Illustration of paradigm pluralism in computing education research

Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology Series

Volumn 123, Issue , 2012, Pages 103-112

  Thota, Neena ^a   Berglund, Anders ^b   Clear, Tony ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SAINT JOSEPH   (Macao)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Methodology; Mixed methods; Paradigm

Indexed keywords

CURRICULA; STUDENTS;

COMPUTING EDUCATION; METHODOLOGY; MIXED METHOD; OBJECTORIENTED PROGRAMMING (OOP); PARADIGM; PRAGMATIC KNOWLEDGE; RESEARCH QUESTIONS; UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS;

OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING;

EID: 84878522133     PISSN: 14451336     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (70)

1. Anderson, G. L. & Herr, K. (1999): The new paradigm wars: Is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? Educational Researcher, 28(5): 12-40
2. Anderson, G. L. & Herr, K. (2005): The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage
3. Bergin, S. & Reilly, R. (2006): Predicting introductory programming performance: A multi-institutional multivariate study. Computer Science Education, 16(4): 303-323
4. Berglund, A. (2005): Learning computer systems in a distributed project course: The what, why, how and where. Uppsala, Sweden, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis
5. Biggs, J. B. (1987): Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn, Victoria, Australian Council for Educational Research
6. Biggs, J. B., Kember, D. & Leung, D. (2001): The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1): 133-149
7. Booth, S. (1992): Learning to program: A phenomenographic perspective. Göteborg, Sweden, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis
8. Bruce, C., Mcmahon, C., Buckingham, L., Hynd, J., Roggenkamp, M. & Stoodley, I. (2004): Ways of experiencing the act of learning to program: A phenomenographic study of introductory programming students at university. Journal of Information Technology Education, 3: 143-160
9. Bullough, R. V., Jr. & Pinnegar, S. (2001): Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self-study research. Educational Researcher, 30(3): 13-21
10. Carbone, A., Hurst, J., Mitchell, I. & Gunstone, D. (2009): An exploration of internal factors influencing student learning of programming. In Proc. 11th Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE 2009). 25-34. Hamilton, M. & Clear, T. (eds). Darlinghurst, Australia, ACS
11. Caspersen, M., E & Bennedsen, J. (2007): Instructional design of a programming course: A learning theoretic approach. Proc. Third International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER 2007), Atlanta, GA, 111-122, ACM
12. Chamillard, A. T. (2006): Using student performance predictions in a computer science curriculum. Proc. 11th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2006), Bologna, Italy, 260-264, ACM
13. Christ, T. W. (2009): Designing, teaching, and evaluating two complementary mixed methods research courses. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(4): 292-325
14. Christ, T. W. (2010): Teaching mixed methods and action research: Pedagogical, practical, and evaluative considerations In Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. 643-676. Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (eds). 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage
15. Clear, T. (2001): Research paradigms and the nature of meaning and truth. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(2): 9-10
16. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007): Research methods in education. New York, NY, Routledge
17. Collins, K. M. T. & O'Cathain, A. (2009): Introduction: Ten points about mixed methods research to be considered by the novice researcher. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3(1): 2-7
18. Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Jiao, Q. G. (2007): A mixed methods investigation of mixed methods sampling designs in social and health science research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3): 267-294
19. Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Sutton, I. L. (2006): A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed-methods research in special education and beyond. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(1): 67-100
20. Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007): Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage
21. Crotty, M. (1998): The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage
22. Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (2005): Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research. 1-32. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds). 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage
23. Denzin, N. K. (2010): Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6): 419-427
24. Dick, B. (1997). Approaching an action research thesis: An overview. http://www.uq.net.au/action_research/arp/phd.html. Accessed 20 Aug 2011
25. Eckerdal, A. & Berglund, A. (2005): What does it take to learn 'programming thinking'? Proc. First International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER 2005), Seattle, WA, USA, 135-142, ACM
26. Ezzy, D. (2002): Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. London, UK, Routledge
27. Fincher, S. & Petre, M. (Eds). (2004): Computer science education research. London, UK, RoutledgeFalmer
28. Fransella, F. (2005): Some skills and tools for personal construct users. In The Essential Practitioner's Handbook of Personal Construct Psychology. 41-56
29. Fransella, F. (ed). West Sussex, UK, Wiley
30. Greene, J. C. (2008): Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1): 7-22
31. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J. & Graham, W. F. (1989): Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3): 255-274
32. Greening, T. (1996): Paradigms for educational research in computer science. Proc. Second Australasian Conference on Computer Science Education (ACSE), University of Melbourne, Australia, 47-51, ACM Press
33. Gries, D. (2008): A principled approach to teaching OO first. Proc. 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Portland, OR, USA, 31-35, ACM
34. Guba, E. (1990): The alternative paradigm dialog. In The Paradigm Dialog. 17-27. Guba., E. G. (ed). Newbury Park, CA, Sage
35. Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (2005): Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In Handbook of Qualitative Research. 191-215. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds). 3rd ed. Newbury Park, CA, Sage
36. Hazzan, O., Dubinsky, Y., Eidelman, L., Sakhnini, V. & Teif, M. (2006): Qualitative research in computer science education. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(1): 408-412
37. Hitchcock, G. & Hughes, D. (1989): Research and the teacher. Routledge Kegan & Paul
38. Honey, P. (1979): The repertory grid in action: How to use it to conduct an attitude survey. Industrial and Commercial Training, 11(11): 452-459
39. Howe, K. (1988): Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17(8): 10
40. Jacobs, C. (2000): The evaluation of educational innovation. Evaluation, 6(3): 261-280
41. Johnson, R. B. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004): Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7): 14-26
42. Kelly, G. A. (1955): The psychology of personal constructs. New York, NY, Norton
43. Kinnunen, P. & Malmi, L. (2005): Problems in problembased learning-Experiences, analysis and lessons learned on an introductory programming course. Informatics in Education, 4(2): 193-212
44. Lather, P. (1986): Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a rock and a soft place. Interchange, 17(4): 63-84
45. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985): Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA, Sage
46. Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A. & Guba, E. G. (2011): Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In Handbook of Qualitative Research. 97-128. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds). 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage
47. Marton, F. & Booth, S. (1997): Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ, Laurence Erlbaum Associates
48. Maxwell, J., A. & Loomis, D., M. (2003): Mixed methods design: An alternative approach. In Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral research. 241-272. Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (eds). Thousand Oaks, CA
49. McNiff, J., Lomax, P. & Whitehead, J. (1996): You and your action research project. London, UK, RoutledgeFalmer
50. McNiff, J. & Whitehead, J. (2002): Action research: Principles and practice. London, UK, RoutledgeFalmer
51. McNiff, J. & Whitehead, J. (2009): Doing and writing action research. London, UK, Sage
52. Meisalo, V., Sutinen, E. & Torvinen, S. (2003): Choosing appropriate methods for evaluating and improving the learning process in distance programming courses. Proc. 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Boulder, Colorado, 11-16
53. Mertens, D., M. (2007): Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3): 212-225
54. Mingers, J. (2001): Combining IS research methods: Towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research, 12(3): 240-259
55. Morgan, D., L. (2007): Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1): 48-76
56. Morse, J. M. (2003): Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. 189-208. Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (eds). Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage
57. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Leech, N. L. (2005): On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5): 375-387
58. Patton, M. Q. (1990): Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA, Sage
59. Pears, A. & Daniels, M. (2003): Structuring CSEd research studies: Connecting the pieces. Proc. Eighth Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2003), Thessaloniki, Greece, 149-153, ACM Press
60. Ramsden, P. (2005): The context of learning in academic departments. In The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher Education 198-216. Marton, F., Hounsell, D. & Entwistle, N. (eds). 3rd Internet ed. Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment
61. Robins, A. (2010): Learning edge momentum: A new account of outcomes in CS1. Computer Science Education, 20(1): 37-71
62. Rountree, N., Rountree, J., Robins, A. & Hannah, R. (2004): Interacting factors that predict success and failure in a CS1 course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(4): 101-104
63. Schön, D. A. (1983): The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY, Basic Books
64. Sheard, J., Simon, Hamilton, M. & Lönnberg, J. (2009): Analysis of research into the teaching and learning of programming. Proc. Fifth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER 2009), Berkeley, CA, USA, 93-104, ACM
65. Soh, L., Samal, A. & Nugent, G. (2007): An integrated framework for improved computer science education: Strategies, implementations, and results. Computer Science Education, 17(1): 59-83
66. Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2010): Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. In Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. 1-41. Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (eds). 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage
67. Thota, N. & Whitfield, R. (2010): Holistic approach to learning and teaching introductory object-oriented programming. Computer Science Education, 20(2): 103-127
68. Thota, N. (2011): Developing a holistic approach to learning and teaching introductory object-oriented programming. Ph.D. thesis. University of Saint Joseph, Macau
69. Wiedenbeck, S. (2005): Factors affecting the success of non-majors in learning to program. Proc. First International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER 2005), Seattle, WA, USA, 13-24, ACM Press
70. Winter, R. (1996): Some principles and procedures for the conduct of action research. In New Directions in Action Research. 13-27. Zuber-Skerritt, O. (ed). Washington, D.C., Falmer Press