Student preferences between open-ended and structured game assignments in CS1

Introductory computer programming courses (CS1) traditionally are plagued with high failure and drop-out rates. In an attempt to change these negative outcomes, games have often been introduced into computing curricula as learning activities and programming projects. This paper builds on prior work to determine (a) the type of game assignment that students prefer (i.e., structured game assignments [those for which the entire assignment is completely described] or open-ended game assignments [those for which only basic requirements are specified allowing students to make up their own game]); and, (b) students' reasons for their preference. Forty-six students in two sections of an introductory programming course completed over 200 assignments during the fall 2009 semester. For each assignment, students were given a choice between structured and open-ended game assignments. Somewhat surprisingly, over 90% of submitted assignments were the structured game option even though the open-ended option could have required less code in most cases.

[1]  Lucas Layman,et al.  Note to self: make assignments meaningful , 2007, SIGCSE '07.

[2]  Daniel C. Cliburn,et al.  Games, stories, or something more traditional: the types of assignments college students prefer , 2008, SIGCSE '08.

[3]  Pearl Brazier,et al.  Session T 3 C CLOSING THE CS ICS II GAP : A BREADTH-SECOND APPROACH , 2003 .

[4]  Lasse Natvig,et al.  Age of computers: game-based teaching of computer fundamentals , 2004, ITiCSE '04.

[5]  Daniel C. Cliburn,et al.  What makes a good game programming assignment , 2008 .

[6]  Jessica D. Bayliss.  The Effects of Games in CS1-3 , 2007, J. Game Dev..

[7]  Bruce W. Char,et al.  Redesigning introductory computer programming using multi-level online modules for a mixed audience , 2003, SIGCSE.

[8]  S. Ariyapperuma,et al.  Internet security games as a pedagogic tool for teaching network security , 2005, Proceedings Frontiers in Education 35th Annual Conference.

[9]  Michael Buckley.  ViewpointComputing as social science , 2009, CACM.

[10]  Brian C. Ladd,et al.  The curse of Monkey Island: holding the attention of students weaned on computer games , 2006 .

[11]  André van der Hoek,et al.  Multi-site evaluation of SimSE , 2009, SIGCSE '09.

[12]  Yasuhiro Takemura,et al.  Comparative analysis of 2D games and artwork as the motivation to learn programming , 2009, 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

[13]  David Ginat,et al.  Simulation game for teaching communications protocols , 1997, SIGCSE '97.

[14]  Lauri Malmi,et al.  Why students drop out CS1 course? , 2006, ICER '06.

[15]  D.C. Cliburn.  The Effectiveness of Games as Assignments in an Introductory Programming Course , 2006, Proceedings. Frontiers in Education. 36th Annual Conference.

[16]  M. Feldgen,et al.  Games as a motivation for freshman students learn programming , 2004, 34th Annual Frontiers in Education, 2004. FIE 2004..

[17]  Andrew Luxton-Reilly,et al.  A simple framework for interactive games in CS1 , 2009, SIGCSE '09.

[18]  Rathika Rajaravivarma.  A games-based approach for teaching the introductory programming course , 2005, SGCS.

[19]  Mark Guzdial,et al.  Teaching the Nintendo generation to program , 2002, CACM.

[20]  M. Nordstrom,et al.  Investigating students' confidence in programming and problem solving , 2006, Proceedings. Frontiers in Education. 36th Annual Conference.

[21]  Jens Bennedsen,et al.  Failure rates in introductory programming , 2007, SGCS.

[22]  Bo Brinkman,et al.  The heart of a whistle-blower: a corporate decision-making game for computer ethics classes , 2009, SIGCSE '09.