Pre-service and in-service teachers' experiences of learning to program in an object-oriented language

This paper presents the results of an investigation into the various ways in which pre-service and in-service teachers experience learning to program in an object-oriented language. Both groups of teachers were enrolled in university courses. In most cases, the pre-service teachers were learning to program for the first time, while the in-service teachers had previously programmed using a procedural programming language. Phenomenography was used to identify categories of description of learning to program. From these categories an outcome space was created that shows the relationship between different experiences of learning to program. The outcome space can be represented as circles inscribed within one another, where the innermost circle represents a lower level of cognitive accomplishment and the outer circles subsume the inner circles. The five levels of the outcome space are: meeting the requirements, learning the syntax/learning by comparison, understanding and assimilating, problem solving and programming in the large. Implications of the findings for teaching are discussed.

[1]  S. Fincher,et al.  What are we doing when we teach programming? , 1999, FIE'99 Frontiers in Education. 29th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Designing the Future of Science and Engineering Education. Conference Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No.99CH37011.

[2]  Sonya C. Carr Assessing Learning Processes , 2002 .

[3]  Michael Kölling,et al.  The Problem of Teaching Object-Oriented Programming, Part I: Languages , 1999, J. Object Oriented Program..

[4]  Jens Kaasbøll,et al.  A survey of methods used to evaluate computer science teaching , 1998, ITiCSE '98.

[5]  G. Wiggins The Case for Authentic Assessment. , 1990 .

[6]  Shirley Booth,et al.  Learning to program : a phenomenographic perspective , 1992 .

[7]  Qusay H. Mahmoud,et al.  Redesigning introductory computer programming with HTML, JavaScript, and Java , 2004 .

[8]  John B. Biggs,et al.  Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does , 1999 .

[9]  D. Grayson,et al.  Learning to program, learning to teach progamming: pre- and in-service teachers' experiences of an object-oriented programming language , 2007 .

[10]  L. Shulman Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching , 1986 .

[11]  Peter Brusilovsky,et al.  Mini-languages: a way to learn programming principles , 2004, Education and Information Technologies.

[12]  Mark Guzdial,et al.  A multi-national, multi-institutional study of assessment of programming skills of first-year CS students , 2001, ITiCSE-WGR '01.

[13]  F. Marton,et al.  The University of Learning. Beyond Quality and Competence in Higher Education. , 2013 .

[14]  Jens Kaasbøll,et al.  Exploring didactic models for programming , 2002 .

[15]  Ference Marton,et al.  Phenomenography-a research approach to investigating different understandings of reality , 1986 .

[16]  Michael Kölling,et al.  Guidelines for teaching object orientation with Java , 2001 .

[17]  L. West,et al.  Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change , 1985 .

[18]  John Leaney,et al.  Introductory programming, criterion-referencing, and bloom , 2003, SIGCSE.

[19]  Michael Prosser,et al.  Relating the process of undergraduate essay writing to the finished product , 1994 .

[20]  Shirley Booth,et al.  On Phenomenography, Learning and Teaching , 1997 .

[21]  Sally Fincher,et al.  'My Criterion is: Is it a Boolean?': A card-sort elicitation of students' knowledge of programming constructs , 2003 .

[22]  Haibin Zhu,et al.  Methodology first and language second: a way to teach object-oriented programming , 2003, OOPSLA '03.

[23]  M. Linn The Cognitive Consequences of Programming Instruction in Classrooms , 1985 .

[24]  F. Marton,et al.  Learning and Awareness , 1997 .

[25]  F. Marton Phenomenography — Describing conceptions of the world around us , 1981 .

[26]  Michael Prosser,et al.  The “How” and “What” of learning physics , 1989 .