Analyzing the strength of undergraduate misconceptions about software engineering

ICER'10 - Proceedings of the International Computing Education Research Workshop

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 31-39

  Sudol, Leigh Ann ^a   Jaspan, Ciera ^a  

^a Carnegie Mellon University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Misconceptions; Software engineering education

Indexed keywords

CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY; COMPUTER SCIENCE STUDENTS; ELECTIVE COURSE; MISCONCEPTIONS; NOVEL METHODOLOGY; RELATIVE STRENGTH; RESPONSE TIME; SOFTWARE ENGINEERS;

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING; EDUCATION COMPUTING; INDUSTRY; PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS; RESEARCH; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; STUDENTS;

ENGINEERING EDUCATION;

EID: 77956289284     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1839594.1839601     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. A. Begel and B. Simon. Novice software developers, all over again. In ICER '08: Proceeding of the Fourth international Workshop on Computing Education Research, pages 3-14, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM.
2. A. Begel and B. Simon. Struggles of new college graduates in their first software development job. SIGCSE '08: Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Aymposium on Computer Science Education, 40(1):226-230, 2008.
3. E. Brechner. Things they would not teach me of in college: What microsoft developers learn later. In OOPSLA '03: Companion of the 18th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, pages 134-136, New York, NY, USA, 2003. ACM.
4. P. V. D. Broek and P. Kendeou. Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: The role of co-activation in confronting misconceptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22:335-351, 2008.
5. M. Chi. Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2):161-199, 2005.
6. M. Chi and S. Ohlsson. Complex Declarative Learning, chapter 16, pages 371-400. The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Learning. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
7. M. Chi and K. VanLehn. The content of physics self-explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1:69-105, 1991.
8. C. Chinn and W. Brewer. The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science education. Review of Educational Research, 63(1):1-49, 1993.
9. N. R. Council. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School. National Academy Press, 2000.
10. A. DiSessa. Knowledge in Pieces. Constructivism in the Computer Age. Erlbaum, 1988.
11. D. Hammer. Misconceptions or p-prims: How may alternative perspectives on cognitive structure inuence instructional perceptions and intentions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(2):97-127, 1996.
12. K. Hamza and P. Wickman. Describing and analyzing learning in action: An empirical study of the importance of misconceptions in learning. Science Education, 92(1):141-164, 2008.
13. T. C. Lethbridge. A Survey of the Relevance of Computer Science and Software Engineering Education. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 1998.
14. G. Ozdemir and D. Clark. An overview of conceptual change theories. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3:351-361, 2007.
15. D. Perkins and R. Simmons. Patterns of misunderstanding: An integrative model for science, math, and programming. Review of Educational Research, 58(3):303-326, 1988.
16. L. A. Sudol and C. Jaspan. Declarative misconceptions in software engineering. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University, 2010.
17. D. Taft. Programming grads meet a skills gap in the real world. eweek.com, 2007.
18. S. Vosnaidou and W. Brewer. Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18:123-183, 1994.