The Impact of Training Method on Programming Learning Performance
Although several factors that affect learning to
program have been identified over the years, there continues to be no
indication of any consensus in understanding why some students learn
to program easily and quickly while others have difficulty. Seldom
have researchers considered the problem of how to help the students
enhance the programming learning outcome. The research had been
conducted at a high school in Taiwan. Students participating in the
study consist of 330 tenth grade students enrolled in the Basic
Computer Concepts course with the same instructor. Two types of
training methods-instruction-oriented and exploration-oriented were
conducted. The result of this research shows that the
instruction-oriented training method has better learning performance
than exploration-oriented training method.
[1] A. Robins, J. Rountree, and N. Rountree "Learning and teaching
programming: a review and discussion,” Computer Science Education,
(33-2), 2003, pp. 137-172.
[2] J. Tony "The Motivation of students of programming,” ACM SIGCSE,
(33:3), 2001, pp. 53-56.
[3] A. Goold, and R. Russell "Factors affecting performance in first-year
computing,” SIGCSE Bull., (32:2), 2000, pp. 39-43.
[4] P. Byrne, and G. Lyons "The effect of student attributes on success in
programming,” ITiCSE: Proceedings of the 6th annual conference on
Innovation and technology in computer science. ACM press, 2001, pp.
49-52.
[5] B. Susan, and R. Ronan "Programming: factors that influence success,”
Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer
Science Education, 2005.
[6] D. Christopher, L. David, and O. James "Automatic test-based
assessment of programming: areview,”ACM Journal of Educational
Resources in Computing, (5:3), September 2005, Article 4.
[7] L. David, and O. James "Automatic test-based assessment of
programming: a review,” ACM Journal of Educational Resources in
Computing, (5:3), September 2005, Article 4.
[8] L. R. Chien, D. J. Buehrer, and C. Y. Yang, "DICE, a Parse-Tree based
on-line assessment system for a programming language course,” The
Third Conference on Computer and Network Technology, 2007.
[9] R.P. Bostrom, L. Olfman, and M. K. Sein, "The importance of learning
style in end-user training,” MIS Quarterly, (14:1), 1990, pp. 101-119
[10] D.P. Ausubel, The psychology of meaningful verbal learning, New York,
Grune and Stratton, 1963.
[11] S.D. Davis, "Training novice users of computer systems: the roles of the
computer interface,” Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University
Bloomingtom, IN, 1989.
[12] H.W. Chou, and T.B. Wang "The influence of learning style and training
method on self-efficacy and learning outcome in WWW homepage
design training,” International Journal of Information Management,
(20:6), December 2000, pp.455-472.
[13] H. W. Chou, "Influences of cognitive style and training method on
training effectiveness,” Computers and Education, (37:1), 2001, pp.
11-25.
[14] J. Bruner, Toward a Theory of Instruction, New York: W. W. Norton,
1966.
[15] H. Taba, "Learning by discovery: psychological and educational
rationale,” The Elementary School Journal, (63:6), 1963, pp. 308-316.
[16] J. Brynda, "End user training: lend me your ear, I will teach you a PC
package,” Computing Canada, (18:1), 1992, pp. 48.
[17] A. P. Goldstein, and M. A. Sorcher, Changing Supervisor Behavior, New
York: Pergamon, 1974.
[18] D. A. Norman, "Some observations on mental models” in Mental Models,
A.L. Stevens and D. Genter (ends.), Lawrence Kawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1983, pp. 7-14.
[19] K. Beck, Test Driven Development: By Example, Addison-Wesley, 2003
[20] C.G. Jones, "Test-driven development goes to school," Journal of
Computing Sciences in Colleges, Vol. 20, 2004, pp. 220-231.
[21] S. H. Edwards, "Teaching software testing: automatic grading meets
test-first coding.” In Proceedings of the OOPSLA’03 Conference. Poster
presentation, 2003, 318-319.
[22] B. S. Bloom, M. D. Englehart, E.J. Furst, W.H. Hill, and D. R. Krathwohl,
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Claasification of Educational
Goal. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New Work: MaKay, 1956.
[23] D.R. Krathwohl, B. S. Bloom, and B. B. Masia, Taxonomy of educational
objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 2:
Affective Domain. New York: McKay, 1964.
[24] E.J. Simpson, "The Classification of Educational Objectives,
Psychomotor Domain,” Illinois Teacher Home Economics, 1966, 10, pp.
110-144.
[25] B. S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: the Classification of
Educational Goals. Longman, New York, 1984.
[26] S. Gupta, and R.P. Bostrom "End-user training methods: what we know,
need to know,” Proceedings of 2006 SIGMIS CPR Conference, 2006, pp.
172-182.
[1] A. Robins, J. Rountree, and N. Rountree "Learning and teaching
programming: a review and discussion,” Computer Science Education,
(33-2), 2003, pp. 137-172.
[2] J. Tony "The Motivation of students of programming,” ACM SIGCSE,
(33:3), 2001, pp. 53-56.
[3] A. Goold, and R. Russell "Factors affecting performance in first-year
computing,” SIGCSE Bull., (32:2), 2000, pp. 39-43.
[4] P. Byrne, and G. Lyons "The effect of student attributes on success in
programming,” ITiCSE: Proceedings of the 6th annual conference on
Innovation and technology in computer science. ACM press, 2001, pp.
49-52.
[5] B. Susan, and R. Ronan "Programming: factors that influence success,”
Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer
Science Education, 2005.
[6] D. Christopher, L. David, and O. James "Automatic test-based
assessment of programming: areview,”ACM Journal of Educational
Resources in Computing, (5:3), September 2005, Article 4.
[7] L. David, and O. James "Automatic test-based assessment of
programming: a review,” ACM Journal of Educational Resources in
Computing, (5:3), September 2005, Article 4.
[8] L. R. Chien, D. J. Buehrer, and C. Y. Yang, "DICE, a Parse-Tree based
on-line assessment system for a programming language course,” The
Third Conference on Computer and Network Technology, 2007.
[9] R.P. Bostrom, L. Olfman, and M. K. Sein, "The importance of learning
style in end-user training,” MIS Quarterly, (14:1), 1990, pp. 101-119
[10] D.P. Ausubel, The psychology of meaningful verbal learning, New York,
Grune and Stratton, 1963.
[11] S.D. Davis, "Training novice users of computer systems: the roles of the
computer interface,” Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University
Bloomingtom, IN, 1989.
[12] H.W. Chou, and T.B. Wang "The influence of learning style and training
method on self-efficacy and learning outcome in WWW homepage
design training,” International Journal of Information Management,
(20:6), December 2000, pp.455-472.
[13] H. W. Chou, "Influences of cognitive style and training method on
training effectiveness,” Computers and Education, (37:1), 2001, pp.
11-25.
[14] J. Bruner, Toward a Theory of Instruction, New York: W. W. Norton,
1966.
[15] H. Taba, "Learning by discovery: psychological and educational
rationale,” The Elementary School Journal, (63:6), 1963, pp. 308-316.
[16] J. Brynda, "End user training: lend me your ear, I will teach you a PC
package,” Computing Canada, (18:1), 1992, pp. 48.
[17] A. P. Goldstein, and M. A. Sorcher, Changing Supervisor Behavior, New
York: Pergamon, 1974.
[18] D. A. Norman, "Some observations on mental models” in Mental Models,
A.L. Stevens and D. Genter (ends.), Lawrence Kawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1983, pp. 7-14.
[19] K. Beck, Test Driven Development: By Example, Addison-Wesley, 2003
[20] C.G. Jones, "Test-driven development goes to school," Journal of
Computing Sciences in Colleges, Vol. 20, 2004, pp. 220-231.
[21] S. H. Edwards, "Teaching software testing: automatic grading meets
test-first coding.” In Proceedings of the OOPSLA’03 Conference. Poster
presentation, 2003, 318-319.
[22] B. S. Bloom, M. D. Englehart, E.J. Furst, W.H. Hill, and D. R. Krathwohl,
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Claasification of Educational
Goal. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New Work: MaKay, 1956.
[23] D.R. Krathwohl, B. S. Bloom, and B. B. Masia, Taxonomy of educational
objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 2:
Affective Domain. New York: McKay, 1964.
[24] E.J. Simpson, "The Classification of Educational Objectives,
Psychomotor Domain,” Illinois Teacher Home Economics, 1966, 10, pp.
110-144.
[25] B. S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: the Classification of
Educational Goals. Longman, New York, 1984.
[26] S. Gupta, and R.P. Bostrom "End-user training methods: what we know,
need to know,” Proceedings of 2006 SIGMIS CPR Conference, 2006, pp.
172-182.
@article{"International Journal of Business, Human and Social Sciences:67796", author = "Chechen Liao and Chin Yi Yang", title = "The Impact of Training Method on Programming Learning Performance", abstract = "Although several factors that affect learning to
program have been identified over the years, there continues to be no
indication of any consensus in understanding why some students learn
to program easily and quickly while others have difficulty. Seldom
have researchers considered the problem of how to help the students
enhance the programming learning outcome. The research had been
conducted at a high school in Taiwan. Students participating in the
study consist of 330 tenth grade students enrolled in the Basic
Computer Concepts course with the same instructor. Two types of
training methods-instruction-oriented and exploration-oriented were
conducted. The result of this research shows that the
instruction-oriented training method has better learning performance
than exploration-oriented training method.
", keywords = "Learning performance, programming learning, TDD,
training method.", volume = "8", number = "7", pages = "2332-5", }
