Putting threshold concepts into context in computer science education

ITiCSE06 - Proceedings of the 11th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

Volumn 2006, Issue , 2006, Pages 103-107

  Eckerdal, Anna ^a   McCartney, Robert ^b   Moström, Jan Erik ^c   Ratcliffe, Mark ^d   Sanders, Kate ^e   Zander, Carol ^f  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b University of Connecticut   (United States)

^c UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^d ABERYSTWYTH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^e RHODE ISLAND COLLEGE   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BOTHELL   (United States)

Author keywords

Constructivism; Education research; Threshold Concepts

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; COMPUTER SCIENCE; LEARNING SYSTEMS;

CONSTRUCTIVISM; EDUCATION RESEARCH; THRESHOLD CONCEPTS;

ENGINEERING EDUCATION;

EID: 33748981119     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. M. Ben-Ari. Constructivism in computer science education. J. Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20(1):45-73, 2001.
2. A. Biermann. Great Ideas in Computer Science: a gentle introduction. MIT Press, 1990.
3. J. Bonar and E. Soloway. Preprogramming knowledge: A major source of misconceptions in novice programmers. In E. Soloway and J. Spohrer, editors, Studying the Novice Programmer. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989.
4. R. Box and M. Whitelaw. Experiences when migrating from structured analysis to object-oriented modelling. In Proceedings of the Australasian conference on Computing education, pages 12-18. ACM, 2000.
5. J. G. Brookshear. Computer Science: an overview. Addison Wesley, sixth edition, 2000.
6. J. Bruner. The process of education. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1960.
7. M. Clancy. Misconceptions and attitudes that interfere with learning to program. In S. Fincher and M. Petre, editors, Computer Science Education Research. Taylor and Francis Group, London, 2004.
8. P. Davies. Threshold concepts: how can we recognise them. 2003. Paper presented at EARLI conference, Padova. Downloaded from http://www.staffs.ac.uk/schools/business/iepr/docs/etcworkingpaper(1).doc.
9. R. Davis, C. Maher, and N. Noddings. Constructivist views of the teaching and learning of mathematics. J. Res. Math. Teaching, Monograph No.4, 1990.
10. P. Denning. Great principles in computing curricula. SIGCSE Bull., 36:336-341, 2004.
11. F. Detienne. 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, 9:47-72, 1997.
12. A. Eckerdal. On the understanding of object and class. Technical Report 2004-058, Dept. of Information Technology, Uppsala Univ., 2004.
13. A. Eckerdal and M. Thuné. Novice Java programmers' conceptions of "object" and "class", and variation theory. In Proc. ITiCSE '05, pages 89-93, 2005.
14. B. Eylon and M. Linn. Learning and instruction: An examination of four research perspectives in science education. Rev. Educational Research, 58(4), 1988.
15. A. E. Fleury. Programming in Java: student-constructed rules. SIGCSE Bull., 32(1):197-201, 2000.
16. A. E. Fleury. Encapsulation and reuse as viewed by Java students. SIGCSE Bull., 33(1):189-193, 2001.
17. S. Hadjerrouit. A constructivist framework for integrating the java paradigm into the undergraduate curriculum. SIGCSE Bull., 30(3):105-107, 1998.
18. S. Holland, R. Griffiths, and M. Woodman. Avoiding object misconceptions. SIGCSE Bull., 29(1):131-134, 1997.
19. P. N. Johnson-Laird. Mental models: towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University P ress, 1983.
20. D. E. Kieras and S. Bovair. The role of a mental model in learning to operate a device. Cognitive Science, 8:255-273, 1984.
21. M. Rolling. The problem of teaching object-oriented programming, part I: Languages. J. Object-oriented Programming, 11(8):8-15, 1999.
22. P. A. Luker. There's more to OOP than syntax. SIGCSE Bull., 26(1):56-60, 1994.
23. R. McCartney and K. Sanders. What are the "threshold concepts" in computer science? In Proceedings of the Koli Calling 2005 Conference on Computer Science Education, page 185, 2005.
24. M. McCracken, W. Newstetter, and J. Chastine. Misconceptions of designing: a descriptive study. SIGCSE Bull., 31(3):48-51, 1999.
25. J. Meyer and R. Land. Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. ETL Project Occasional Report 4, 2003. http://www.ed.ac.uk/etl/docs/ETLreport4.pdf.
26. J. Meyer and R. Land. Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49:373-388, 2005.
27. R. Or-Bach and I. Lavy. Cognitive activities of abstraction in object orientation: an empirical study. SIGCSE Bull., 36(2):82-86, 2004.
28. D. Perkins. The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3):6-11, 1999.
29. N. Ragonis and M. Ben-Ari. Teaching constructors: A difficult multiple choice. In 16th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Workshop 3, 2002.
30. G. M. Schneider and J. L. Gersting. An Invitation to Computer Science. Brooks Cole, second edition, 1998.
31. A. Schwill. Fundamental ideas of computer science. Bull. European Assoc. for Theoretical Computer Science, 53:274-295, 1994.
32. J. Smith, A. diSessa, and J. Roschelle. Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. J. Learning Sciences, 3(2), 1993.
33. S. Wiedenbeck, D. LaBelle, and V. N. R. Kain. Factors affecting course outcomes in introductory programming. In 16th Annual Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, 2004.
34. S. Wiedenbeck and V. Ramalingam. Novice comprehension of small programs written in the procedural and object-oriented styles. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 51:71-87, 1999.
35. C. Yehezkel, M. Ben-Ari, and T. Dreyfus. Computer architecture and mental models. SIGCSE Bull., 37(1):101-105, 2005.