Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cognitive Differences Between Procedural Programming and Object Oriented Programming

  • Published:
Information Technology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Software development is moving from procedural programming towards object-oriented programming (OOP). Past studies in cognitive aspects of programming have focused primarily on procedural programming languages. Object-oriented programming is a new paradigm for computing. Industry is finding that programmers are having difficulty shifting to this new programming paradigm.

Findings in prior research revealed that procedural programming requires Piaget's formal operation cognitive level. New from this research is that OOP also requires Piaget's formal operation cognitive level. Also new is that OOP appears to be unrelated to hemispheric cognitive style. OOP appears to be hemispheric style friendly, while procedural programming is preferential to left hemispheric cognitive style.

The conclusion is that cognitive requirements are not the cause for the difficulty in shifting from procedural to OOP. An alternative possibility to the difficulty is proactive interference of learning procedural programming prior to learning object oriented programming.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A.W. Andrew, The differential roles of right and left sides of the brain in memory formation, Behavioural Brain Research 98(2) (1999) 289–295.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. A. Azzedine, The relationship of cognitive development, cognitive style and experience to performance on selected computer programming tasks: An exploration, Dissertation Abstracts B48(6) (1987) 1799.

  3. R.J. Barker and E.A. Unger, A predictor for success in an introductory programming class based upon abstract reasoning development, Proceedings of the 14th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education of the ACM, (Orlando, Florida, 1983).

  4. S. Bastian, J. Frees, L. Gruber, J. Johnson, B. Landes, L. Morton, S. Rozgony and J. Stewart, Are I.S.U. Freshman students operating at a formal level of thought processes? Contemporary Education 44 (1973) 358–362.

    Google Scholar 

  5. D. Baum, The rough road to objects, Computerworld 27(31) (1993) 81.

  6. D. Baum, Objects go mainstream, Informationweek 590, (1996) 1A

  7. D. Bellin, A seminar course in object oriented programming, SIGCSE Bulletin 24(1) (1992). 134–137, Cited in R. Krovi and A. Chandra, User cognition representation: The case for an objet oriented model. Journal of Systems and Software 43(3) (1998) 165–176.

    Google Scholar 

  8. R.F. Biehler and J. Snowmand, Psychology Applied to Teaching, 5th Ed., (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Mass., 1986), p. 63.

  9. C.J. Brainard, Piaget's Theory of Intelligence. (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  10. M.P. Bryden, Choosing sides: The left and right of the normal brain, Canadian Psychology 31(4) (1990) 297–309.

    Google Scholar 

  11. R. Cafolla, The relationship of piagetian formal operations and other cognitive factors to computer programming ability (Development), Dissertations Abstracts A47(7) (1987) 2506.

  12. E. Chiapetta, A review of Piagetian studies relevant to science instruction at the secondary and college level, Science Education 60 (1976) 253–261.

    Google Scholar 

  13. E.R. Doke and C. Hardgrave, An Introduction to Object COBOL, (John Wiley & Sons Publishers, 1998).

  14. T. Elrad, R.E. Filman and A. Bader, Aspect-oriented programming, Communications of the ACM 44(10) 2001, 28–32.

    Google Scholar 

  15. M.A. Enyeart, Relationships among propositional logic, analytical reasoning, and Piagetian level, Dissertation Abstracts International A41(09) (1981) 397.

  16. H. Epstein, Stages in human mental growth, Journal of Educational Psychology 82 (1990) 876–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. J. Fedorowicz and A.O. Villeneuve, Surveying object technology usage and benefits: A test of conventional wisdom, Information Management 35(6) (1999) 331–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. S.H. Fletcher, Cognitive Abilities and Computer Programming. EDRS(ED259700), (1984).

  19. M.J. Folk, Influences of developmental level on a child's ability to learn concepts of computer programming, Dissertation Abstracts International 34(3) (1973) 1125a.

    Google Scholar 

  20. A. Galton, Logic as a formal method, The Computer Journal 35(5) (1992) 431–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. H. Gibbs and A.B. Tucker, A model curriculum for a liberal arts degree in computer science, Communications of the ACM 29(3) (1986) 202–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. J. Greenbaum, Packaged applications, Software Magazine 17(7) (1997) 91–94.

    Google Scholar 

  23. D.H. Griffiths, The study of the cognitive development of science students in introductory level courses, ERIC(ED096108) (1973).

  24. R. Guerraoui, Strategic directions in object-oriented programming, ACM Computing Surveys 28(4) (1996) 691–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. E.R. Hilgard and G.H. Bower, Theories of Learning (3rd ed). (Meredith Corporation, New York, 1966) 312–313.

  26. M.A. Hudak and D.E. Anderson, Formal operations and learning style predict success in statistics and computer science courses, Teaching of Psychology 17(4) (1990) 231–234.

    Google Scholar 

  27. D.M. Irons, Predicting programming performance in novice programmers by measures of cognitive abilities), Dissertation Abstracts B43(4) (1982) 1283.

  28. R. Krovi and A. Chandra, User cognitive characteristics: The case for an object oriented model, Journal of Systems and Software 43(3) (1998) 165–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. D. Kuhn and J. Langer, L. Kohlberg and N. Haan, The development of formal operations in logical and moral judgment, Genetic Psychology Monographs 95(1) (1977) 97–188.

    Google Scholar 

  30. M.G. Lieberman, The Hemispheric Mode Indicator Technical Notes, EXCEL, Inc, Barrington, Il, (1986).

  31. L.F. Little, The influence of structured programming, gender, cognitive development and engagement on the computer programming achievement and logical thinking skills of secondary students. Dissertation Abstracts A45(6) (1984) 1708.

  32. C.L. Losh, The relationship of student hemisphericity to performance in computer programming courses, Dissertation Abstracts A44(7) (1984) 2127.

  33. M.G. Mains, The effects of learning a programming language on logical thinking skills, Unpublished Thesis, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada, (1997).

  34. M.L. Manns and H.J. Nelson, An exploration of schema development in procedure oriented programmers learning object-oriented technology, in: Proceedings of the fourteenth International Conference on Information Systems, (1993) 385–386.

  35. B. McCarthy, The Hemispheric Mode Indicator. (Barrington, Il: Excel, Inc, 1986).

  36. M. Monfort, S.A. Martin and W. Frederickson, Information-processing differences and laterality of students from different colleges and disciplines, Perceptual and Motor Skills 70(1) (1990) 163–172.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. C.G. Morris, Psychology, an Introduction, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Ciffs, New Jersey, (1973), 170–172.

  38. M.G. Morris, C. Speier and J.A. Hoffer, An examination of procedural and object-oriented systems analysis methods: Does prior experience help or hinder performance? Decision Sciences 30(1) (1999) 107–136.

    Google Scholar 

  39. C.F.P. Ott, Predicting achievement in computer science through selected academic, cognitive and demographic variables, Dissertation Abstracts A49(10) (1989) 2988.

  40. B. Owens and J. Seiler, A study of the relationship between performance in propositional logic and computer science, Proceedings of the Seventh Annual south Central Small College Computing Conference, The Journal of Computing in Small Colleges 11(7) (1996) 90–93.

    Google Scholar 

  41. N. Pennington, A.Y. Lee and B. Rehder, Cognitive activities and levels of abstraction in procedural and object-oriented design, Human-Computer Interaction 10(2/3) (1995) 171–226.

  42. J. Piaget, Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adult, Human Development 15 (1972) 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  43. W. Price, Elements of Object-Oriented COBOL, 2nd Ed. (Object-Z Systems Publishers 2001).

  44. C.M. Ricardo, Identifying student entering characteristics desirable for a first course in computer programming, Dissertation Abstracts A44(1) (1983) 96.

  45. S. Riley, Is learning Cobol now a good long-term investment? Infoworld 20(44) (1998) 104.

  46. M.H. Schroeder, Piagetian, Mathematics and Spatial Reasoning as Predictors of success in Computer Programming, Dissertation Abstracts A39/08 (1979) 4850.

  47. M. Schwebel, Formal operations in first year college students, Journal of Psychology 91 (1975) 133–141.

    Google Scholar 

  48. D. Shaffer, Predicting success in the undergraduage Introductory Computer Science course using the Theory of Planned Behavior. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Texas, Ausin, (1990).

  49. S. Sheetz and G. Irwin, D. Tegarden, H.J. Nelson, and D.E. Monarchhi, Exploring the difficulties of learning object-oriented technique, Journal of Management Information Systems 14(2) (1997) 103–131.

    Google Scholar 

  50. T. Supprian and E. Hofmann, The fornix of the human brain: Evidence of left/right asymmetry on axial MRI scans, Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy 19(2) (1997) 105.

    Google Scholar 

  51. A. Topper, Object-Oriented Development in COBOL. (McGraw Hill Publishers, 1995).

  52. G. White, Cognitive characteristics for learning C++, Journal of Computer Information Systems 42(3) (2002) 51–55.

    Google Scholar 

  53. G. White and M. Sivitanides, A theory of the relationships between cognitive requirements of computer programming languages and programmers' cognitive characteristics, journal of information systems education 13(1) (2002) 59–66.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Information Systems, Texas State University at San Marcos, 600 University Dr., San Marcos, TX, 78666

    Garry White & Marcos Sivitanides

Authors
  1. Garry White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcos Sivitanides
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Garry White.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

White, G., Sivitanides, M. Cognitive Differences Between Procedural Programming and Object Oriented Programming. Inf Technol Manage 6, 333–350 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-005-3899-2

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-005-3899-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation