Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Education and Information Technologies
Published in: Education and Information Technologies 3/2017

24-02-2016

A model for teaching an introductory programming course using ADRI

Authors: Sohail Iqbal Malik, Jo Coldwell-Neilson

Published in: Education and Information Technologies | Issue 3/2017

Log in

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

search-config
loading …

Abstract

High failure and drop-out rates from introductory programming courses continue to be of significant concern to computer science disciplines despite extensive research attempting to address the issue. In this study, we include the three entities of the didactic triangle, instructors, students and curriculum, to explore the learning difficulties that students encounter when studying introductory programming. We first explore students’ perceptions of the barriers and affordances to learning programming. A survey is conducted with introductory programming students to get their feedback on the topics and associated learning resources in the introductory programming course. The instructors’ perceptions are included by analyzing current teaching materials and assessment tools used in the course. As a result, an ADRI based approach is proposed to address the problems identified in the teaching and learning processes of an introductory programming course.
previous article Improved modeling of intelligent tutoring systems using ant colony optimization
next article Technology leadership in Saudi schools

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 "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

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
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
Abuid, B.A. (2010). ADRI – Self assessment model for teaching and learning (pp. 165–175). Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Global Trends and Challenges in Higher Education and Quality Assurance . Muscat: Mazoon College.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Pintrich, P. R., Mayer, R. E., Raths, J., & Withrock, M. C. (2000). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing. Pearson: Abridged Edn.
Ben-Ari, M. (2001). Constructivism in computer science. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science, 20(1), 45–73.
Biggs, J.B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at University. In Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol. 50, No. 4, 2nd edn, Buckingham open University Press, Open University Press.
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning – the SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413–426.CrossRef
Boyer, N.R., Langevin, S., & Gaspar, A. (2008). Self direction & constructivism in programming education (pp. 89–94). Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGITE conference on Information technology education, SIGITE ’08. New York: ACM.
Brito, M.A., & Sa-Soares F.D. (2010). Computer programming: fail fast to learn sooner. In: M. D. Lytras (Ed.): Tech-education (pp. 223–229). Springer-Verlag.
Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for life-long learning: a comprehensive guide to theory and practice (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Corney, M., Lister, R., & Teague, D. (2011). Early relational reasoning and the novice programmer: swapping as the ‘Hello World’ of relational reasoning (pp. 95–104). Proceeding of 13th Australasian Computer Education Conference Perth: Australia.
De Raadt, M. (2008). Teaching programming strategies explicitly to novice programmers, PhD thesis, University of Southern Queensland, Australia, retrieved June 2013, USQ ePrints.
Fleming, N., & Baume, D. (2006). Learning styles again: VARKing up the right tree! Educational Developments, SEDA Ltd, Issue 7.4, (pp. 4–7).
Fuller, U., Johnson, C. G., Ahoniemi, T., Cukierman, D., Hernán-Losada, I., Jackova, J., Lahtinen, E., Lewis, T. L., Thompson, D. M., Riedesel, C., & Thompson, E. (2007). Developing a computer science-specific learning taxonomy. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(4), 152–170.CrossRef
Gazza, E. A. (2015). Continuously improving online course design using the plan-Do-study-Act cycle. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 291–297.
Guzdial, M., & Soloway, E. (2002). Log on education: teaching the Nintendo generation to program. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 17–21.CrossRef
Iqbal, S., & Harsh, O. K. (2013). A self-review and external review model for teaching and assessing novice programmers. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 2(3), 120–123.CrossRef
Jantti, M.H. (2002). Minding your own business: can a business excellence framework translate to the education sector? Proceedings of Quality conversations on the Annual Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Conference, Perth: HERDSA.
Jenkins, T. (2001). Teaching programming – A journey from teacher to motivator (pp. 65–71). Proceedings of 2nd Annual LTSN-ICS Conference: London.
Johnson, C.G. & Fuller, U. (2006). Is Bloom’s taxonomy appropriate for computer science (pp. 115–118). Proceeding of 6th Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli calling 2006). Finland: Koli National Park.
Kaasbøll, J.J. (1998). Exploring didactic models for programming (pp. 195–203). Proceedings of NIK’98 (Norwegian Computer Science Conference): Kristiansand.
Kansanen, P. (1999). Teaching as teaching-studying-learning interaction. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 43(1), 81–89.CrossRef
Kinnunen, P. & Malmi L. (2006). Why students drop out CS1 course? ICER ’06 (pp. 97–108). Proceedings of the second international workshop on Computing education research, ACM: USA.
Klug, B. (1976). To grade, or not to grade: a dramatic discussion in eleven parts. Studies in Higher Education, 1(2), 197–207.CrossRef
Lahtinen, E., Ala-Mutka, K., & Järvinen, H.M. (2005). A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. Proceeding of ITiCSE’05,ACM: Monte de Caparica.
Linn, M. C., & Clancy, M. J. (1992). The case for case studies of programming problems. Communication of the ACM, 35(3), 121–132.CrossRef
McGregor, F. (2003). Benchmarking with the Best. Proceedings of the 5th Northumbria Conference on Performance Measurement in Libraries and Information Services, International Federation of Library Associations: Durham.
McKinney, D., & Denton, L. F. (2006). Developing collaborative skills early in the CS curriculum in a laboratory environment. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(1), 138–142.CrossRef
Meisalo, V., Suhonen, J., Sutinen, E., & Torvinen, S. (2002). Formative evaluation scheme for a web-based course design (pp. 130–134). Proceedings of the 7thITiCSE, ACM, University of Aarhus, Denmark.
Moen, R., & Norman, C. (2010). Evolution of the PDCA Cycle, pkpinc.com/files/NA01MoenNormanFullpaper.pdf. Accessed 05 Jul 2013
Mohorovicic, S., & Strcic, V. (2011). An overview of computer programming teaching methods (pp. 47–52). Proceedings of Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems, CECIIS, Croatia.
Papp-Varga, Z., Szlávi, P., & Zsakó, L. (2008). ICT teaching methods – Programming languages. Annales Mathematicae et Informaticae, 35(1), 163–172.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119.CrossRef
Razvi, S., Trevor-Roper, S., Goodliffe, T., Al-Habsi, F. & Al-Rawahi, A. (2012). Evolution of OAAA strategic planning: using ADRI as an analytical tool to review its activities and strategic planning. Proceedings of Seventh Annual International Conference on Strategic Planning for Quality Assurance and Accreditation of Universities and Educational Arab Institutions, Cairo.
Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: a review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 137–172.CrossRef
Schmeck, R. R. (1988). Learning strategies and learning styles (1st ed.). New York: Springer.CrossRef
Shuhidan, S.M. (2012). Probing the minds of novice programmers through guided learning, PhD thesis, retrieved July 2013, RMIT University: Australia.
Sykes, E. R. (2007). Determining the effectiveness of the 3D Alice programming environment at the computer science I level. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(2), 223–244.CrossRef
Tavares, J., Brzezinski, I., Huet, I., Cabreal, A., & Neri, D. (2001). Having coffee with professors and students to talk about higher education pedagogy and academic success. Proceedings of the 24th International HERDSA conference: Newcastle.
Ten-Berge, T., & Van-Henewijk, R. (1999). Procedural and declarative knowledge: an evolutionary perspective. Theory and Psychology, 5(5), 605–624.CrossRef
Thevathayan C., & Hamilton M. (2015). Supporting diverse novice programming cohorts through flexible and incremental visual constructivist pathways (pp. 296–301). Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ACM.
Thompson, E., Luxton-Reilly, A., Whalley, J.L., Hu, M., & Robbins, P. (2008). Bloom’s Taxonomy for CS Assessment (pp. 155–161). Proceedings of the tenth ACE2008, ACM: Wollongong.
Tirronen, V., & Isomottonen, V. (2011). Making teaching of programming learning-oriented and learner-directed (pp. 60–65). Proceedings of the Koli calling, ACM: Koli.
Vihavainen, A., Paksula, M., & Luukkainen, M. (2011). Extreme apprenticeship method in teaching programming for beginners (pp. 93–98). Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, SIGCSE ’11, ACM: New York.
Wang, C.X., Dong, L.L., Li, C.H., Zhang, W.Q., & He, J. (2012). The reform of programming teaching based on constructivism. In W Hu Edition: Advances in electric and electronics (pp. 425–431), Springer-Verlag.
Webster, M. (1994). Overview of programming and problem solving. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edn, computerscience.jbpub.com/vbnet/pdfs/mcmillan01.pdf, Accessed 15 Jul 2013.
Wiedenbeck, S., LaBelle, D. & Kain, V.N.R. (2004). Factors affecting course outcomes in introductory programming (pp. 97–110). Proceedings of 16th Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group. Carlow: Ireland.
Wilson, J.D., Hoskin, N. & Nosek, J.T. (1993) The benefits of collaboration for student programmers (pp. 160–164). Proceedings of the 24th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM, Indianapolis.
Winslow, L. E. (1996). Programming pedagogy—a psychological overview. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 28(3), 17–22.CrossRef
Woodhouse, D. (2003). Quality improvement through quality audit. Quality in Higher Education, 9(2), 133–139.CrossRef
Wu, C. C., Lin, J. M. C., & Lin, K. Y. (1999). A content analysis of programming examples in high school computer textbooks in Taiwan. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 18(3), 225–244.
Metadata
Title
A model for teaching an introductory programming course using ADRI
Authors
Sohail Iqbal Malik
Jo Coldwell-Neilson
Publication date
24-02-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Education and Information Technologies / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 1360-2357
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7608
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9474-0

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

Education and Information Technologies 3/2017 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Issues of teaching metrology in higher education institutions of civil engineering in Russia

OriginalPaper

An analysis of research trends in articles on video usage in medical education

OriginalPaper

Selected aspects of conditions in the use of new media as an important part of the training of teachers in the Czech Republic and Poland - differences, risks and threats

OriginalPaper

“What’s the Weather Like Today?”: A computer game to develop algorithmic thinking and problem solving skills of primary school pupils

OriginalPaper

Analysis of FIFA referees and assistant referees’ motivational factors towards the Multimedia Teaching Materials

OriginalPaper

Students and teacher academic evaluation perceptions: Methodology to construct a representation based on actionable knowledge discovery framework

Premium Partner

    Image Credits