Pre- and Post-survey of the Achievement Result of Novice Programming Learners - On the Basis of the Scores of Puzzle-Like Programming Game and Exams After Learning the Basic of Programming -

Some researches on programming education have reported that the aptitude for programming, which determines the achievement results after its learning, is strongly influenced by the learner’s previous ability. In this paper, we analyze the relationship between pre- and post-state of programming learning. Concretely, in order to estimate the pre-state of programming learning, we focus on puzzle-like programming game and discuss the learner’s ability based on its scores. The new contribution of this paper is to clarify whether the learner’s pre-state can be observed in the programming game. This paper takes up a puzzle-like programming game “Algologic” aiming to experience the concept of algorithmic thinking for inexperienced programming learners. This is a simple puzzle game aiming at solving a given task by automatically controlling a robot. This game player designs an autonomous robot by selecting some of the instruction blocks, arranging the blocks in an appropriate order, and giving them to the robot while considering the concept of algorithm. Before students learn the basic of programming, we conducted a test to determine whether algorithms each student gave to the robot were correct or not by utilizing Algologic. Likewise, after students have learned the basic of programming, we conducted a comprehension test to clarify the reachability. This paper reports the investigation result of the relationship between the comprehension of Algologic and the achievement result after learning programming. Analysis results revealed that the results of Algologic test and the achievement results after learning programming were significantly in a positive relationship.

[1]  Yoshiaki Matsuzawa,et al.  Measuring an Impact of Block-Based Language in Introductory Programming , 2010, SaITE.

[2]  Randy F. Pausch,et al.  Teaching objects-first in introductory computer science , 2003, SIGCSE.

[3]  Kirsti Ala-Mutka,et al.  A study of the difficulties of novice programmers , 2005, ITiCSE '05.

[4]  Nergiz Çağıltay,et al.  How ScRatch programmıng may enrıch engıneerıng educatıon , 2015 .

[5]  Scott Wallace,et al.  Toward A More Scalable End-User Scripting Language , 2008, Sixth International Conference on Creating, Connecting and Collaborating through Computing (C5 2008).

[6]  Pedro Abreu,et al.  Types of assessing student-programming knowledge , 2016, 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).

[7]  Colleen M. Lewis How programming environment shapes perception, learning and goals: logo vs. scratch , 2010, SIGCSE.

[8]  Tenzin Doleck,et al.  Exploring Bimodality in Introductory Computer Science Performance Distributions , 2018, EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education.

[9]  Ricarose Roque OpenBlocks : an extendable framework for graphical block programming systems , 2007 .

[10]  John Maloney,et al.  Back to the Future The Story of Squeak, A Practical Smalltalk Written in Itself , 1997 .

[11]  Simon,et al.  Mental models, consistency and programming aptitude , 2008, ACE '08.

[12]  Anna Eckerdal,et al.  On the Bimodality in an Introductory Programming Course: An Analysis of Student Performance Factors , 2015, 2015 International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering.

[13]  Stephen Chi-fai Chan,et al.  Filling the gap in programming instruction: a text-enhanced graphical programming environment for junior high students , 2009, SIGCSE '09.

[14]  Jeannette M. Wing An introduction to computer science for non-majors using principles of computation , 2007, SIGCSE.

[15]  Frederick W. B. Li,et al.  Failure rates in introductory programming revisited , 2014, ITiCSE '14.

[16]  Toshio Matsuura,et al.  PEN: A Programming Environment for Novices — Overview and Practical Lessons — , 2008 .

[17]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  Scratch: A Sneak Preview , 2004 .

[18]  Janet Rountree,et al.  Learning and Teaching Programming: A Review and Discussion , 2003, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[19]  Andrew Luxton-Reilly,et al.  Learning to Program is Easy , 2016, ITiCSE.

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

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