10.1145/3197091.3205841acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiticseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

A review of introductory programming research 2003–2017

Published:02 July 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

A broad review of research on the teaching and learning of programming was conducted by Robins et al. in 2003. Since this work there have been several reviews of research concerned with the teaching and learning of programming, in particular introductory programming. However, these reviews have focused on highly specific aspects, such as student misconceptions, teaching approaches, program comprehension, potentially seminal papers, research methods applied, automated feedback for exercises, competency-enhancing games, and program visualisation. While these aspects encompass a wide range of issues, they do not cover the full scope of research into novice programming. Some notable areas that have not been reviewed are assessment, academic integrity, and novice student attitudes to programming. There does not appear to have been a comprehensive review of research into introductory programming since that of Robins et al. It is therefore timely to conduct and present such a review in order to gain an understanding of the research focuses, to highlight advances in knowledge since 2003, and to indicate possible future directions for research. The working group will conduct a systematic literature review based on the guidelines proposed by Kitchenham et al. This research project is well suited to an ITiCSE working group as the synthesis and discussion of the literature will benefit from input from a variety of researchers drawn from different backgrounds and countries.

References

  1. Jens Bennedsen and Michael E. Caspersen. 2007. Failure Rates in Introductory Programming. SIGCSE Bull. 39, 2 (June 2007), 32–36. 1272848.1272879 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Hieke Keuning, Johan Jeuring, and Bastiaan Heeren. 2016. Towards a Systematic Review of Automated Feedback Generation for Programming Exercises. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 41–46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Barbara Kitchenham, O Pearl Brereton, David Budgen, Mark Turner, John Bailey, and Stephen Linkman. 2009. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology 51, 1 (2009), 7–15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Andrew Luxton-Reilly. 2016. Learning to Program is Easy. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 284–289. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. 2899432Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Arnold Pears, Stephen Seidman, Lauri Malmi, Linda Mannila, Elizabeth Adams, Jens Bennedsen, Marie Devlin, and James Paterson. 2007. A Survey of Literature on the Teaching of Introductory Programming. In Working Group Reports on ITiCSE on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE-WGR ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 204–223. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Yizhou Qian and James Lehman. 2017. Students’ Misconceptions and Other Difficulties in Introductory Programming: A Literature Review. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 18, 1, Article 1 (Oct. 2017), 24 pages. 3077618 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Anthony Robins, Janet Rountree, and Nathan Rountree. 2003. Learning and Teaching Programming: A Review and Discussion. Computer Science Education 13, 2 (2003), 137–172.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Ivonne Schröter, Jacob Krüger, Janet Siegmund, and Thomas Leich. 2017. Comprehending Studies on Program Comprehension. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC ’17). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 308–311. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Judy Sheard, Simon, Margaret Hamilton, and Jan Lönnberg. 2009. Analysis of Research into the Teaching and Learning of Programming. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 93–104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Juha Sorva, Ville Karavirta, and Lauri Malmi. 2013. A Review of Generic Program Visualization Systems for Introductory Programming Education. Trans. Comput. Educ. 13, 4, Article 15 (Nov. 2013), 64 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. A. Vahldick, A. J. Mendes, and M. J. Marcelino. 2014. A review of games designed to improve introductory computer programming competencies. In 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings. 1–7. FIE.2014.7044114Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Arto Vihavainen, Jonne Airaksinen, and Christopher Watson. 2014. A Systematic Review of Approaches for Teaching Introductory Programming and Their Influence on Success. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 19–26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Christopher Watson and Frederick W.B. Li. 2014. Failure Rates in Introductory Programming Revisited. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 39–44. Abstract 1 Background 2 Method References Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A review of introductory programming research 2003–2017

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!