The Abstraction transition taxonomy: Developing desired learning outcomes through the lens of situated cognition

ICER'12 - Proceedings of the 9th Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 63-70

  Cutts, Quintin ^a   Esper, Sarah ^b,c   Fecho, Marlena ^b,c   Foster, Stephen R ^b,c   Simon, Beth ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive apprenticeship; CS0; CS1; CS2; Deliberate practice; Situated cognition; Taxonomy

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIP; CS0; CS1; CS2; DELIBERATE PRACTICE; SITUATED COGNITION;

ABSTRACTING; APPRENTICES; TAXONOMIES;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84867344538     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2361276.2361290     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. Brown, J. S., Collins, A. and Duguid, P. (1989) Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1989), pp. 32-42.
2. Cutts, Q., Esper, S., and Simon, B. 2011. Computing as the 4th "R": a general education approach to computing education. ICER 2011. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 133- 138. DOI=10.1145/2016911.2016938 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2016911.2016938.
3. Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, and R. R. Hoffman, R. R. (Eds.). Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp 685-706). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1990). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Mazur, Eric. (2009). Farewell, Lecture? Science. Vol 323 No. 5910, pp. 50-51.
7. Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J. and Wittrock, M.C. (eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning and teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Addison Wesley Longman.
8. Johnson, C. G. and Fuller, U. (2006). Is Bloom's taxonomy appropriate for computer science? Baltic Sea 2006. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 120-123. DOI=10.1145/1315803.1315825 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1315803.1315825.
9. Fuller, U., Johnson, C. G., Ahoniemi, T., Cukierman, D., Hernán-Losada, I., Jackova, J., Lahtinen, E., Lewis, T. L., Thompson, D., Riedesel, C. and Thompson, E. (2007). Developing a computer science-specific learning taxonomy. SIGCSE Bull. 39, 4 (December 2007), 152-170. DOI=10.1145/1345375.1345438 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1345375.1345438.
10. Biggs, J. B. & Collis, K. F. Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). New York, Academic Press, 1982.
11. Corney, M. W., Teague, D. M., Ahadi, A., & Lister, R, (2012) Some empirical results for neo-Piagetian reasoning in novice programmers and the relationship to code explanation questions. In de Raadt, Michael & Carbone, Angela (Eds.) CRPIT. Australian Computer Society Inc, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC. (In Press).
12. Falkner, K. and Palmer, E. (2009). Developing authentic problem solving skills in introductory computing classes. SIGCSE 2009. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4-8. DOI=10.1145/1508865.1508871 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1508865.1508871.
13. Bareiss, R. and Radley, M. (2010). Coaching via cognitive apprenticeship. SIGCSE 2010. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 162-166. DOI=10.1145/1734263.1734319 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1734263.1734319.
14. McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H. and Fernald, J. "The Impact of Pair Programming on Student Performance of Computer Science Related Majors". (2003). ICSE 2003. Portland, Oregon.
15. Braught, G., Martin Eby, L. and Wahls, T. (2008). The effects of pair-programming on individual programming skill. SIGCSE 2008. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 200-204. DOI=10.1145/1352135.1352207 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/ 1352135.1352207.
16. Braught, G., Wahls, T., and Martin Eby, L., 2011. The Case for Pair Programming in the Computer Science Classroom. Trans. Comput. Educ. 11, 1, Article 2 (February 2011), 21 pages. DOI=1921607.1921609 http://doi.acm.org/ 1921607.1921609.
17. Gaillot, E., Bache, E. CodingDojo. http://codingdojo.org.
18. Sanders, K., Richards, B., Mostrom, J., Almstrum, V, Edwards, S., Fincher, S., Gunion, K., Hall, M., Hanks, B., Lonergan, S., McCartney, R., Morrison, B., Spacco, J. & Thomas, L. (2008). DCER: Sharing Empirical Computer Science Education Data. ICER 2008. Sydney, Australia. 137- 148.
19. Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M. & Ben-Ari, M. (2010). Learning Computer Science Concepts with Scratch. ICER 2010. Rhode Island, USA. 69-75.
20. Lopez, M., Whalley, J., Robbins, P., and Lister, R. 2008. Relationships between reading, tracing and writing skills in introductory programming. ICER 2008. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 101-112. DOI=10.1145/1404520.1404531 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1404520.1404531.
21. Lister, R., Simon, B., Thompson, E., Whalley, J., and Prasad, C. 2006. Not seeing the forest for the trees: novice programmers and the SOLO taxonomy. ITICSE 2006. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 118-122. DOI=10.1145/1140124.1140157 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1140124.1140157. (Pubitemid 47344395)
22. Whalley, J. L., Lister, R. (2009). The BRACElet 2009.1 (Wellington) specification. ACE 2009. Margaret Hamilton and Tony Clear (Eds.), Vol. 95. Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 9-18.