Second language acquisition and CS1

ABSTRACT

This paper presents an empirical study of the relative effectiveness of two teaching methods used in CS1 classrooms. While the teaching methods are nothing new, the results of the study are an important contribution to the body of computer science education literature. The research design should also be of interest in that it demonstrates how statistical significance can be achieved with a relatively small sample by using the naturally occurring groups that we have as course sections.The teaching methods studied here were having students write programming assignments from scratch versus having them add to or modify existing well-written, well-documented programs. The results are perhaps not surprising. After controlling for certain factors, the statistical analysis showed that students who added to program templates as programming assignments scored better on the comprehensive examination and had higher overall course averages than their counter parts who wrote programs from scratch. This idea is firmly based in cognitive psychology and teachers of language use a similar method extensively. Reading increases vocabulary, aids in concept retention, and improves writing skill.

REFERENCES

• 1: Ausubel, D. P. & Fitzgerald, D. The role of discriminability in meaningful verbal learning and retention. Journal of Educational Psychology 5 (1961), pp 266-274.
• 2: Ausubel, D. P. Psychology of meaningful verbal learning. (1963) New York: Grune & Stratton.
• 3: Ausubel, D. P. Educational psychology a cognitive view. (1968) New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• 4: Frances K. Bailie, Improving the modularization ability of novice programmers, Proceedings of the twenty-second SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, p.277-282, March 07-08, 1991, San Antonio, Texas, United States
• 5: Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. (1963) Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• 6: Frazer, K. Comparing the impact of two assignmentbased teaching methodologies on student programming. Journal of computer science education 1&2 (1998), pp 21-26.
• 7: Gay, L. R. Educational Research: competencies for analysis and application. (5 th ed.) (1996), Upper Saddle River: NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• 8: Robert W. Holt , Deborah A. Boehm-Davis , Alan C. Shultz, Mental representations of programs for student and professional programmers, Empirical studies of programmers: second workshop, Ablex Publishing Corp., Norwood, NJ, 1987
• 9: James W. Howatt, On criteria for grading student programs, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.26 n.3, p.3-7, Sept. 1994 [doi>10.1145/187387.187389]
• 10: Howe, A. C. & Jones, L. Engaging children in science.(2nd ed.) (1998) Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
• 11: Mayer, R. E. Can advance organizers influence meaningful learning? Review of Educational Research 2 (1979), pp 371-383.
• 12: Richard E. Mayer, The Psychology of How Novices Learn Computer Programming, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v.13 n.1, p.121-141, March 1981 [doi>10.1145/356835.356841]
• 13: Perfetti, C. A. Levels of language and levels of process. In L. S. Cermak & F. I Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (1979), pp 159-181. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• 14: Price, G. E. Productivity environmental preference survey. (1996) Lawrence, KS: Price.
• 15: Shavelson, R. J. Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences. (3rd ed.) (1996) Needham Heights, Mass: Allyn & Bacon.
• 16: Watson, G. B. & Glaser, E. M. Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Form S Manual. (1994) San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  J. Computer Applications
  J.5 ARTS AND HUMANITIES
      Subjects: Linguistics

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES

  K. Computing Milieux
  K.3 COMPUTERS AND EDUCATION

General Terms:
Languages, Measurement