in teaching introductory programming courses.Furthermore, we assess the role of findings from the eighties in today's teaching: The need to understand five different areas of programming. Are these areas still in focus; are they relevant, and what is the connection to the topics taught - especially object-oriented (OO) topics?A special focus is given on students' understanding of the execution of a (OO) program; one of the five areas. In order to connect the ideas of a notional machine to OO concepts we present a four levelled competence hierarchy for object-interaction.Teachers assessed the area 'understanding the notional machine' as least important. Despite this, they assessed the herachy of object-interaction - meant as basis for a notional machine for the OO-paradigm - as an important aspect.Although teachers stress the importance of teaching general abstract structures, teaching seems to focus on concrete programming issues. A conclusion for further research on teaching OO programming and concerning the hierarchy of object interaction is that teaching is not only a matter of topics, but also a matter of perspective on teaching the topics.

REFERENCES

• 1: Koenigstein. (Last accessed May 14, 2006) http://koenigstein.inf.tu-dresden.de
• 2: Baldwin, D. & Tymann, P. SIGCSE 2006. (Last accessed March 24, 2006) http://www.cs.rit.edu/~sigcse06/
• 3: Constructivism in computer science education, Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, v.20 n.1, p.45-73, January 2001
• 4: Bennedsen, J. & Schulte, C. Interaction hierarchy. (Last accessed May, 04, 2006) http://www.daimi.au.dk/~jbb/icer06.html
• 5: Bloom, B. S., Krathwohl, D. R. & Masia, B. B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. the classification of educational goals. handbook I: Cognitive domain.
• 6: Henrik Bærbak Christensen, Frameworks: putting design patterns into perspective, Proceedings of the 9th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, June 28-30, 2004, Leeds, United Kingdom
• 7: Dale, N. Course Content Survey. (Last accessed March 23, 2006) http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/ndale/ContentResults.html
• 8: Dale, N. Course Content Survey Results (publisher's list group). (Last accessed April 4, 2006) http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/ndale/ContentResults2.html
• 9: Dale, N. Course Content Survey Results (SIGCSE group). (Last accessed April 4, 2006) http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/ndale/ContentResults.html
• 10: Nell Dale, Content and emphasis in CS1, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.37 n.4, December 2005 [doi>10.1145/1113847.1113880]
• 11: Detienne, F. Assessing the cognitive consequences of the object-oriented approach: A survey of empirical research on object-oriented design by individuals and teams. Interacting with Computers, 9, 1 (1997), 47--72.
• 12: DMLF. Danish Association of Datamatecian Educators. (Last accessed April 4, 2006) http://www.dmlf.dk/
• 13: du Boulay, B. (1989). Some difficulties of learning to program. In Soloway, E. and Spohrer, J. C. (Eds): Studying the novice programmer, 57--73.
• 14: du Boulay, B., O'Shea, T. & Monk, J. (1989). The black box in-side the glass box: Presenting computing concepts to novices. In Soloway, E. and Spohrer, J. C. (Eds): Studying the novice programmer
• 15: Engel, G. & Roberts, E. Computing Curricula 2001 Computer Science, Final Report. (Last accessed March 10, 2006) http://www.computer.org/portal/cms_docs_ieeecs/ieeecs/education/cc2001/cc2001.pdf
• 16: Annagret Goold , Russell Rimmer, Factors affecting performance in first-year computing, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.32 n.2, p.39-43, June 2000 [doi>10.1145/355354.355369]
• 17: David Gries, What should we teach in an introductory programming course?, Proceedings of the fourth SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, p.81-89, January 1974
• 18: Mark Guzdial, Centralized mindset: a student problem with object-oriented programming, Proceedings of the twenty-sixth SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, p.182-185, March 02-04, 1995, Nashville, Tennessee, United States
• 19: Emily Howe , Matthew Thornton , Bruce W. Weide, Components-first approaches to CS1/CS2: principles and practice, Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, March 03-07, 2004, Norfolk, Virginia, USA
• 20: Inroads. 37, 4 (2005),
• 21: Inroads. 37, 2 (2005),
• 22: ITiCSE. The tenth annual conference on innovation and technology in Computer Science Education, Universisidade Nova de Lisboa, Monte da Caparica, Portugal. June 27-29, 2005. (Last accessed April 4, 2006) http://www.iticse05.unl.pt/
• 23: Essi Lahtinen , Kirsti Ala-Mutka , Hannu-Matti Järvinen, A study of the difficulties of novice programmers, Proceedings of the 10th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, June 27-29, 2005, Caparica, Portugal
• 24: Lidtke, D. K. & Zhou, H. H. (1999). A new approach to an introduction to computer science. In Procedings of 29th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, pp. 12A4/23 vol.1.
• 25: Raymond Lister, Mixed methods: positivists are from Mars, constructivists are from Venus, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.37 n.4, December 2005 [doi>10.1145/1113847.1113857]
• 26: William Marion, CS1: what should we be teaching?, Working group reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education, p.35-38, June 27-30, 1999, Cracow, Poland
• 27: Iain Milne , Glenn Rowe, Difficulties in Learning and Teaching Programming—Views of Students and Tutors, Education and Information Technologies, v.7 n.1, p.55-66, March 2002 [doi>10.1023/A:1015362608943]
• 28: Sally H. Moritz , Fang Wei , Shahida M. Parvez , Glenn D. Blank, From objects-first to design-first with multimedia and intelligent tutoring, Proceedings of the 10th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, June 27-29, 2005, Caparica, Portugal
• 29: OOPSLA. 20th Annual ACM Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications. (Last accessed April 4, 2006) http://www.oopsla.org/2005/ShowPage.do?id=Home
• 30: OOPSLA. 19th Annual ACM Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications. (Last accessed April 4, 2006) http://www.oopsla.org/2004/ShowPage.do?id=Home
• 31: Richard E. Pattis, The “procedures early” approach in CS 1: a heresy, Proceedings of the twenty-fourth SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, p.122-126, February 18-19, 1993, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
• 32: QuestionPro. Online Survey Software. (Last accessed April 4, 2006) http://www.questionpro.com/
• 33: Raadt, M. D., Watson, R. & Toleman, M. (2002). Language Trends in Introductory Programming Courses. In Proceedings of the Informing Science + IT Education Conference (Cork, Ireland, June 19-21) 329--337.
• 34: Noa Ragonis , Mordechai Ben-Ari, On understanding the statics and dynamics of object-oriented programs, Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, February 23-27, 2005, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
• 35: Stuart Reges, Back to basics in CS1 and CS2, Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, March 03-05, 2006, Houston, Texas, USA
• 36: Robins, A., Rountree, J. & Rountree, N. Learning and Teaching Programming: A Review and Discussion. Journal of Computer Science Education, 13, 2 (2003), 137--172.
• 37: Nathan Rountree , Janet Rountree , Anthony Robins , Robert Hannah, Interacting factors that predict success and failure in a CS1 course, Working group reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education, June 28-30, 2004, Leeds, United Kingdom
• 38: Salakoski, T. Koli Calling. (Last accessed March 24, 2006) http://www.it.utu.fi/koli05/proceedings/final_composition.b5.060207.pdf
• 39: Schulte, C. (2005). Dynamic object structures as a conceptual framework for teaching object-oriented concepts to novices. In Proceedings of 5th Annual Finnish/Baltic Sea Conference on Computer Science Education (Koli, Finland, November 17-20)
• 40: SIGCSE-members. Archives of [e-mail]. (Last accessed March 22, 2006) http://listserv.acm.org/archives/sigcse-members.html
• 41: Susan Wiedenbeck , Vikki Fix , Jean Scholtz, Characteristics of the mental representations of novice and expert programmers: an empirical study, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, v.39 n.5, p.793-812, Nov. 1993 [doi>10.1006/imms.1993.1084]
• 42: Leon E. Winslow, Programming pedagogy—a psychological overview, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.28 n.3, p.17-22, Sept. 1996 [doi>10.1145/234867.234872]

INDEX TERMS

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

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

General Terms:
Experimentation, Human Factors

Keywords:
CS1, OO programming, course design, object interaction, program comprehension