Top

Journal of Computers in Education

Published in:

09-08-2021

A comparison of pre-service teachers’ variable misconceptions in various computer-programming preferences: findings to teacher education course

Authors: Chanayuth Changpetch, Patcharin Panjaburee, Niwat Srisawasdi

Published in: Journal of Computers in Education | Issue 2/2022

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

For over a decade, researchers have been concerned about variable misconceptions within teaching and learning computer programming. Few studies exist to explore this concern in-depth from a pre-service teacher’s perspective. Importantly, the identification of pre-service teachers’ misconceptions in computer programming may significantly impact teaching and learning since it provides remedies to minimize or prevent effects on students. This study examines variable misconceptions of computer science pre-service teachers in Thailand and the effects of different computer-programming preferences on variable misconceptions. This study used a quantitative research method to examine a Thai sample of 151 computer science pre-service teachers with different preferences of programming languages. In this study, the pre-service teachers were asked to evaluate the provided programming tasks relating to variables. The Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests were performed to compare the computer-programming preferences between the groups. The findings of this study slightly reveal that the computer programming pre-service teachers have misconceptions about variables. The pre-service teachers in Logo and Scratch groups have similarly observed misconceptions. The Python group, however, is better at interpreting the misconceptions about variables. A design of pre-service teacher education activities to tackle variable misconceptions in the K-12 computer programming curriculum will be suggested according to the findings of this study.

next article The effects of blocked and massed practice opportunities on learning software applications with video tutorials

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Amiri, F. (2000). IT-literacy for language teachers: Should it include computer programming? System, 28(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00061-5CrossRef

Bayman, P., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). A diagnosis of beginning programmers’ misconceptions of BASIC programming statements. Communications of the ACM, 26(9), 677–679. https://doi.org/10.1145/358172.358408CrossRef

Bean, N., Weese, J., Feldhausen, R., & Bell, R. S. (2015). Starting from scratch: Developing a pre-service teacher training program in computational thinking. Proceedings—Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2015.7344237CrossRef

Bers, M. U. (2019). Coding as another language: A pedagogical approach for teaching computer science in early childhood. Journal of Computers in Education, 6(4), 499–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00147-3CrossRef

Bers, M. U., & Sullivan, A. (2019). Computer science education in early childhood: The case of scratchjr. Journal of Information Technology: Education Innovations in Practice, 18, 113–138. https://doi.org/10.28945/443710.28945/4437CrossRef

Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8CrossRef

Bruner, J. S. (1977). The process of education. Harvard University Press.

Chang, C. Y., Lai, C. L., & Hwang, G. J. (2018). Trends and research issues of mobile learning studies in nursing education: A review of academic publications from 1971 to 2016. Computers and Education, 116, 28–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.09.001CrossRef

Chiu, H. S. (2019). Dataset of mobile learning effectiveness on learning Computer Programming in Community College. Data in Brief, 26, 104525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2019.104525CrossRef

Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers and Education, 59(2), 661–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004CrossRef

Dağ, F. (2019). Prepare pre-service teachers to teach computer programming skills at K-12 level: experiences in a course. Journal of Computers in Education, 6(2), 277–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00137-5CrossRef

Dehnadi, S. (2006, September 7). Testing Programming Aptitude, Proceedings of the PPIG 18th Annual Workshop. Retrieved May 1, 2021, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228870259

Dehnadi, S. (2009). A cognitive study of learning to program in introductory programming courses [Doctoral dissertation, Middlesex University]. MDX eprints. http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/6274

Durak, H. Y. (2020). Modeling different variables in learning basic concepts of programming in flipped classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(1), 160–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119827956CrossRef

Erümit, A. K. (2020). Effects of different teaching approaches on programming skills. Education and Information Technologies, 25(2), 1013–1037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10010-8CrossRef

Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers and Education, 63, 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.016CrossRef

Gomes, A., & Mendes, A. J. (2007, September 3–7). Learning to program - difficulties and solutions. Academic Conference Paper Engineering Education - ICEE 2007. Retrieved May 2, 2021 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228328491

Grover, S., & Basu, S. (2017). Measuring student learning in introductory block-based programming: Examining misconceptions of loops, variables, and Boolean logic. Proceedings of the Conference on Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education. Retrieved on May 2, 2021, from https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017723

Grover, S., Jackiw, N., & Lundh, P. (2019). Concepts before coding: Non-programming interactives to advance learning of introductory programming concepts in middle school. Computer Science Education, 29(2–3), 106–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1568955CrossRef

Hahn, J. H., Mentz, E., & Meyer, L. (2012). Information technology students’ changing perceptions of assessment strategies during pair programming. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(2), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2012.10740741CrossRef

Jiang, B., & Li, Z. (2021). Effect of Scratch on computational thinking skills of Chinese primary school students. Journal of Computers in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00190-zCrossRef

Kwon, K. (2017). Novice programmer’s misconception of programming reflected on problem-solving plans. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 1(4), 14–24.CrossRef

Ma, L. (2007). Investigating and improving novice programmers’ mental models of programming concepts. Semantic Scholar. Retrieved May 2, 2021, from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3c8e/fb0c95325ac2f6bb38bd3d56fdbe900e4892.pdf

Menekse, M. (2015). Computer science teacher professional development in the United States: A review of studies published between 2004 and 2014. Computer Science Education, 25(4), 325–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1111645.CrossRef

Ministry of Education Thailand. (2018). Computing Science Teacher Guide. The Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology. Retrieved May 1, 2021, from https://oho.ipst.ac.th/?ddownload=3549

Ngee, P., Lau, K., Lau, S. H., Hong, K. S., Usop, H., Journal, S., Learning, A., Ngee, P., Lau, K., Lau, S. H., Hong, K. S., & Usop, H. (2011). International Forum of Educational Technology & Society Guessing Partial Knowledge, and Misconceptions in Multiple-Choice Tests. International Forum of Educational Technology & Society Guessing, Partial Knowledge, and Misconceptions, 14(4), 99–110.

Passey, D. (2017). Computer science (CS) in the compulsory education curriculum: Implications for future research. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 421–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9475-zCrossRef

Plass, D. (2015). Identifying and addressing common programming misconceptions with variables (part 1). University of Twente. Retrieved May 2, 2021, from https://essay.utwente.nl/70455

Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 258–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1122533CrossRef

Prensky, M. (2001). The games generations: How learners have changed. Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 1–26.

Qian, M., & Clark, K. R. (2016). Game-based Learning and 21st century skills: A review of recent research. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.023CrossRef

Rich, P., & Hodges, C. B. (2017). Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1CrossRef

Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. R., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Video games and the future of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(2), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170508700205CrossRef

Shi, N., Cui, W., Zhang, P., & Sun, X. (2018). Evaluating the effectiveness roles of variables in the novice programmers learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117707312CrossRef

Sorva, J. (2012). Visual program simulation in introductory programming education. Aalto Univ.

Statter, D., & Armoni, M. (2020). Teaching abstraction in computer science to 7th grade students. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 20(1), 8–837. https://doi.org/10.1145/3372143CrossRef

Stefik, A., & Siebert, S. (2013). An empirical investigation into programming language syntax. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 13(4), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/2534973CrossRef

Strawhacker, A., Lee, M., & Bers, M. U. (2018). Teaching tools, teachers’ rules: Exploring the impact of teaching styles on young children’s programming knowledge in ScratchJr. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28, 347–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9400-9CrossRef

Tan, K. C. D., Goh, N. K., Chia, L. S., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). Development and application of a two-tier multiple choice diagnostic instrument to assess high school students’ understanding of inorganic chemistry qualitative analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10023CrossRef

Taspinar, B., Schmidt, W., & Schuhbauer, H. (2016). Gamification in education: A board game approach to knowledge acquisition. Procedia Computer Science, 99, 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.104CrossRef

Yadav, A., Stephenson, C., & Hong, H. (2017). Computational thinking for teacher education. Communications of the ACM, 60(4), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2994591CrossRef

Yadav, A., Zhou, N., Mayfield, C., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2011). Introducing computational thinking in education courses. SIGCSE’11—Proceedings of the 42^nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Retrieved May 2, 2021, from https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953297

Žanko, Ž, Mladenović, M., & Boljat, I. (2018). Misconceptions about variables at the K-12 level. Education and Information Technologies, 24, 1251–1268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9824-1CrossRef

Title: A comparison of pre-service teachers’ variable misconceptions in various computer-programming preferences: findings to teacher education course
Authors: Chanayuth Changpetch
Patcharin Panjaburee
Niwat Srisawasdi
Publication date: 09-08-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Journal of Computers in Education / Issue 2/2022
Print ISSN: 2197-9987
Electronic ISSN: 2197-9995
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00200-0

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 2/2022

Global trends in the application of virtual reality for people with autism spectrum disorders: conceptual, intellectual and the social structure of scientific production

Explorations of two approaches to learning CT in a game environment for elementary school students

Interactivity during Covid-19: mediation of learner interactions on social presence and expected learning outcome within videoconference EFL courses

The effects of blocked and massed practice opportunities on learning software applications with video tutorials

Prediction of social media effects on students’ academic performance using Machine Learning Algorithms (MLAs)

Premium Partner