Research perspectives on the objects-early debate

ABSTRACT

In March 2004, SIGCSE members contributed to a mailing list discussion on the question of whether programming should be taught objects first or imperative first. We analyse that discussion, exploring how the CS community debates the issue and whether contributors' positions are supported by the research literature on novice programmers. We applied four distinct research methods to the discussion: cognitive science, rhetorical analysis in the critical tradition, phenomenography and biography. We identify the cognitive claims made in the email discussion and find there is not a consensus in the research literature as to whether the objects first approach or the imperative approach is harder to learn. From the rhetorical analysis, we find that the discussion was not so much a debate between OO-first versus imperative-first, but instead was more for and against OO-first. Our phenomenographic analysis identified and categorized the underlying complexity of the discussion. We also applied a biographical method to explore the extent to which the participants' views are shaped by their own prior experience. The paper concludes with some reflections upon paradigms, and the manner in which the CS discipline community defines itself.

REFERENCES

• 1: ACM (2001) Computing Curricula 2001, Computer Science Volume: Chapter 7 Introductory Courses. http://www.sigcse.org/cc2001/cs-introductory-courses.html {last accessed July 2006}
• 2: ACM (2004) Archives of [e-mail]: SIGCSE Member Forum. http://listserv.acm.org/archives/sigcse-members.html {last accessed July 2006}
• 3: Aristotle (1991), On Rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse, G. A. Kennedy (trans.), Oxford University Press, USA.
• 4: Owen Astrachan , Kim Bruce , Elliot Koffman , Michael Kölling , Stuart Reges, Resolved: objects early has failed, Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, p.451-452, February 23-27, 2005, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
• 5: Claude Banville , Maurice Landry, Can the field of MIS be disciplined?, Communications of the ACM, v.32 n.1, p.48-60, Jan. 1989 [doi>10.1145/63238.63241]
• 6: Joseph Bergin , Jim Roberts , Richard Pattis , Mark Stehlik, Karel++: A Gentle Introduction to the Art of Object-Oriented Programming, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1996
• 7: Bergin, J., Stehlik, M., Roberts, J., Pattis, R. (2005) Karel J. Robot: A Gentle Introduction to the Art of Object-Oriented Programming in Java. (Preliminary Edition) Dream Songs Press, USA.
• 8: Berglund, A. (2005). Learning computer systems in a distributed project course: The what, why, how and where. Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
• 9: Booth, S. (1992). Learning to program: A phenomenographic perspective. PhD thesis, University of Gothenberg, Sweden.
• 10: Boyer, Ernest L. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
• 11: Bruce, C., Buckingham, L., Hynd, J., McMahon, C., Roggenkamp, M., and Stoodley, I. (2004) Ways of Experiencing the Act of Learning to Program: A Phenomenographic Study of Introductory Programming Students at University. Journal of Information Technology Education, Vol. 3, pp. 143--159. http://jite.org/documents/Vol3/v3p143-160-121.pdf {May 2005}
• 12: Kim B. Bruce, Controversy on how to teach CS 1: a discussion on the SIGCSE-members mailing list, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.37 n.2, June 2005 [doi>10.1145/1083431.1083477]
• 13: Burke, Kenneth (1950). A rhetoric of motives, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York, p. 152.
• 14: Burns, R. B. (2000) Introduction to Research Methods. 4th edition. London, Sage.
• 15: Philip J. Burton , Russel E. Bruhn, Teaching programming in the OOP era, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.35 n.2, June 2003 [doi>10.1145/782941.782993]
• 16: Campbell, G. (1776/1849). The philosophy of rhetoric, Harper Brothers, Inc., New York.
• 17: Clark, M. (2003). Computer Science: a hard-applied discipline? Teaching in Higher Education, 8(1), 71--87.
• 18: Tony Clear, Research paradigms and the nature of meaning and truth, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.33 n.2, June 2001 [doi>10.1145/571922.571930]
• 19: Tony Clear, "Programming in the Large" and the need for professional discrimination, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.33 n.4, December 2001 [doi>10.1145/572139.572144]
• 20: Clear, T. (2004) Critical Enquiry on CS Education. In Fincher, S., & Petre, M. (Eds) Computer Science Education Research, London, UK: Taylor & Francis, 101--125.
• 21: Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000), Research Methods in Education. 5th Edition, London, RoutledgeFalmer
• 22: Fintan Culwin, Object imperatives!, The proceedings of the thirtieth SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, p.31-36, March 24-28, 1999, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
• 23: de Sola Pool, I. (1959). Trends in content analysis. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. and Bernard, H. R. and Ryan, G. (2000). Text Analysis: Qualitative and quantitative methods, In Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology, H. R. Bernard (ed.), AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, 595--645.
• 24: Rick Decker , Stuart Hirshfield, The top 10 reasons why object-oriented programming can't be taught in CS 1, Proceedings of the twenty-fifth SIGCSE symposium on Computer science education, p.51-55, March 10-12, 1994, Phoenix, Arizona, United States
• 25: Decker, A. (2003), A Tale of Two Paradigms, In Proceedings of the Consortium for Computing and Computing Sciences in Colleges, 238--246.
• 26: Détienne, F. (1997). Assessing the cognitive consequences of the object-oriented approach: as survey of empirical research on OO design by individuals and teams, Interacting with Computers, 9, 47--72.
• 27: Anna Eckerdal , Michael Thuné , Anders Berglund, What does it take to learn 'programming thinking'?, Proceedings of the 2005 international workshop on Computing education research, p.135-142, October 01-02, 2005, Seattle, WA, USA [doi>10.1145/1089786.1089799]
• 28: Anna Eckerdal , Michael Thuné, Novice Java programmers' conceptions of "object" and "class", and variation theory, Proceedings of the 10th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, June 27-29, 2005, Caparica, Portugal
• 29: Sally Fincher , Marian Petre, Computer Science Education Research, 2004
• 30: Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine.
• 31: Mark Guzdial , Elliot Soloway, Teaching the Nintendo generation to program, Communications of the ACM, v.45 n.4, April 2002 [doi>10.1145/505248.505261]
• 32: Heinz, W. (1997) (Ed.) Theoretical Advances in Life Course Research. (2nd edition) Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag.
• 33: Holtsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, Mass, p. 14.
• 34: Michael Kölling , Bett Koch , John Rosenberg, Requirements for a first year object-oriented teaching language, Proceedings of the twenty-sixth SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, p.173-177, March 02-04, 1995, Nashville, Tennessee, United States
• 35: Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2 ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• 36: Kuhn, T. (1977). The Essential Tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• 37: Tracy L. Lewis , Wanda J. Smith, The computer science debate: it's a matter of perspective, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.37 n.2, June 2005 [doi>10.1145/1083431.1083469]
• 38: Raymond Lister , Ilona Box , Briana Morrison , Josh Tenenberg , D. Suzanne Westbrook, The dimensions of variation in the teaching of data structures, Proceedings of the 9th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, June 28-30, 2004, Leeds, United Kingdom
• 39: Raymond Lister , Elizabeth S. Adams , Sue Fitzgerald , William Fone , John Hamer , Morten Lindholm , Robert McCartney , Jan Erik Moström , Kate Sanders , Otto Seppälä , Beth Simon , Lynda Thomas, A multi-national study of reading and tracing skills in novice programmers, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.36 n.4, December 2004
• 40: Raymond Lister , Anders Berglund , Tony Clear , Joe Bergin , Kathy Garvin-Doxas , Brian Hanks , Lew Hitchner , Andrew Luxton-Reilly , Kate Sanders , Carsten Schulte , Jacqueline L. Whalley, Research perspectives on the objects-early debate, Working group reports on ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education, June 26-28, 2006, Bologna, Italy
• 41: Marton, F. Phenomenography - a research approach to investigating different understandings of reality, Journal of Thought, vol. 21, pp. 28--49, 1986.
• 42: Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and Awareness. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• 43: Michael McCracken , Vicki Almstrum , Danny Diaz , Mark Guzdial , Dianne Hagan , Yifat Ben-David Kolikant , Cary Laxer , Lynda Thomas , Ian Utting , Tadeusz Wilusz, A multi-national, multi-institutional study of assessment of programming skills of first-year CS students, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.33 n.4, December 2001 [doi>10.1145/572139.572181]
• 44: McKernan, J. (1991). Curriculum Action Research. London: Kogan Page.
• 45: Nohl, Arnd-Michael (2005) Dokumentarische Interpretation narrativer Interviews. In: Bildungsforschung, 2005. http://www.bildungsforschung.org/Archiv-en/2005-02/interview
• 46: D. N. Perkins , Fay Martin, Fragile knowledge and neglected strategies in novice programmers, Papers presented at the first workshop on empirical studies of programmers on Empirical studies of programmers, p.213-229, June 1986, Washington, D.C., United States
• 47: Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., Taylor, P. (1994) A Phenomenographic Study of Academics' Conceptions of Science Learning and Teaching. Learning and Instruction, 4, 217--231.
• 48: Vennila Ramalingam , Susan Wiedenbeck, An empirical study of novice program comprehension in the imperative and object-oriented styles, Papers presented at the seventh workshop on Empirical studies of programmers, p.124-139, October 1997, Alexandria, Virginia, United States [doi>10.1145/266399.266411]
• 49: 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
• 50: Robins, A., Rountree, J. and Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and Teaching Programming: A Review and Discussion, Computer Science Education, 13(2), 137--172.
• 51: Samuelowicz, K. and Bain, J. (1992) Higher Education, 24, 93--111.
• 52: Schulte, C., Knobelsdorf, M., Computer Biographies - A Biographical Research Perspective on Computer Usage and Attitudes Towards Informatics. Kolin Kolistelut - Koli Calling 2005. 5th Annual Finnish / Baltic Sea Conference on Computer Science Education
• 53: Sennett, R. (1980). Authority. Knopf, New York.
• 54: Soloway, E. and Ehrlich, K, Bonar, J., and Greenspan, J. (1983) What do novices know about programming? In B. Shneiderman and A. Badre, editors, Directions in Human-Computer Interactions, 27--53. Ablex, Inc., Norwood, NJ.
• 55: Papers presented at the first workshop on empirical studies of programmers on Empirical studies of programmers, June 1986
• 56: E. Soloway , James C. Spohrer, Studying the Novice Programmer, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 1988
• 57: Stein, L. (1998). What We Swept Under the Rug: Radically Rethinking CS1. Computer Science Education, 8(2), 118--129.
• 58: Allison Elliott Tew , W. Michael McCracken , Mark Guzdial, Impact of alternative introductory courses on programming concept understanding, Proceedings of the 2005 international workshop on Computing education research, p.25-35, October 01-02, 2005, Seattle, WA, USA [doi>10.1145/1089786.1089789]
• 59: Lynda Thomas , Mark Ratcliffe , Benjy Thomasson, Scaffolding with object diagrams in first year programming classes: some unexpected results, Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, March 03-07, 2004, Norfolk, Virginia, USA
• 60: Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. and Taylor, P. (1984). Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching first year university science. Higher Education, 27, 75--84.
• 61: Trigwell, K. (2000) Phenomenography: Discernment and Variation http://www.learning.ox.ac.uk/files/...Phenom_ISL_paper.pdf {accessed Mar. 2006}
• 62: Uljens, M., 1996, 'On the philosophical foundation of phenomenography', in G. Dall'Alba & B. Hasselgren (eds), Reflections on Phenomenography - Toward a methodology? Gööteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1996, pp. 105--130
• 63: Watson, D. L. (1965). Effects of certain power structures on communication in task-oriented groups, Sociometry, 28(3), 322--336.
• 64: Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.), Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
• 65: Paul Wernick , Tracy Hall, Can Thomas Kuhn's paradigms help us understand software engineering?, European Journal of Information Systems, v.13 n.3, p.235-243, September 2004 [doi>10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000501]
• 66: Wiedenbeck, S., Ramalingam, V., Sarasamma, S. & Corritore, C. L. A comparison of the comprehension of object-oriented and procedural programs by novice programmers. Interacting with Computers, 11 (1999), 255--282
• 67: Niklaus Wirth, Good Ideas, through the Looking Glass, Computer, v.39 n.1, p.28-39, January 2006 [doi>10.1109/MC.2006.20]
• 68: Zeichner, K., & Gore, J. (1989). Teacher socialization. 48 pp (http://ncrtl.msu.edu/http/ipapers/html/ip897.htm)

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: Literacy; Information systems education

General Terms:
Design, Languages

Keywords:
CS1, object early, object-oriented programming