Andreas Mühling
ABSTRACT
We present a theoretically derived and empirically tested competence model related to the concepts of "object state" and "references" that both form an important part of object-oriented programming. Our model characterizes different levels of programming capability with a focus on possible learning stages of beginning learners. It is based on the notion of understanding objects and their interaction with each other during the runtime of a program. Based on a hierarchical description of our theory, we derive a two-dimensional structure that separates the hierarchy into two facets "structure" (how are objects structured/stored) and "behaviour" (how do objects interact and access each other). Based on this, we have developed a set of items and collected data in a CS1 course (N = 195) to validate the item-set. We analyzed the data using a Rasch model to check item difficulty and the presence of different difficulty levels, and factor analysis to check the dimensions of the model. Furthermore, we argue for the validity of the items with the help of additional data collected from the students. The results indicate that our theoretical assumptions are correct and that the items will be usable with some minor modifications.
- E. B. Andersen. A goodness of fit test for the rasch model. Psychometrika, 38(1):123--140, 1973.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- D. J. Armstrong. The quarks of object-oriented development. Communications of the ACM, 49(2):123--128, 2006.Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. J. Bartholomew, F. Steele, I. Moustaki, and J. I. Galbraith. Analysis of Multivariate Social Science Data. Chapman & Hall/CRC and CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2nd ed edition, 2008.Google Scholar
- K. Beck and W. Cunningham. A laboratory for teaching object oriented thinking. SIGPLAN Not., 24(10):1--6, Sept. 1989.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Bennedsen and C. Schulte. A competence model for object-interaction in introductory programming. In Proceeding of 18th Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group. Citeseer, 2006.Google Scholar
- J. Bennedsen and C. Schulte. Bluej visual debugger for learning the execution of object-oriented programs? Trans. Comput. Educ., 10(2):8:1--8:22, Jun 2010.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Bennedsen and C. Schulte. Object interaction competence model v. 2.0. In Proceedings of the 2013 Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering, LATICE '13, pages 9--16, Washington, DC, USA, 2013. IEEE Computer Society.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Börstler. Using role-play diagrams to improve scenario role-play, pages 309--334. Springer, 2010.Google Scholar
- J. Börstler and C. Schulte. Teaching object oriented modelling with crc cards and roleplaying games. In Proceedings WCCE, volume 5, 2005.Google Scholar
- C. P. Brackmann, M. Román-González, G. Robles, J. Moreno-León, A. Casali, and D. Barone. Development of computational thinking skills through unplugged activities in primary school. In E. Barendsen and P. Hubwieser, editors, Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education - WiPSCE '17, pages 65--72, New York, NY, USA, 2017. ACM Press.Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Brooks. Towards a theory of the comprehension of computer programs. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 18(6):543--554, 1983.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. S. Buffum, E. V. Lobene, M. H. Frankosky, K. E. Boyer, E. N. Wiebe, and J. C. Lester. A practical guide to developing and validating computer science knowledge assessments with application to middle school. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE '15, pages 622--627, New York, NY, USA, 2015. ACM.Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Caceffo, S. Wolfman, K. S. Booth, and R. Azevedo. Developing a computer science concept inventory for introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education, SIGCSE '16, pages 364--369, New York, NY, USA, 2016. ACM.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Q. I. Cutts, R. Connor, Donaldson Peter, and G. Michaelson. Code or (not code) -- separating formal and natural language in cs education. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, WiPSCE '14, pages 20--28, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM.Google Scholar
- B. Du Boulay. Some difficulties of learning to program. Journal of Educational Computing Research, pages 57--73, 1986.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Garner, P. Denny, and A. Luxton-Reilly. Mastery learning in computer science education. In Simon and A. Luxton-Reilly, editors, Proceedings of the Twenty-First Australasian Computing Education Conference on - ACE '19, pages 37--46, New York, New York, USA, 2019. ACM Press.Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Grover and S. Basu. Measuring student learning in introductory block-based programming. In M. E. Caspersen and A. S. I. G. o. C. S. Education, editors, Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 267--272, [S.l.], 2017. ACM.Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. R. Hinkin, J. B. Tracey, and C. A. Enz. Scale construction: Developing reliable and valid measurement instruments. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 21(1):100--120, 2016.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Jungjohann, J. M. DeVries, M. Gebhardt, and A. Mühling. Levumi: A web-based curriculum-based measurement to monitor learning progress in inclusive classrooms. In K. Miesenberger and G. Kouroupetroglou, editors, Computers Helping People with Special Needs, pages 369--378, Cham, 2018. Springer International Publishing.Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Klieme, J. Hartig, and D. Rauch. The concept of competence in educational contexts. In E. Klieme, D. Leutner, and J. Hartig, editors, Assessment of Competencies in Educational Contexts. Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, Toronto, 2008.Google Scholar
- I. Koller and R. Hatzinger. Nonparametric tests for the rasch model: explanation, development, and application of quasi-exact tests for small samples. InterStat, 11:1--16, 2013.Google Scholar
- M. Kramer, P. Hubwieser, and T. Brinda. A competency structure model of object-oriented programming. In 2016 International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering, pages 1--8, Piscataway, NJ, 2016. IEEE.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Kramer, D. A. Tobinski, and T. Brinda. On the way to a test instrument for object-oriented programming competencies. In J. Sheard and C. S. Montero, editors, Proceedings, 16th Koli Calling Conference on Computing Education Research, ICPS, pages 145--149, New York, New York, 2016. The Association for Computing Machinery.Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Lahtinen, K. Ala-Mutka, and H.-M. Järvinen. A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. SIGCSE Bull., 37(3):14--18, June 2005.Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Lister, B. Simon, E. Thompson, J. L. Whalley, and C. Prasad. Not seeing the forest for the trees: novice programmers and the solo taxonomy. SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(3):118--122, 2006.Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Luxton-Reilly, B. A. Becker, Y. Cao, R. McDermott, C. Mirolo, A. Mühling, A. Petersen, K. Sanders, Simon, and J. L. Whalley. Developing assessments to determine mastery of programming fundamentals. In Proceedings of the 2017 ITiCSE Conference on Working Group Reports, ITiCSE-WGR '17, pages 47--69, New York, NY, USA, 2017. ACM.Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Mason and G. Cooper. Why the bottom 10% just can't do it: Mental effort measures and implication for introductory programming courses. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference - Volume 123, ACE '12, pages 187--196, Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 2012. Australian Computer Society, Inc.Google Scholar
- J. Mead, S. Gray, J. Hamer, R. James, J. Sorva, C. St. Clair, and L. Thomas. A cognitive approach to identifying measurable milestones for programming skill acquisition. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(4):182--194, 2006.Google ScholarDigital Library
- I. Milne and G. Rowe. Difficulties in learning and teaching programming - views of students and tutors. Education and Information Technologies, 7(1):55--66, Mar. 2002.Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Mühling, P. Hubwieser, and M. Berges. Dimensions of programming knowledge. In A. Brodnik and J. Vahrenhold, editors, Informatics in Schools. Curricula, Competences, and Competitions, volume 9378 of Lecture notes in computer science, pages 32--44. Springer International Publishing, 2015.Google Scholar
- A. Mühling, A. Ruf, and P. Hubwieser. Design and first results of a psychometric test for measuring basic programming abilities. In Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, WiPSCE '15, pages 2--10, New York, NY, USA, 2015. ACM.Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Pea. Language-independent conceptual bugs in nocive programming. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1):25--36, 1986.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Pea. The buggy path to the development of programming expertise. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 9(1):5--30, 1987.Google Scholar
- N. Ragonis and M. Ben-Ari. A long-term investigation of the comprehension of oop concepts by novices. Computer Science Education, 15(3):203--221, 2005.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Rasch. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, expanded ed edition, 1980.Google Scholar
- W. Revelle and T. Rocklin. Very simple structure: An alternative procedure for estimating the optimal number of interpretable factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14:403--414, 1979.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Robins. Learning edge momentum: A new account of outcomes in cs1. Computer Science Education, 20(1):37--71, 2010.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. V. Robins. Novice programmers and introductory programming. In S. A. Fincher and A. V. Robins, editors, The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research, Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, pages 327--376. Cambridge University Press, 2019.Google Scholar
- K. Sanders, M. Ahmadzadeh, T. Clear, S. H. Edwards, M. Goldweber, C. Johnson, R. Lister, R. McCartney, E. Patitsas, and J. Spacco. The canterbury questionbank: Building a repository of multiple-choice cs1 and cs2 questions. In Proceedings of the ITiCSE Working Group Reports Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education-working Group Reports, ITiCSE -WGR '13, pages 33--52, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM.Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Schulte and J. Bennedsen. What do teachers teach in introductory programming? In Proceedings of the second international workshop on Computing education research, ICER '06, pages 17--28. ACM, 2006.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Siegmund, C. Kästner, J. Liebig, S. Apel, and S. Hanenberg. Measuring and modeling programming experience. Empirical Software Engineering, 19(5):1299--1334, 2014.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Simon, J. Sheard, D. D'Souza, P. Klemperer, L. Porter, J. Sorva, M. Stegeman, and D. Zingaro. Benchmarking introductory programming exams: How and why. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE '16, pages 154--159, New York, NY, USA, 2016. ACM.Google Scholar
- J. Sorva. Notional machines and introductory programming education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 13(2):1--31, 2013.Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Taylor, D. Zingaro, L. Porter, K. C. Webb, C. B. Lee, and M. Clancy. Computer science concept inventories: Past and future. Computer Science Education, 24(4):253--276, 2014.Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. Tempero, P. Denny, A. Luxton-Reilly, and P. Ralph. Objects count so count objects! In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, ICER '18, pages 187--195, New York, NY, USA, 2018. ACM.Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. E. Tew and B. Dorn. The case for validated tools in computer science education research. Computer, 46(9):60--66, 2013.Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. E. Tew and M. Guzdial. The fcs1: A language independent assessment of cs1 knowledge. In T. J. Cortina, E. L. Walker, L. S. King, D. R. Musicant, and L. I. McCann, editors, Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Dallas, USA, 9-12 March 2011, pages 111--116, New York, 2011. ACM.Google Scholar
- A. Vihavainen, J. Airaksinen, and C. Watson. 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, Glasgow, Scotland, 11-13 August 2014, ICER '14, pages 19--26, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM.Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Waheed. Development and Application of a Rasch Model Measure of Student Competency in University Introductory Computer Programming. Phd thesis, 2018.Google Scholar
- C. Watson and F. W. Li. Failure rates in introductory programming revisited. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE '14, pages 39--44, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM.Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. E. Winslow. Programming pedagogy---a psychological overview. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 28(3):17--22, 1996.Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Assessing students' understanding of object structures
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-...
Multimedia learning object to build cognitive understanding in learning introductory programming
MoMM '09: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing and MultimediaProgramming is taught as foundation module at the beginning of undergraduate studies and/or during foundation year. Learning introductory programming languages such as Pascal, Basic / C (procedural) and C++ / Java (object oriented) requires learners to ...
Syntax to Syntax: Assessment of Orthogonality in the Design of Object-oriented Programming Languages using Code Listing Method
ICSIM '21: Proceedings of the 2021 4th International Conference on Software Engineering and Information ManagementThe Object-oriented programming (OOP) is the undoubted language that becomes the widely accepted and the most powerful way in the creation of a software product. Here the four pillars of the OOP like encapsulation, data abstraction, polymorphism and ...
Comments