A Comparative Evaluation on Methods of Teaching Computer Programming

被引:2
|
作者
Adnan, Asmalinda [1 ]
Romli, Rohaida [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Utara Malaysia, Sch Comp, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia
关键词
Teaching and learning programming; Visualization; Code tracing; Game-based; Robotic; Problem-based; Simulation and pair programming; PROBLEM-SOLVING SKILLS; STUDENTS; DESIGN; SYSTEM; GAMES; TOOL;
D O I
10.1007/978-3-030-98741-1_47
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Learning programming is typically regarded as a challenging task by both educators and learners. The face-to-face learning method alone is likely insufficient to promote effective teaching and learning solutions. Thus, having a suitable teaching method can be useful in various situations and encourages learners to actively and effectively participate in programming classes. Likewise, having appropriate formation of different programming learning methods and environments to influence learners' computational thinking is something significant. As such, this paper presents an analysis and comparison of the related works on any promising methods that are able promote a better and efficient way of learning programming. In the meantime, it suggests any possible direction for future work by conducting a comparative evaluation. As far as this study is concerned, several methods of teaching programming such as visualization, game-based, robotics, problem-solving, code tracing, simulation and pair programming have been analyzed and compared. Results of this study indicated that visualization and game-based method are the most effective formation methods. Using visualization and games-based methods in teaching programming can help to enhance learners' programming concepts in terms of enhancing the learners' cognitive ability to develop a mental model, increase their engagement and stimulate their abstract thinking in cognitive development.
引用
收藏
页码:571 / 582
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Practical Teaching Methods Reform in Computer Programming Courses
    Wang, Jun
    Wang, ShunYan
    [J]. 2012 2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND SOCIETY MANAGEMENT (ICPESM 2012), VOL 10, 2012, 10 : 294 - 297
  • [2] Instructional Media and Teaching Methods for Engaging Children with Computer Programming
    Garneli, Varvara
    [J]. 2014 14TH IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCED LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES (ICALT), 2014, : 768 - 770
  • [3] Workshop applying cooperative learning methods in teaching computer programming
    Beck, Leland L.
    Chizhik, Alexander W.
    [J]. 36TH ANNUAL FRONTIERS IN EDUCATION, CONFERENCE PROGRAM, VOLS 1-4: BORDERS: INTERNATIONAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL, 2006, : 436 - +
  • [4] Computer-Aided Teaching and Evaluation System Oriented Programming Laguage
    Pang, Yuqing
    Chen, Guoxin
    [J]. 2008 IEEE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON IT IN MEDICINE AND EDUCATION, VOLS 1 AND 2, PROCEEDINGS, 2008, : 272 - +
  • [5] Teaching Design of The Basis of Computer Programming
    Ge, Linlin
    Zhang, Wei
    [J]. 2013 3RD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SOCIAL SCIENCES AND SOCIETY (ICSSS 2013), PT 12, 2013, 43 : 192 - 195
  • [6] Teaching computer programming: a practical review
    Begosso, Luiz Carlos
    da Silva, Priscila Rodrigues
    [J]. 2013 IEEE FRONTIERS IN EDUCATION CONFERENCE, 2013,
  • [7] Research on Inquiry Teaching of Computer Programming
    Zhang, Jinhai
    Song, Xingang
    Fan, Linjie
    Sun, Lin
    [J]. MECHATRONICS ENGINEERING, COMPUTING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 556-562 : 6383 - 6386
  • [8] The Gobstones method for teaching computer programming
    Martinez Lopez, Pablo E.
    Ciolek, Daniel
    Arevalo, Gabriela
    Pari, Denise
    [J]. 2017 XLIII LATIN AMERICAN COMPUTER CONFERENCE (CLEI), 2017,
  • [9] Peer critiques in the teaching of computer programming
    Joel, WJ
    [J]. SELECTED PAPERS FROM THE 11TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLLEGE TEACHING AND LEARNING, 2000, : 111 - 117
  • [10] Teaching mathematics and computer programming together
    Vaninsky, A. Y.
    [J]. INNOVATIONS IN E-LEARNING, INSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY, ASSESSMENT, AND ENGINEERING EDUCATION, 2007, : 51 - 54