Top

Published in:

2022 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Common Code Writing Errors Made by Novice Programmers: Implications for the Teaching of Introductory Programming

Authors : Mokotsolane Ben Mase, Liezel Nel

Published in: ICT Education

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

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

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Novices tend to make unnecessary errors when they write programming code. Many of these errors can be attributed to the novices’ fragile knowledge of basic programming concepts. Programming instructors also find it challenging to develop teaching and learning strategies that are aimed at addressing the specific programming challenges experienced by their students. This paper reports on a study aimed at (1) identifying the common programming errors made by a select group of novice programmers, and (2) analyzing how these common errors changed at different stages during an academic semester. This exploratory study employed a mixed-methods approach based on the Framework of Integrated Methodologies (FraIM). Manual, structured content analysis of 684 programming artefacts, created by 38 participants and collected over an entire semester, lead to the identification of 21 common programming errors. The identified errors were classified into four categories: syntax, semantic, logic, and type errors. The results indicate that semantic and type errors occurred most frequently. Although common error categories are likely to remain the same from one assignment to the next, the introduction of more complex programming concepts towards the end of the semester could lead to an unexpected change in the most common error category. Knowledge of these common errors and error categories could assist programming instructors in adjusting their teaching and learning approaches for novice programmers.

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

previous chapter Mapping Computational Thinking Skills to the South African Secondary School Mathematics Curriculum

next chapter Ten Years in the Trenches of a Doubtful Science: An Autoethnographic Investigation of Five Challenges of Teaching in Information Systems

Ahadi, A., Lister, R., Lal, S., Hellas, A.: Learning programming, syntax errors and institution-specific factors. In: Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Computing Education Conference, pp. 90–96. ACM, New York (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3160489.3160490

Albrecht, E., Grabowski, J.: Sometimes it's just sloppiness-studying students’ programming errors and misconceptions. In: Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pp. 340–345. ACM, New York (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366862

Alqadi, B.S., Maletic, J.I.: An empirical study of debugging patterns among novice programmers. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pp. 15–20. ACM, New York (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017761

Altadmri, A., Brown, N.C.C.: 37 million compilations: investigating novice programming mistakes in large-scale student data. In: Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pp. 522–527. ACM, New York (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2676723.2677258

Altadmri, A., Kölling, M., Brown, N.C.C.: The cost of syntax and how to avoid it: text versus frame-based editing. In: Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 40th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), pp. 748–753. IEEE (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC.2016.204

Alzahrani, N., Vahid, F., Edgcomb, A., Lysecky, R., Lysecky, S.: An analysis of common errors leading to excessive student struggle on homework problems in an introductory programming course. In: Proceedings of ASEE Annual Conference. ASEE, Riverside (2018)

Becker, B.A., et al.: Unexpected tokens: a review of programming error messages and design guidelines for the future. In: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, pp. 253–254. ACM, New York (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3304221.3325539

Becker, B.A., Mooney, C.: Categorizing compiler error messages with principal component analysis. In: Proceedings of the 12th China-Europe International Symposium on Software Engineering Education (CEISEE 2016), pp. 28–29. CEISEE, Shenyang (2016)

Becker, B.A.: An effective approach to enhancing compiler error messages. In: Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education, pp. 126–131. ACM, New York (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844584

10.

Brass, S., Goldberg, C.: Semantic errors in SQL queries: a quite complete list. J. Syst. Softw. 79(5), 630–644 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2005.06.028CrossRef

11.

Bosse, Y., Redmiles, D., Gerosa, M.A.: Pedagogical content for professors of introductory programming courses. In: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, pp. 429–435. ACM, New York (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3304221.3319776

12.

Brown, N.C., Altadmri, A.: Investigating novice programming mistakes: Educator beliefs vs. student data. In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research, pp. 43–50. ACM, New York (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2632320.2632343

13.

Canedo, E.D., Santos, G.A., Leite, L.L.: An assessment of the teaching-learning methodologies used in the introductory programming courses at a Brazilian university. Inform. Educ. 17(1), 45–59 (2018). https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2018.03CrossRef

14.

Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., Carpenter, D.: Enhancing syntax error messages appears ineffectual. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation and Technology In Computer Science Education, pp. 273–278. ACM, New York (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2591708.2591748

15.

Denny, P., Luxton, R.A., Tempero, E.: All syntax errors are not equal. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, pp. 75–80. ACM, New York (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2325296.2325318

16.

Ettles, A., Luxton-Reilly, A., Denny, P.: Common logic errors made by novice programmers. In: Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Computing Education Conference, pp. 83–89. ACM, New York (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3160489.3160493

17.

Farrokhi, F., Mahmoudi-Hamidabad, A.: Rethinking convenience sampling: defining quality criteria. Theory Pract. Lang. Stud. 2(4), 784–792 (2012). https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.4.784-792CrossRef

18.

Figueiredo, J., Lopes, N., García-Peñalvo, F.J.: Predicting student failure in an introductory programming course with multiple back-propagation. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, pp. 44–49. ACM, New York (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3362789.3362925

19.

Hristova, M., Misra, A., Rutter, M., Mercuri, R.: Identifying and correcting Java programming errors for introductory computer science students. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 35(1), 153–156 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1145/611892.611956CrossRef

20.

Johnson, W.L.: Understanding and debugging novice programs. Artif. Intell. 42(1), 51–97 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(90)90094-GCrossRef

21.

Jackson, J., Cobb, M., Carver, C.: Identifying top Java errors for novice programmers. In: Proceedings Frontiers in Education 35th Annual Conference, p. T4C. IEEE, Indianapolis (2005). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2005.1611967

22.

Kazeem, O.N., Abiola, O.A., Akinola, S.O.: Bug pattern analysis of codes produced by beginner programmers using association rule mining technique. Univ. Ibadan J. Sci. Logics ICT Res. 4(1), 10–24 (2020)

23.

Koerber, A., McMichael, L.: Qualitative sampling methods: a primer for technical communicators. J. Bus. Tech. Commun. 22(4), 454–473 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651908320362CrossRef

24.

Lakkaraju, H., et al.: A machine learning framework to identify students at risk of adverse academic outcomes. In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 1909–1918. ACM, New York (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2783258.2788620

25.

Malik, S.I., Mathew, R., Hammood, M.M.: PROBSOL: a web-based application to develop problem-solving skills in introductory programming. In: Al-Masri, A., Curran, K. (eds.) Smart Technologies and Innovation for a Sustainable Future. ASTI, pp. 295–302. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01659-3_34CrossRef

26.

Malik, S.I., Mathew, R., Al-Nuaimi, R., Al-Sideiri, A., Coldwell-Neilson, J.: Learning problem solving skills: comparison of E-learning and M-learning in an introductory programming course. Educ. Inf. Technol. 24(5), 2779–2796 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09896-1CrossRef

27.

McCall, D., Kölling, M.: A new look at novice programmer errors. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 19(4), 1–30 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3335814CrossRef

28.

McCall, D., Kölling, M.: Meaningful categorisation of novice programmer errors. In: 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings, pp. 1–8. IEEE (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2014.7044420

29.

Plonka, L., Sharp, H., Van der Linden, J., Dittrich, Y.: Knowledge transfer in pair programming: an in-depth analysis. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 73, 66–78 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.001CrossRef

30.

Plowright, D.: Using Mixed Methods: Frameworks for an Integrated Methodology. SAGE, London (Kindle edition) (2011)

31.

Qian, Y., Lehman, J.: An investigation of high school students’ errors in introductory programming: a data-driven approach. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 58(5), 919–945 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119887508CrossRef

32.

Rahman, M., Watanobe, Y., Nakamura, K.: Source code assessment and classification based on estimated error probability using attentive LSTM language model and its application in programming education. Appl. Sci. 10(8), 2973 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/app10082973CrossRef

33.

Robins, A.V.: Novice programmers and introductory programming. In: Fincher, S., Robins, A. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research, pp. 327–376. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2019)CrossRef

34.

Schliep, P.A.: Usability of error messages for introductory students. Sch. Horiz. Univ. Minn. Morris Undergrad. J. 2(2), 5–11 (2015)

35.

Smith, R., Rixner, S.: The error landscape: characterizing the mistakes of novice programmers. In: Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pp. 538–544. ACM, New York (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287394

36.

Steenmeijer, L.D.: Increasing the consistency of feedback on programming code by using a tagging system (Bachelor's thesis). University of Twente, Twente (2020). http://essay.utwente.nl/82198/

37.

Tabanao, E.S., Rodrigo, M.M.T., Jadud, M.C.: Identifying at-risk novice java programmers through the analysis of online protocols. In: Proceedings of Philippine Computing Science Congress, pp. 1–8. Archīum Ateneo (2008)

38.

Türkmen, G., Caner, S.: The investigation of novice programmers’ debugging behaviors to inform intelligent e-learning environments: a case study. Turkish Online J. Dist. Educ. 21(3), 142–155 (2020). https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.762039CrossRef

39.

Tuugalei, I., Mow, I.C.: Analyses of student programming errors in java programming courses. J. Emerg. Trends Comput. Inf. Sci. 3(5), 739–749 (2012)

40.

Zehetmeier, D., Böttcher, A., Brüggemann-Klein, A., Thurner, V.: Development of a classification scheme for errors observed in the process of computer programming education. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Higher Education Advances (Head 2015), pp. 475–484. Universitat Politècnica de València, València (2015). https://doi.org/10.4995/HEAd15.2015.356

Title: Common Code Writing Errors Made by Novice Programmers: Implications for the Teaching of Introductory Programming
Authors: Mokotsolane Ben Mase
Liezel Nel
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Book: ICT Education
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-95002-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-95003-3

Copyright Year: 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95003-3_7

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"

Premium Partner