skip to main content
10.1145/3287324.3293704acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract
Public Access

A Qualitative Analysis of Students' Understanding of Conditional Control Structures

Published:22 February 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Conditional logic and control structures are typically considered an important part of introductory computer science education, yet novices often struggle to correctly write and navigate such program logic. Previous research has largely attended to student difficulties with parsing Boolean expressions, but has not had much focus on the control structures themselves. To investigate how students work through complicated logic, we conducted a qualitative analysis of four one-on-one interviews with undergraduate students in which we gave students a piece of code with a complicated conditional control structure and asked them to write test cases for all paths. We found that several students struggled to determine the output the function would provide for a given input, and we hypothesize this occurred because they incorrectly treated an if statement as an else-if statement. One student simply wrote an incorrect output, which we believe occurred because they made this particular mistake, while another student got partway through the problem before verbally seeming to correct themself and re-identify a statement as an else-if. Based on our results, we hypothesize that novices may sometimes misidentify a sequential if statement as an else-if, which may lead them to incorrectly interpret a conditional control structure.

References

  1. Ebrahimi, A. 1994. Novice programmer errors: Language constructs and plan composition. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 41(4), 457--480. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Grover, S., & Basu, S. (2017, March). Measuring student learning in introductory block-based programming: Examining misconceptions of loops, variables, and boolean logic. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 267--272). ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Milne, I., & Rowe, G. (2002). Difficulties in learning and teaching programming--views of students and tutors. Education and Information technologies, 7(1), 55--66. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Nathan, M. J., & Petrosino, A. (2003). Expert blind spot among preservice teachers. American educational research journal, 40(4), 905--928.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Rich, K. M., Strickland, C., Binkowski, T. A., Moran, C., & Franklin, D. (2018). K--8 learning trajectories derived from research literature: sequence, repetition, conditionals. ACM Inroads, 9(1), 46--55. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A Qualitative Analysis of Students' Understanding of Conditional Control Structures

        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
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          SIGCSE '19: Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
          February 2019
          1364 pages
          ISBN:9781450358903
          DOI:10.1145/3287324

          Copyright © 2019 Owner/Author

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 22 February 2019

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • abstract

          Acceptance Rates

          SIGCSE '19 Paper Acceptance Rate169of526submissions,32%Overall Acceptance Rate1,595of4,542submissions,35%

          Upcoming Conference

          SIGCSE Virtual 2024