Using technology to bring abstract concepts into focus: A programming case study

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 25-50

  Crews, Thad ^a   Butterfield, Jeff ^a  

^a WESTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

constructivist learning; technology supported pedagogy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863135106     PISSN: 10421726     EISSN: 18671233     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF02940964     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bergin, J., Stehlik, M., Roberts, J., & Pattis, R. (1997). Karel++: A gentle introduction to the art of object-oriented programming. New York: Wiley and Sons, Inc.
2. Bloom B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals - Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
3. Brusilovsky, P., Calabrese, E., Hvorecky, J., Kouchnirenko, A., & Miller, P. (1997). Mini-languages: a way to learn programming principles. Education and Information Technologies. 65-83.
4. Calloni, B., Bagert, D., & Haiduk, H. (1997). Iconic programming proves effective for teaching the first year programming sequence. Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 262-266). San Jose, CA: ACM Press.
5. Computing Curriculum 2001, Ironman Report (2001, February). [On-Line]. Available: http://www. computer. org/education/cc2001/.
6. Farrell, J. (1999). A Guide to programming logic and design. Cambridge, Thompson Publishing Co.
7. Jonassen, D., Peck, K, & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
8. Kafai, Y. (1995). Minds in play: computer game design as a context for children's learning. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Kammann, R. (1975, February). The comprehensibility of printed instructions and the flowchart alternative. Human Factors. 183-191.
10. Lajoie, S. (2000). Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls (Vol. II). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Malik, M. (2000). Technical opinion: on the perils of programming. Communications of the ACM, (43)12, 95-97.
12. National Academy of Sciences. (1999). Being fluent with information technology. Washington, DC. [Online] Available: http://books. nap. edu/catalog/6482. html.
13. nd. ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
14. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
15. Pattis, S. (1981). Karel the robot. New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
16. Ramsey, H., Atwood, M., & van Doren, J. (1983). Flowcharts versus program design languages: An experimental comparison. Communications of the ACM, 26(6), 445-449.
17. rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Course Technology.
18. thed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
19. Scanlan, D. (1989, September). Structured flowcharts outperform pseudocode: An experimental comparison. IEEE Software. 28-36.
20. Shackelford, R. (1998). Introduction to computing and algorithms. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longman.
21. Shneiderman, B. (1975). Experimental testing in programming languages, stylistic considerations and design techniques. Proceedings AFIPS NCC, (pp. 653-656). Montvale, N. J.: AFIPS Press.
22. Sleeman, D. (1986). The challenges of teaching computer programming. Communications of the ACM, 29(9), 840-841.
23. Soloway, E. (1993). Should we teach students to program?Communications of the ACM, 36(10), 21-24.
24. Somekh, B., & Davis, N. (1999). Using information technology effectively in teaching and learning. New York: Routledge.
25. Spohrer, J., & Soloway, E. (1986). Novice mistakes: Are the folk wisdoms correct?Communications of the ACM, 29(7), 624-632.
26. Sprankle, M. (1998). Problem solving and programming concepts (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
27. Vessey, I., & Weber, R. (1986). Structured tools and conditional logic: An empirical investigation. Communications of the ACM, 29(1), 48-57.
28. Wright P. & Reid, F. (1973, February). Written information: some alternatives to prose for expressing the outcomes of complex contingencies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 160-166.