SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1

Investigation of Students' Cognitive Processes in Computer Programming: A Cognitive Ethnography Study

Bilgisayar Programlamada Öğrencilerin Zihinsel Süreçlerinin İncelenmesi: Bir Bilişsel Etnografya Çalışması

Sibel Doğan(ORTA DOĞU TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8688-8578
Orhan Aslan(ORTA DOĞU TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2513-2010
Mehmet Dönmez(ORTA DOĞU TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-0339-5135
Soner Yıldırım(ORTA DOĞU TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3167-2112
Pages
1–25
Publication Date
2019-01-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results showed that participants differed in terms of their decision making and task completion durations, the path they followed, and their perspectives about handling the question.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of the current study is to investigate how cognitive processes of students categorized as novice, semi-expert and expert differ in terms of creating pseudocode for a given programming task.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To conduct this aim, cognitive ethnography research design was employed to reveal the cognitive process of the participants behind the specified task.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that participants differed in terms of their decision making and task completion durations, the path they followed, and their perspectives about handling the question.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Bilişsel etnografya · programlama · sözde kod

Abstract

The aim of the current study is to investigate how cognitive processes of students categorized as novice, semi-expert and expert differ in terms of creating pseudocode for a given programming task. To conduct this aim, cognitive ethnography research design was employed to reveal the cognitive process of the participants behind the specified task. In the study, three undergraduate students from a Computer Education and Instructional Technology (CEIT) department were included as participants. These students were categorized based on two parameters. The first one was the courses that took and the second on was their experiences on programming. While selecting participants, purposeful and snowball sampling methods were used. To collect data, semi-structured interviews, video recording, think aloud procedure, retrospective reviews, observations and document analysis were used. The results showed that participants differed in terms of their decision making and task completion durations, the path they followed, and their perspectives about handling the question.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, programlama ile ilgili belirlenen bir öğrenme görevinde acemi, yarı uzman ve uzman olarak sınıflandırılan öğrencilerin sözde kod oluşturma esnasındaki zihinsel süreçlerinin nasıl farklılaştığını araştırmaktır. Bu amacı gerçekleştirebilmek için bilişsel etnografya araştırma deseni olarak tercih edilmiştir. Çalışmada, Bilgisayar Eğitimi ve Öğretim Teknolojileri (CEIT) bölümünden üç lisans öğrencisi katılımcı olarak yer almıştır. Bu öğrenciler, öncelikle aldıkları dersler ve programlama konusundaki deneyimlerini göz önünde bulundurarak sınıflandırılmıştır. Katılımcı seçerken, amaçlı ve kartopu örnekleme yöntemleri kullanıldı. Verilerin toplanması için yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler, video kaydı, yüksek sesli düşünme, geriye dönük inceleme, gözlem ve doküman analizi kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar, katılımcıların karar verme ve görev tamamlama süreleri, takip ettikleri yol ve bu soruları ele alma perspektifleri açısından farklılaştıklarını göstermiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Doğan, S., Aslan, O., Dönmez, M., Yıldırım, S. (2019). Investigation of Students' Cognitive Processes in Computer Programming: A Cognitive Ethnography Study. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.428953

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (24)

  1. Ball, L. J., & Ormerod, T. C. (2000). Putting ethnography to work: The case for a cognitive ethnography of design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53(1), 147–168. http://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2000.0372
  2. Driscoll, M.P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Allyn & Bacon: Needham Heights, MA.
  3. Dubbels, B. (2011). Cognitive ethnography: A methodology for measure and analysis of learning for game studies. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations (IJGCMS), 3(1), 68–78.
  4. Garner, S. (2006). The development, use and evaluation of a program design tool in the learning and teaching of software development. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 3, 253–260.
  5. Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 428-444). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  6. Hutchins, E. (1991). The social organization of distributed cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 283–307). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://doi.org/10.1037/10096-012.
  7. Hutchins, E. (1995a). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008642111457
  8. Hutchins, E. (1995b). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19(3), 265–288. http://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(95)90020-9
  9. Hutchins, E. (2003, July). Cognitive ethnography (Plenary address). In R. Alterman, & D. Kirsh (Chairs), 25th meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston.
  10. Hutchins, E., & Klausen, T. (1996). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and Communication at Work (pp. 15-34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174077.002
  11. Johnson, R. B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 118(2), 282-292.
  12. Kalelioglu, F., & Gulbahar, Y. (2014). The effects of teaching programming via Scratch on problem-solving skills: A discussion from learners’ perspective. Informatics in Education-An International Journal, 13(1), 33–50.
  13. Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate ? American Educational Research Association, 17(2), 13–17. http://doi.org/10.2307/1174583
  14. Merikle, P. M., Smilek, D., & Eastwood, J. D. (2001). Perception without awareness: Perspectives from cognitive psychology. Cognition, 79(1-2), 115-134. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00126-8
  15. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Dados (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
  16. Milková, E., & Turčáni, M. (2006). Digital objects supporting development of algorithmic thinking. In A. Méndez-Vilas, A. Solano Martín, J. Mesa González, & J. A. Mesa González (Eds.), Current Developments in Technology-Assisted Education (pp. 376–380. Badajos, Spain, Formatex
  17. Nelson, J. (2009). Celebrating Scratch in libraries: Creation software helps young people develop 21st century literacy skills. School Library Journal. Retrieved from http://www.slj.com/2009/05/opinion/the-gaming-life/celebrating-scratch-in-libraries-the-gaming-life/#_ Noss, R., Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1997). The construction of mathematical meanings: connecting the visual with the symbolic. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33(2), 202–233. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002943821419
  18. Özdener, N. (2008). A comparison of the misconceptions about the time-efficiency of algorithms by various profiles of computer-programming students. Computers and Education, 51(3), 1094–1102. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.10.008
  19. Papadopoulos, Y., & Tegos, S. (2012). Using microworlds to introduce programming to novices. In Proceedings of the 2012 16th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics, PCI 2012 (pp. 180–185). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). http://doi.org/10.1109/PCi.2012.18
  20. Robbins, P., & Aydede, M. (2009). The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816826
  21. Spohrer, J. C., & Soloway, E. (1986). Novice mistakes: are the folk wisdoms correct? Communications of the ACM, 29(7), 624–632. http://doi.org/10.1145/6138.6145
  22. Thelen, E., Schöner, G., Scheier, C., & Smith, L. B. (2001). The dynamics of embodiment: A field theory of infant perseverative reaching. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 1–34.
  23. Williams, R. F. (2006). Using cognitive ethnography to study instruction. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Sciences (pp. 838–844). International Society of the Learning Sciences. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1150156
  24. Williams, R. F. (2012). Image schema in clock-reading: Latent errors and emerging expertise. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 216–246. http://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.553259