Problematic and Persistent Post-Secondary Program Performance Preconceptions
Article No.: 1, Pages 1 - 6
Abstract
Student conceptions about program “efficiency” shape their approach to programming and problem-solving. However, we know very little about the kinds of conceptions students have on entry into post-secondary education. In this paper we present the result of multiple iterations of a study where we ask students to rank programs on efficiency. We find students have several misconceptions across the iterations. We attempt to employ two standard techniques for puncturing people’s illusions of understanding, but both have only limited success: students have strongly-held opinions despite their frequent errors. Post-secondary education about program efficiency needs to take much more account of students’ pre-conceptions.
Supplementary Material
Appendices. (appendix.pdf)
- Download
- 1020.50 KB
References
[1]
M. Cakir. 2008. Constructivist Approaches to Learning in Science and Their Implications for Science Pedagogy: A Literature Review. Intl. J. Env. & Sci. Ed. 3, 4 (2008), 193–206.
[2]
Jacob Cohen. 1960. A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20 (1960), 37–46.
[3]
Leda Cosmides and John Tooby. 1992. Cognitive Adaptions for Social Exchange. In The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, Leda Cosmides, John Tooby, and Jerome H. Barkow (Eds.). Oxford University Press.
[4]
Matthias Felleisen, Robert Bruce Findler, Matthew Flatt, and Shriram Krishnamurthi. 2001. How to Design Programs. MIT Press. http://www.htdp.org/
[5]
Matthias Felleisen, Robert Bruce Findler, Matthew Flatt, Shriram Krishnamurthi, Eli Barzilay, Jay McCarthy, and Sam Tobin-Hochstadt. 2018. A Programmable Programming Language. In Communications of the ACM.
[6]
Kathi Fisler. 2014. The Recurring Rainfall Problem. In SIGCSE International Computing Education Research Conference. 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/2632320.2632346
[7]
Kathi Fisler, Shriram Krishnamurthi, and Janet Siegmund. 2016. Modernizing Plan-Composition Studies. In ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education.
[8]
Judith Gal-Ezer and Ela Zur. 2004. The efficiency of algorithms—misconceptions. Computers & Education 42, 3 (2004), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.07.004
[9]
Alex Gerdes, Bastiaan Heeren, Johan Jeuring, and L. Thomas van Binsbergen. 2017. Ask-Elle: an Adaptable Programming Tutor for Haskell Giving Automated Feedback. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 27 (2017), 65–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0080-x
[10]
J. Longfield. 2009. Discrepant Teaching Events: Using an Inquiry Stance to Address Students’ Misconceptions. Intl. J. Teach. and Learn. in Higher Ed. 21, 2 (2009), 266–271.
[11]
Robert McCartney, Dennis J. Bouvier, Tzu-Yi Chen, Gary Lewandowski, Kate Sanders, Beth Simon, and Tammy VanDeGrift. 2009. Commonsense Computing (Episode 5): Algorithm Efficiency and Balloon Testing. In International Workshop on Computing Education Research. 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/1584322.1584330
[12]
G. J. Posner, K. A. Strike, P. W. Hewson, and W. A. Gertzog. 1982. Accommodation of a Scientific Conception: Toward a Theory of Conceptual Change. Sci. Edu. 66, 2 (1982), 211–227.
[13]
Leonid Rozenblit and Frank Keil. 2002. The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science 26(2002), 521–562.
[14]
L. Savion. 2009. Clinging to discredited beliefs: The larger cognitive story. J. Schol. of Teach. and Learn. 9, 1 (2009), 81–92.
[15]
Ruth Stavy and Dina Tirosh. 1996. Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: the case of ‘more of A ‐‐ more of B’. International Journal of Science Education 18 (1996), 653–667. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180602
[16]
Keith Stenning and Michiel van Lambalgen. 2008. Human Reasoning and Cognitive Science. MIT Press.
[17]
Edward L. Thorndike and Robert S. Woolworth. 1901. The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. Psychological Review8(1901).
[18]
Philip Wadler. 1990. Deforestation: transforming programs to eliminate trees. Theoretical Computer Science 73 (1990), 231–248.
[19]
Peter Cathcart Wason. 1966. Reasoning. In New Horizons in Psychology I, B. M. Foss (Ed.). Penguin.
[20]
Kristin M. Weingartner and Amy M. Masnick. 2019. Refutation texts: Implying the refutation of a scientific misconception can facilitate knowledge revision. Contemp. Edu. Psych. 58(2019), 138–148.
Index Terms
- Problematic and Persistent Post-Secondary Program Performance Preconceptions
Recommendations
Post-Secondary Ready:Does the STEM curriculum Matter?
2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)A high quality STEM preparatory curriculum can help students develop foundational skills and knowledge they require to successfully pursue a variety of college majors and future careers. In particular, use of STEM-related curricula, such as the curriculum ...
Designing a CS Master's Program for Post-Secondary Teaching
SIGCSE 2022: Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2There is a well-known capacity crisis where the number of open faculty positions in CS far exceeds the number of qualified candidates. To meet this demand, institutions are increasingly turning to teaching-track positions whose responsibilities center ...
How Different are Pre and Post-Secondary STEM Educators?
2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)This Research Work in Progress Paper presents the differences found between pre- and post-secondary educators. Pre-secondary educators are those at the K-12 level, while post-secondary educators teach at the college and university level. Educators are ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
November 2022
282 pages
Copyright © 2022 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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 components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 17 November 2022
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
Koli 2022
Koli 2022: 22nd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research
November 17 - 20, 2022
Koli, Finland
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 80 of 182 submissions, 44%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 125Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)23
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 02 Mar 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View allView Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format