A systematic review of approaches for teaching introductory programming and their influence on success

ICER 2014 - Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 19-26

  Vihavainen, Arto ^a   Airaksinen, Jonne ^a   Watson, Christopher ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Analysis; Cs1; Introductory programming; Programming education; Systematic review; Teaching interventions

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING; COMPUTER SCIENCE;

ANALYSIS; CS1; INTRODUCTORY PROGRAMMING; PROGRAMMING EDUCATION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TEACHING INTERVENTION;

EDUCATION;

EID: 84905869869     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2632320.2632349     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (28)

1. J. D. Bayliss. The efiects of games in CS1-3. In Microsoft Academic Days Conference on Game Development in Computer Science Education, pages 59-63. Citeseer, 2007.
2. M. Ben-Ari. Constructivism in computer science education. In SIGCSE bulletin, volume 30, pages 257-261. ACM, 1998.
3. J. Bennedsen and M. E. Caspersen. Failure rates in introductory programming. SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(2):32-36, 2007.
4. J. D. Chase and E. G. Okie. Combining cooperative learning and peer instruction in introductory computer science. SIGCSE Bulletin, 32(1):372-376, Mar. 2000.
5. N. De-La-Mora and C. F. Reilly. The impact of real-world topic labs on student performance in CS1. In Proc. Frontiers in Education, pages 1-6. IEEE, 2012.
6. J. Hattie. Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge, 2013.
7. M. Haungs, C. Clark, J. Clements, and D. Janzen. Improving first-year success and retention through interest-based CS0 courses. In Proc. SIGCSE, pages 589-594. ACM, 2012.
8. J. Kurhila and A. Vihavainen. Management, structures and tools to scale up personal advising in large programming courses. In Proc. SIGITE, pages 3-8. ACM, 2011.
9. P. Lasserre and C. Szostak. Efiects of team-based learning on a cs1 course. In Proc. ITiCSE, pages 133-137. ACM, 2011.
10. I. Milne and G. Rowe. Dificulties in learning and teaching programming - views of students and tutors. Educ. and Information Technologies, 7(1):55-66, 2002.
11. P. Mullins, D. Whitfield, and M. Conlon. Using alice 2.0 as a first language. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 24(3):136-143, 2009.
12. U. Nikula, O. Gotel, and J. Kasurinen. A motivation guided holistic rehabilitation of the first programming course. Trans. Comput. Educ., 11(4):24:1-24:38, Nov. 2011.
13. A. Pears, S. Seidman, L. Malmi, L. Mannila, E. Adams, J. Bennedsen, M. Devlin, and J. Paterson. A survey of literature on the teaching of introductory programming. In SIGCSE Bulletin, volume 39, pages 204-223. ACM, 2007.
14. L. Porter and B. Simon. Retaining nearly one-third more majors with a trio of instructional best practices in CS1. In Proc. SIGCSE, pages 165-170. ACM, 2013.
15. D. Radofisevific, T. Orehovaficki, and A. Lovrenficific. New approaches and tools in teaching programming. In Proc. of Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems, pages 49-57, 2009.
16. M. Rizvi and T. Humphries. A scratch-based cs0 course for at-risk computer science majors. In Proc. Frontiers in Education, pages 1-5. IEEE, 2012.
17. A. Robins, J. Rountree, and N. Rountree. Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2):137-172, 2003.
18. S. C. Shafier and M. B. Rosson. Increasing student success by modifying course delivery based on student submission data. ACM Inroads, 4(4):81-86, Dec. 2013.
19. B. Simon, P. Kinnunen, L. Porter, and D. Zazkis. Experience report: CS1 for majors with media computation. In Proc. ITiCSE, pages 214-218. ACM, 2010.
20. R. H. Sloan and P. Troy. CS 0.5: A better approach to introductory computer science for majors. SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1):271-275, Mar. 2008.
21. A. E. Tew, C. Fowler, and M. Guzdial. Tracking an innovation in introductory CS education from a research university to a two-year college. In Proc. SIGCSE, pages 416-420. ACM, 2005.
22. I. Utting, A. E. Tew, M. McCracken, L. Thomas, D. Bouvier, R. Frye, J. Paterson, M. Caspersen, Y. B.-D. Kolikant, J. Sorva, and T. Wilusz. A fresh look at novice programmers' performance and their teachers' expectations. In Proc. ITiCSE Working Group Reports, pages 15-32. ACM, 2013.
23. A. Vihavainen. Predicting students' performance in an introductory programming course using data from students' own programming process. In Proc. ICALT, pages 498-499. IEEE, 2013.
24. H. M. Walker. Collaborative learning: A case study for CS1 at grinnell college and austin. In SIGCSE Bulletin, volume 29, pages 209-213. ACM, 1997.
25. C. Watson and F. W. Li. Failure rates in introductory programming revisited. In To appear in Proc. Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE). ACM, 2014.
26. C. Watson, F. W. Li, and J. L. Godwin. Predicting performance in an introductory programming course by logging and analyzing student programming behavior. In Proc. ICALT, pages 319-323. IEEE, 2013.
27. C. Watson, F. W. Li, and J. L. Godwin. No tests required: comparing traditional and dynamic predictors of programming success. In Proc. SIGCSE, pages 469-474. ACM, 2014.
28. L. Williams, C. McDowell, N. Nagappan, J. Fernald, and L. Werner. Building pair programming knowledge through a family of experiments. In Proc. Empirical Software Engineering, pages 143-152. IEEE.