Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing loops misconceptions in block-based and text-based programming languages at the K-12 level

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Novice programmers are facing many difficulties while learning to program. Most studies about misconceptions in programming are conducted at the undergraduate level, yet there is a lack of studies at the elementary school (K-12) level, reasonably because computer science neither programming are regularly still not the part of elementary school curricula’s. Are the misconceptions about loops at elementary school level equal to those at the undergraduate level? Can we “prevent” the misconceptions by using the different pedagogical approach, visual programming language and shifting the programming context toward game programming? In this paper, we tried to answer these questions. We conducted the student misconceptions research on one of the fundamental programming concepts – the loop. The research is conducted in the classroom settings among 207 elementary school students. Students were learning to program in three programming languages: Scratch, Logo and Python. In this paper, we present the results of this research.

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

  • Berland, M., Martin, T., Benton, T., Petrick Smith, C., & Davis, D. (2013). Using learning analytics to understand the learning pathways of novice programmers. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(4), 564–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonar, J., & Soloway, E. (1983). Uncovering principles of novice programming. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on principles of programming languages (pp. 10–13).

  • Brown, J. S. (2000). GROWING UP DIGITAL. How the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. The Magazine of Higher. Learning, 32(2), 11–20.

  • Brusilovsky, P., Calabrese, E., Hvorecky, J., Kouchnirenko, A., & Miller, P. (1997). Mini ­ languages: A way to learn programming principles. Education and Information Technologies, 2(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018636507883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, T. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2007). Bricoleurs and planners engaging in scientific reasoning: A tale of two groups in one learning community. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(3), 239–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dann, W., & Cooper, S. (2009). Education: Alice 3: Concrete to abstract. Communications of the ACM, 52(8), 27–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/1536616.1536628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehnadi, S. (2009). A cognitive study of learning to program in introductory programming courses. London: Middlesex University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fusco, E. (1981). Matching curriculum to students cognitive levels. Educational Leadership, 39(1), 47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garneli, V., Giannakos, M. N., & Chorianopoulos, K. (2015). Computing education in K-12 schools: A review of the literature. In Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2015 IEEE (pp. 543–551). Tallinn, Estonia: IEEE.

  • Gomes, A., & Mendes, A. J. N. (2007). Learning to program-difficulties and solutions. International Conference on. Engineering Education, 1–5.

  • Grover, S., & Basu, S. (2017). Measuring student learning in introductory block-based programming. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education - SIGCSE ‘17 (pp. 267–272). New York, New York: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017723.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K--12 a review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., Cooper, S., & Pea, R. (2014). Assessing computational learning in K-12. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science education - ITiCSE ‘14 (pp. 57–62). https://doi.org/10.1145/2591708.2591713.

  • Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 199–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1033142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzdial, M. (2004). Programming environments for novicmes and Culturees. Computer Science Education Research, 2004, 127–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Playing and making games for learning. Games and Culture, 1(1), 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412005281767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2015). Constructionist gaming: Understanding the benefits of making games for learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1124022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ke, F., & Fengfeng. (2014). An implementation of design-based learning through creating educational computer games: A case study on mathematics learning during design and computing. Computers & Education, 73, 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 37(2), 83–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kölling, M., & McKay, F. (2016). Heuristic evaluation for novice programming systems. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 16(3), 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuechler, W. L., & Simkin, M. G. (2003). How well do multiple choice tests evaluate student understanding in computer programming classes? Journal of Information Systems Education, 14(4), 389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahtinen, E., Ala-Mutka, K., & Järvinen, H.-M. (2005). A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(3), 14. https://doi.org/10.1145/1151954.1067453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., & Dalbey, J. (1985). Cognitive consequences of programming instruction: Instruction, access, and ability. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2004_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louis, C., Lawrence, M., & Keith, M. (2011). Research methods in education. Oxford, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203720967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maloney, J. H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 367. https://doi.org/10.1145/1352322.1352260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1981). The psychology of how novices learn computer programming. ACM Computing Surveys, 13(1), 121–141. https://doi.org/10.1145/356835.356841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCracken, M., Almstrum, V., Diaz, D., Guzdial, M., Hagan, D., Kolikant, Y. B.-D., et al. (2001). A multi-national, multi-institutional study of assessment of programming skills of first-year CS students. SIGCSE Bull, 33(4), 125–180. https://doi.org/10.1145/572139.572181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenna, P. (2004). Gender and black boxes in the programming curriculum. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, 4(1), 6--es. https://doi.org/10.1145/1060071.1060077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mladenović, M., Krpan, D., & Mladenović, S. (2016a). Introducing programming to elementary students novices by using game development in python and scratch. In EDULEARN16 Proceedings (pp. 1622–1629). IATED. 10.21125/edulearn.2016.1323.

  • Mladenović, S., Krpan, D., & Mladenovic, M. (2016b). Using games to help novices embrace programming: From elementary to higher education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(1), 521–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mladenović, M., Rosić, M., & Mladenović, S. (2016c). Comparing elementary students ’ programming success based on programming environment. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 8(August), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5815/ijmecs.2016.08.01.

  • Myers, B. A. (1990). Taxonomies of visual programming and program visualization. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 1(1), 97–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. BasicBooks Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=139395.

  • Papert, S. (2010). Does easy do it? Children, games, and learning. Game Developer. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.

  • Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. American Psychological Association ({APA}). https://doi.org/10.1037/11494-000.

  • Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives,Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 137–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sekiya, T., & Yamaguchi, K. (2013). Tracing quiz set to identify novices’ programming misconceptions. In Proceedings of the 13th Koli calling international conference on computing education research - Koli calling ‘13 (pp. 87–95). New York: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2526968.2526978.

  • Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1992). Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the concrete. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11(1), 3–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winslow, L. E. (1996). Programming pedagogy---a psychological overview. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 28(3), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/234867.234872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zur-Bargury, I., Pârv, B., & Lanzberg, D. (2013). A nationwide exam as a tool for improving a new curriculum. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education - ITiCSE ‘13 (p. 267). New York, New York: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2462476.2462479.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Science, University of Split, Rudera Boskovica 33, 21000, Split, Croatia

    Monika Mladenović & Ivica Boljat

  2. Elementary school “Mejasi”, Mejasi 20, 21 000, Split, Croatia

    Žana Žanko

Authors
  1. Monika Mladenović
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ivica Boljat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Žana Žanko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monika Mladenović.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mladenović, M., Boljat, I. & Žanko, Ž. Comparing loops misconceptions in block-based and text-based programming languages at the K-12 level. Educ Inf Technol 23, 1483–1500 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9673-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9673-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation