Should short, relatively complex algorithms be taught using both graphical and verbal methods? Six replications

ACM SIGCSE Bulletin

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 1988, Pages 185-189

  Scanlan, David ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84976860893     PISSN: 00978418     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/52965.53011     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Blaiwes, A. S. Formats for presenting procedural instructions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59(6), 683–686.
2. Brooke, J. B. & Duncan K. D. An experimental study of flowcharts as an aid to identification of procedural faults. Ergonomics, 1980, 23(4), 387–399.
3. Brooke, J. B. & Duncan K. D. Experimental studies of flowchart use at different stages of program debugging. Ergonomics, 1980, 23(11), 1057–1091.
4. Ellzey, R. S. Data Structures for Computer Information Systems. Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1982.
5. Gilmore, D. J. & Smith, H. T. An investigation of the utility of flowcharts during computer program debugging. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 1984, 20, 357–372.
6. Hanson, K. Data Structured Program Design. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1986.
7. Kammann, R. The comprehensibility of printed instructions and the flowchart alternative. Human Factors, 1975, 17(2), 183–191.
8. Krohn, G. Flowcharts used for procedural instructions. Human Factors, 1983, 25(5), 573–581.
9. Kruse, R. L. Data Structures & Program Design. Prentice-Hall, Enqlewood Clifs, 1984.
10. Lewis, B. N., Horabin, I. S., & Gane, C. P. Case Studies in the Use of Algorithms. New York: Pergamon Press, 1973.
11. Nassi, I. & Shneiderman, B. Flowchart techniques for structured programming. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 8(8), 1973, 12–26.
12. Orr, K. T. Structured Systems Development, New York: Yourdon Press, 1976.
13. Rue J. An exploration into algorithmic comprehension, design, and testing. Research in proggess, California State University at Sacramento, 1985.
14. Scanlan, D. A. Data-structures students may prefer to learn algorithms using graphical methods. Proceedings of the Eighteenth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 1987, 302–307.
15. Scanlan, D. A. Cognitive factors in the preference for structured flowcharts: a factor analytic study, 1987, in review.
16. Scanlan, D. A. An empirical investigation of flowchart preference, 1987, in review.
17. Sheppard, S. B. & Kruesi, E. The effects of symbology and spatial arrangement of software specifications in a coding task. Proc. Trends and applications 1981: Advances in Software Technology. Held at NBS, Gaithersburg, MD, available from IEEE, (1981) 7–13.
18. Sheppard, S. B., Kruesi, E. & Curtis, B. The effects of symbology and spatial arrangement on the comprehension of software specifications. Proc. 5th International Conference on Software Engineering. San Diego, CA, available from IEEE, 1981, 207–214.
19. Shneiderman, B. Control flow and data structure documentation: Two experiments. Communications Of ACM, 1982, 25(1), 55–63.
20. Shneiderman, B., Mayer, R., McKay, D., & Heller, P. Experimental investigations of the utility of detailed flowcharts in programming. Communications of ACM, 1977, 20(6), 373–381.
21. Springer, S. P. & Deutsch, G. Left Brain, Right Brain. (2nd ed.) New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1985, 236.
22. Taylor, R. P. Programming Primer. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1982.
23. Wallace, D. C. Structured flowcharting versus structured pseudocoding in teaching problem-solving skills in software design: a critical comparison. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, in press. (University microfilm international number: 86-23433.)
24. Warnier, J. D. Logical Construction of Programs. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1977.
25. Werth, L., Bonar, J., Joni, S., Kurtz, B., & Scanlan, D. Panel Title: Cognitive processes in programming. Proceedings of the Sixteenth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, March 1985, 17(1), 373–375.
26. Wright, P., & Reid, F. Written information: some alternatives to prose for expressing the outcomes of complex contingencies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 57(2), 160–166.