Daeng Ahmad Zuhri Zuhud
ABSTRACT
Building information systems (IS) for the communication and distribution of information requires proper approaches. The most suitable programming approach must be applied since all phases of IS development will be affected if the wrong approach is chosen. Programming approaches are also known as programming paradigm (PP)s. The most suitable selection for these various PPs will of course rely on the programmer's decision making and problem solving skills. However, it has been reported that programmers are trained more on the programming language's syntax and semantics rather than the PPs itself. Since each PP is a concept of its own, it could be difficult for some programmers to transition or shift to the next sequence of PP(s). This paper explores some prospective approaches for the shift of PPs and discusses how they could help the shift to the next PPs.
- Adams, E., Baldwin, D., Bishop, J., English, J., Lawhead, P., and Stevenson, D., 2006. Approaches to teaching the programming languages course: a potpourri. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 11th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (Bologna, Italy2006), ACM, 1140204, 299--300. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1140124.1140204. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Alspaugh, C. A., 1972. Identification of Some Components of Computer Programming Aptitude. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 3, 2, 89--98.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bennedsen, J. and Caspersen, M. E., 2006. Abstraction ability as an indicator of success for learning object-oriented programming? SIGCSE Bull. 38, 2, 39--43. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1138403.1138430. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bennedssen, J. and Caspersen, M. E., 2008. Abstraction ability as an indicator of success for learning computing science? In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Fourth international Workshop on Computing Education Research (Sydney, Australia2008), ACM, 1404523, 15--26. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1404520.1404523. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Blaheta, D., 2009. Democracy in the classroom: an exercise for the first days of CS1. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (Paris, France2009), ACM, 1562895, 36--39. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1562877.1562895. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bolshakova, E., 2005. Programming Paradigms in Computer Science Education. International Journal "Information Theories & Applications" 12, 285--290.Google Scholar
- Boulay, B. D., 1986. Some difficulties in learning to program. J. Educational Computing Research 2, 1, 57--73.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Burton, P. J. and Bruhn, R. E., 2003. Teaching programming in the OOP era. SIGCSE Bull. 35, 2, 111--114. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/782941.782993. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Caitlin Kelleher and Pausch, R., 2003. Lowering the Barriers to Programming: a survey of programming environments and languages for novice programmers ACM.Google Scholar
- Campbell, P. F. and Mccabe, G. P., 1984. Predicting the success of freshmen in a computer science major. Commun. ACM 27, 11, 1108--1113. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1968.358288. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Campbell, W. and Bolker, E., 2002. Teaching programming by immersion, reading and writing. In Frontiers in Education, 2002. FIE 2002. 32nd Annual, T4G-23-T24G-28 vol.21. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/fie.2002.1158015.Google Scholar
- Carey, T. T. and Shepherd, M. M., 1988. Towards empirical studies of programming in new paradigms. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 1988 ACM sixteenth annual conference on Computer science (Atlanta, Georgia, United States1988), ACM, 322618, 72--78. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/322609.322618. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Close, R., Kopec, D., and Aman, J., 2002. Teaching in shifting sands: changes in CS2. J. Comput. Small Coll. 17, 3, 178--182. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dale Shaffer, Wendy Doube, and Tuovinen, J., 2003. Applying Cognitive Load Theory to Comupter Science Education. In Proc. Joint Conf. EASE & PPIG, 15th Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, Keele UK, April 2003, 333--346.Google Scholar
- Daly, J., Miller, J., Brooks, J., Roper, M., and Wood, M., 1995. Issues on the object-oriented paradigm: A questionnaire survey. Research Report EFoCS-7-95, Department of Computer Science, University of Strathclyde.Google Scholar
- Daly, J., Wood, M., Brooks, J., Miller, J., and Roper, M., 1995. Structured Interviews on the Object-Oriented Paradigm. Research Report EFoCS-7-95, Department of Computer Science, University of Strathclyde.Google Scholar
- Davis, J. and Rebelsky, S. A., 2007. Food-first computer science: starting the first course right with PB&J. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education (Covington, Kentucky, USA2007), ACM, 1227440, 372--376. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1227310.1227440. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ferguson, E., 2006. Role playing in object-oriented programming and design courses: nifty course assignments. J. Comput. Small Coll. 21, 4, 92--94. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gomes, A. and Mendes, A. J., 2010. Studies and proposals about initial programming learning. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2010 IEEE, S3F-1-S3F-6. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/fie.2010.5673426.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hailpern, B., 1986. Guest Editor's Introduction Multiparadigm Languages and Environments. Software, IEEE 3, 1, 6--9. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ms.1986.232426. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Koppelman, H. and Dijk, B. V., 2010. Teaching abstraction in introductory courses. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the fifteenth annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (Bilkent, Ankara, Turkey2010), ACM, 1822140, 174--178. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1822090.1822140. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kumar, A. N., 2002. Prolog for imperative programmers. J. Comput. Small Coll. 17, 6, 167--181. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Liberman, N., Beeri, C., and Kolikant, Y. B.-D., 2011. Difficulties in Learning Inheritance and Polymorphism. Trans. Comput. Educ. 11, 1, 1--23. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/1921607.1921611. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lui, A. K., Kwan, R., Poon, M., and Cheung, Y. H. Y., 2004. Saving weak programming students: applying constructivism in a first programming course. SIGCSE Bull. 36, 2, 72--76. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1024338.1024376. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Luker, P. A., 1994. There's more to OOP than syntax! SIGCSE Bull. 26, 1, 56--60. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/191033.191056. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mazlack, L. J., 1980. Identifying potential to acquire programming skill. Commun. ACM 23, 1, 14--17. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/358808.358811. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Neubauer, B. J. and Strong, D. D., 2002. The object-oriented paradigm: more natural or less familiar? J. Comput. Small Coll. 18, 1, 280--289. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nicholson, A. E. and Fraser, K. M., 1996. Methodologies for teaching new programming languages: a case study teaching LISP. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 2nd Australasian conference on Computer science education (The Univ. of Melbourne, Australia 1996), ACM, 299373, 84--90. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/299359.299373. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nielson, S. J. and Nutson, C. D., 2004. OO++: Exploring the Multiparadigm Shift. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Multiparadigm Programming with Object-Oriented Languages (MPOOL 2004).Google Scholar
- Pears, A., Seidman, S., Malmi, L., Mannila, L., Adams, E., Bennedsen, J., Devlin, M., and Paterson, J., 2007. A survey of literature on the teaching of introductory programming. SIGCSE Bull. 39, 4, 204--223. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1345375.1345441. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Philip R. Ventura, J., 2004. On the origins of programmers: identifying predictors of success for an objects first cs1. Ph.D. Dissertation. State University of New York at Buffalo, 245. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ralston, A., Chrisman, C., Jehn, L. A., Poirier, C. P., and Vecchio, D. J. D., 1981. The mathematics component of the undergraduate curriculum in computer science (Panel Discussion). In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the twelfth SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education (St. Louis, Missouri, United States1981), ACM, 800970, 104--108. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/800037.800970. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Reges, S., 2008. Marketing the programming languages course. SIGPLAN Not. 43, 11, 104--107. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1480828.1480851. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Robbins, K. A., Key, C. S., Dickinson, K., and Montgomery, J., 2001. Solving the CS1/CS2 lab dilemma: students as presenters in CS1/CS2 laboratories. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the thirty-second SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer Science Education (Charlotte, North Carolina, United States2001), ACM, 364575, 164--168. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/364447.364575. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Roy, P. V. and Haridi, S., 2004. Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer Programming. MIT Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shmallo, R., Ragonis, N., and Ginat, D., 2012. Fuzzy OOP: expanded and reduced term interpretations. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 17th ACM annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (Haifa, Israel2012), ACM, 2325368, 309--314. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2325296.2325368. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Steven Andrianoff and Bergin, J., 2002. Role Playing: Easing the Paradigm Shift. In Proceedings of the OOPSLA Educators' Symposium Seattle, WA, 8--13.Google Scholar
- Stolin, Y. and Hazzan, O., 2007. Students' understanding of computer science soft ideas: the case of programming paradigm. SIGCSE Bull. 39, 2, 65--69. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1272848.1272887. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thramboulidis, K. C., 2003. A Constructivism-Based Approach to Teach Object-Oriented Programming. Journal of Informatics Education and Research 4, 2, 1--11.Google Scholar
- Vujosevic-Janicic, M. and Tosic, D., 2008. The Role of Programming Paradigms in the First Programming Courses. The Teaching of Mathematics XI, 2, 63.Google Scholar
- Weisfeld, M., 2008. The Object-Oriented Thought Process. Addison-Wesley Professional. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wolfe, J. M., 1971. Perspectives on testing for programming aptitude. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 1971 26th annual conference (1971), ACM, 810494, 268--277. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/800184.810494. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wyatt, R., 2003. Understanding functional programming. J. Comput. Small Coll. 18, 5, 109--117. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zuhud, D. A. Z., Abdul Rahman, N., and Ismail, M., 2013. A preliminary analysis on the shift of programming paradigms. In Information and Communication Technology for the Muslim World (ICT4M), 2013 5th International Conference on, 1--5. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICT4M.2013.6518917.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Some prospective approaches for the shift of programming paradigms
Recommendations
What Is Object-Oriented Programming?
The meaning of the term 'object oriented' is examined in the context of the general-purpose programming language C++. This choice is made partly to introduce C++ and partly because C++ is one of the few languages that supports data abstraction, object-...
The role of language paradigms in teaching programming
SIGCSE '03: Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science educationThe purpose of this panel is to confront the wide variety of opinions on the role of language paradigms in teaching programming. We have selected four divergent opinions:
- Armstrong says that concurrent programming is considered difficult because it is ...
Do Programming Languages Make Software Too Soft?
It's difficult to create simple, correct software with current programming languages. They are unnecessarily complex. This is a plea for less softness and for safer, simpler programming languages.
Comments