skip to main content
research-article

Setting the Scope of Concept Inventories for Introductory Computing Subjects

Published:01 June 2010Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

A concept inventory is a standardized assessment tool intended to evaluate a student’s understanding of the core concepts of a topic. In order to create a concept inventory it is necessary to accurately identify these core concepts. A Delphi process is a structured multi-step process that uses a group of experts to achieve a consensus opinion. We present the results of three Delphi processes to identify topics that are important and difficult in each of three introductory computing subjects: discrete mathematics, programming fundamentals, and logic design. The topic rankings can not only be used to guide the coverage of concept inventories, but can also be used by instructors to identify what topics merit special attention.

References

  1. Allen, M. J. and Yen, W. M. 2002. Introduction to Measurement Theory. Long Grove, Ill.: Waveland Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Almstrum, V. L., Henderson, P. B., Harvey, V., Heeren, C., Marion, W., Riedesel, C., Soh, L.-K., and Tew, A. E. 2006. Concept inventories in computer science for the topic discrete mathematics. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’06). 163--167. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., and Cocking, R. R. 1999. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. National Academy Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Buck, J. R., Wage, K. E., Hjalmarson, M. A., and Nelson, J. K. 2007. Comparing student understanding of signals and systems using a concept inventory, a traditional exam, and interviews. In Proceedings of the 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (ASEE’07). S1G1--S1G6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, R., Feldon, D., Merrienboer, J. V., Yates, K., and Early, S. 2008. Cognitive task analysis. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology 3rd Ed., J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, and M. Driscoll, Eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. 1801--1856.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Clayton, M. J. 1997. Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision-making tasks in education. Educ. Psychol. 17, 373--386.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Dalkey, N. and Helmer, O. 1963. An experimental application of the Delphi Method to the use of experts. Manage. Sci. 9, 458--467.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans, D. 2006. Personal communication.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans, D. et al. 2003. Progress on concept inventory assessment tools. In Proceedings of the 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education (ASEE’03).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldman, K., Gross, P., Heeren, C., Herman, G., Kaczmarczyk, L., Loui, M. C., and Zilles, C. 2008. Identifying important and difficult concepts in introductory computing courses using a delphi process. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’08). 256--260. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Gray, G. L., Evans, D., Cornwell, P., Costanzo, F., and Self, B. 2003. Toward a nationwide dynamics concept inventory assessment test. In Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference (ASEE’03).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Hake, R. 1998. Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Amer. J. Physics 66, 64--74.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Heffernan, N. and Koedinger, K. R. 1998. A developmental model for algebra symbolization: The results of a difficulty factors assessment. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci’98). 484--489.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Herman, G. L., Kaczmarczyk, L., Loui, M. C., and Zilles, C. 2008. Proof by incomplete enumeration and other logical misconceptions. In Proceedings of the 4th International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’08). 59--70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Herman, G. L., Loui, M. C., and Zilles, C. 2010. Creating the Digital Logic Concept Inventory. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’10). (In Press). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Herman, G. L., Zilles, C., and Loui, M. C. 2009. Work in progress: Students’ misconceptions about state in digital systems. In Proceedings of the 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (ASEE’09). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Huettel, L. G., Forbes, J., Franzoni, L., Malkin, R., Nadeau, J., and Ybarra, G. 2007. Using tablet PCs to enhance engineering and computer science education. In The Impact of Tablet PCs and Pen-Based Technology on Education, J. C. Prey, R. H. Reed, and D. A. Berque, Eds. Purdue University Press. 59--66.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacobi, A., Martin, J., Mitchell, J., and Newell, T. 2003. A concept inventory for heat transfer. In Proceedings of the 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education (ASEE’03).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaczmarczyk, L., Petrick, E., East, J. P., and Herman, G. L. 2010. Identifying student misconceptions of programming. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’10). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Lister, R., Adams, E. S., Fitzgerald, S., Fone, W., Hamer, J., Lindholm, M., McCartney, A. A. R., Moström, J. E., Sanders, K., Seppälä, O., Simon, B., and Thomas, L. 2004. A multinational study of reading and tracing skills in novice programmers. In Proceedings of Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE-WGR’04). 119--150. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Marion, B. and Baldwin, D. 2007. SIGCSE commitee report: On the implementation of a discrete mathematics course. SIGCSE Bull. 39, 2, 109--126.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. McCracken, M., Almstrum, V., Diaz, D., Guzdial, M., Hagan, D., Kolikant, Y. B.-D., Laxer, C., Thomas, L., Utting, I., and Wilusz, T. 2001. A multi-national, multi-institutional study of assessment of programming skills of first-year CS students. In Proceedings of Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE-WGR’01). 125--180. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Mestre, J. P. 2005. Facts and myths about pedagogies of engagement in science learning. Peer Rev. 7, 2, 24--27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Olds, B. M., Streveler, R. A., Miller, R. L., and Nelson, M. A. 2004. Preliminary results from the development of a concept inventory thermal and transport science. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition (ASEE’04).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Pill, J. 1971. The Delphi method: Substance, context, a critique and an annotated bibliography. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 5, 1, 57--71.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Rowe, G. and Smaill, C. 2008. Development of an elecromagnetics course concept inventory. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition (ASEE’08).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Simon, B., Kohanfars, M., Lee, J., Tamayo, K., and Cutts, Q. 2010. Experience report: Peer instruction in introductory computing. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’10). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Soloway, E. and Spohrer, J. C. 1988. Studying the Novice Programmer. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Stone, A., Allen, K., Rhodes, T. R., Murphy, T. J., Shehab, R. L., and Saha, C. 2003. The statistics concept inventory: A pilot study. In Proceedings of the 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education (ASEE’03).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Streveler, R., Olds, B. M., Miller, R. L., and Nelson, M. A. 2003. Using a Delphi study to identify the most difficult concepts for studentsto master in thermal and transport science. In Proceddings of the American Society of Engineering Education, Annual Conference and Exposition (ASEE’03).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Tew, A. E., McCracken, W. M., and Guzdial, M. 2005. Impact of alternative introductory courses on programming concept understanding. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER’05). 25--35. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. The Computer Society of the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers and Association for Computing Machinery. 2001. Computing Curricula 2001, Computer science volume. http://www.sigcse.org/cc2001/index.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Zendler, A. and Spannagel, C. 2008. Empirical foundation of central concepts for computer science education. J. Educ. Res. Comput. 2, 6, 1--615. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Setting the Scope of Concept Inventories for Introductory Computing Subjects

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education
        ACM Transactions on Computing Education  Volume 10, Issue 2
        June 2010
        95 pages
        EISSN:1946-6226
        DOI:10.1145/1789934
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2010 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 1 June 2010
        • Accepted: 1 March 2010
        • Revised: 1 February 2010
        • Received: 1 May 2009
        Published in toce Volume 10, Issue 2

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader