Fuzzy OOP: Expanded and reduced term interpretations

Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 309-314

  Shmallo, Ronit ^a   Ragonis, Noa ^b,c   Ginat, David ^a  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^b BEIT BERL COLLEGE   (Israel)

^c TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

Author keywords

computer science education; expansion; object oriented programming; reduction

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE CHARACTERISTICS; COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION; HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURES;

EXPANSION; INNOVATION; OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING; REDUCTION;

ENGINEERING RESEARCH;

EID: 84864658801     PISSN: 1942647X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2325296.2325368     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Bishop, J. M. (1998). Java Gently. Harlow, Addison-Wesley.
2. Boustedt, J. (2010). On the Road to a Software Profession: Students' Experiences of Concepts and Thresholds, Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology, ISSN 1651-6214; 734.
3. Corradi, A. and Leonardi, L. (2000). Static vs. dynamic issues in Object-Oriented programming languages, Journal of Object-Oriented Programming [online], October, 2000.
4. Du Boulay, B. (1986). Some difficulties of learning to program, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1), 57-73.
5. Eckerdal, A. and Thuné, M. (2005). Novice Java programmers' conceptions of "object" and "class", and variation theory, SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(3), 89-93.
6. Eckerdal, A. , Laakso, J. M., Lopez, M. and Sakar, A. (2011). Relationships between text and action conceptions of programming: A phenomenographic and quantitative perspective, Proceedings of ITiCSE 2011, 33-37.
7. Fleury, A. E. (2000). Programming in Java: student-constructed rules, SIGCSE Bulletin, 32(1), 197-201.
8. Garner, S., Haden, P. and Robins, A. (2005). My program is correct but it doesn't run: a preliminary investigation of novice programmers' problems, Proceeding of ACE 2005 (Australasian Computing Education Conference), 173-180.
9. Holland, S., Griffiths, R. and Woodman, M. (1997). Avoiding object misconceptions, SIGCSE Bulletin, 29(1), 131-134.
10. Koffman, E. and Wolz, U. (1999). Problem Solving with Java, Addison-Wesley.
11. Ragonis, N. and Ben-Ari, M. (2005). A long-term investigation of the comprehension of OOP concepts by novices. Computer Science Education, 15(3), 203-221.
12. Rath, A. and Brown, D. E. (1995). Conceptions of human-computer interaction: A model for understanding student errors, Journal of. Educational Computing Research, 12(4), 395-409.
13. Sanders, K., Thomas, L. (2007). Checklists for grading object-oriented CS1 programs: concepts and misconceptions, SIGCSE Bulletin., 39(3), 166-170.
14. Sanders, K., Boustendt, J., Eckerdal, A., McCartney, R., Moström, J. E., Thomas, L., and Zander, C. (2008). Student understanding of Object-Oriented programming as expressed in concept maps. Proceeding of SIGCSE 2008, 332-336.
15. Sorva, J. (2008). The same but different - students' understandings of primitive and object variables, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling '08), New York, 5-15.
16. Thomasson, B., Ratcliffe, M., and Thomas, L. (2006). Identifying novice difficulties in object oriented design, SIGCSE Bulletin., 38(3), 28-32.
17. Vinner, S. (1983). Concept definition, concept image and the notion of function, International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 14(3), 293-305.