SavedAdd your journal

Journals / The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences / 2014 / Volume: 1

CORRELATIONS AMONG ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES USED IN AN INTRODUCTORY PROGRAMMING COURSE

Cagin Kazımoglu
Umut Tekguc
Kamil Yurtkan
Pages
—
Publication Date
2014-09-01
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Additionally, the correlations between students’ department and their exam results were investigated in order to define whether or not students’ departments have an impact on their success in exams.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Learning computer programming is often perceived to be a difficult task by novice programming students and there have been several studies into the failure rate of students learning to program.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study explores the correlations between introductory programming students’ ability to program and their theoretical knowledge in computer programming in order to analyze whether or not their performance in written exams are genuine and accurate.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Additionally, the correlations between students’ department and their exam results were investigated in order to define whether or not students’ departments have an impact on their success in exams.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Introductory programming · computer programming · learning to program

Abstract

Learning computer programming is often perceived to be a difficult task by novice programming students and there have been several studies into the failure rate of students learning to program. This study explores the correlations between introductory programming students’ ability to program and their theoretical knowledge in computer programming in order to analyze whether or not their performance in written exams are genuine and accurate. A rigorous statistical analysis was conducted with 400 introductory programming students who were randomly selected without considering whether or not they had a good programming background. The findings of the study used inferential statistics in order to define the correlations between students’ practical and theoretical exam results. Additionally, the correlations between students’ department and their exam results were investigated in order to define whether or not students’ departments have an impact on their success in exams.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kazımoglu, C., Tekguc, U., Yurtkan, K. (2014). CORRELATIONS AMONG ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES USED IN AN INTRODUCTORY PROGRAMMING COURSE. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences, Volume: 1. https://ajindex.com/articles/1550546

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (28)

  1. Ala-Mutka, K. M. (2005). A survey of automated assessment approaches for programming assignments. Computer Science Education, 15(2), 83-102.
  2. Barros, J. P., Estevens, L., Dias, R., Pais, R., & Soeiro, E. (2003, June). Using lab exams to ensure programming practice in an introductory programming course. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 16-20).
  3. ACM. Bennedsen, J., & Caspersen, M. E. (2007). Failure rates in introductory programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(2), 32-36.
  4. Butcher, D. F., & Muth, W. A. (1985). Predicting performance in an introductory computer science course. Communications of the ACM, 28(3), 263-268.
  5. Chamillard, A. T., & Braun, K. A. (2000). Evaluating programming ability in an introductory computer science course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 32(1), 212-216.
  6. Coull, N. J., & Duncan, I. M. (2011). Emergent requirements for supporting introductory programming. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 10(1), 78-85.
  7. Dalal, N., Dalal, P., Kak, S., & Antonenko, P. (2009). Rapid digital game creation for broadening participation in computing and fostering crucial thinking skills. International Journal of Social and Humanistic Computing, 1(2), 123-137.
  8. Daly, C., & Waldron, J. (2004, March). Assessing the assessment of programming ability. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 210-213).
  9. ACM. Ford, M., & Venema, S. (2010). Assessing the Success of an Introductory Programming Course. Journal of Information Technology Education, 9. Gomes, A., & Mendes, A. J. (2007). Learning to program-difficulties and solutions. In International Conference on Engineering Education–ICEE (Vol. 2007).
  10. Hawi, N. (2010). Causal attributions of success and failure made by undergraduate students in an introductory level computer programming course. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1127-1136.
  11. Hawi, N. S. (2012). A CAD (Classroom Assessment Design) of a Computer Programming Course. Online Submission. Ismail, M. N., Ngah, N. A., & Umar, I. N. (2010). INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY IN THE TEACHING OF COMPUTER PROGRAMMING: A NEED ASSESSMENT ANALYSES. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2). Kuechler, W. L., & Simkin, M. G. (2003). How well do multiple choice tests evaluate student understanding in computer programming classes?. Journal of Information Systems Education, 14(4), 389-400.
  12. Lopez, M., Whalley, J., Robbins, P., & Lister, R. (2008, September). Relationships between reading, tracing and writing skills in introductory programming. In Proceedings of the Fourth international Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 101-112).
  13. ACM. Pears, A. N. (2010, October). Enhancing student engagement in an introductory programming course. In 40th Frontiers in Education Conference, ser. Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference (No. 40). Pears, A., Seidman, S., Malmi, L., Mannila, L., Adams, E., Bennedsen, J.,. & Paterson, J. (2007, December). A survey of literature on the teaching of introductory programming. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 204-223).
  14. ACM. Rajaravivarma, R. (2005). A games-based approach for teaching the introductory programming course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(4), 98-102.
  15. Ala-Mutka, K. M. (2005). A survey of automated assessment approaches for programming assignments. Computer Science Education, 15(2), 83-102.
  16. Barros, J. P., Estevens, L., Dias, R., Pais, R., & Soeiro, E. (2003, June). Using lab exams to ensure programming practice in an introductory programming course. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 16-20).
  17. ACM. Bennedsen, J., & Caspersen, M. E. (2007). Failure rates in introductory programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(2), 32-36.
  18. Butcher, D. F., & Muth, W. A. (1985). Predicting performance in an introductory computer science course. Communications of the ACM, 28(3), 263-268.
  19. Chamillard, A. T., & Braun, K. A. (2000). Evaluating programming ability in an introductory computer science course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 32(1), 212-216.
  20. Coull, N. J., & Duncan, I. M. (2011). Emergent requirements for supporting introductory programming. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 10(1), 78-85.
  21. Dalal, N., Dalal, P., Kak, S., & Antonenko, P. (2009). Rapid digital game creation for broadening participation in computing and fostering crucial thinking skills. International Journal of Social and Humanistic Computing, 1(2), 123-137.
  22. Daly, C., & Waldron, J. (2004, March). Assessing the assessment of programming ability. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 210-213).
  23. ACM. Ford, M., & Venema, S. (2010). Assessing the Success of an Introductory Programming Course. Journal of Information Technology Education, 9. Gomes, A., & Mendes, A. J. (2007). Learning to program-difficulties and solutions. In International Conference on Engineering Education–ICEE (Vol. 2007).
  24. Hawi, N. (2010). Causal attributions of success and failure made by undergraduate students in an introductory level computer programming course. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1127-1136.
  25. Hawi, N. S. (2012). A CAD (Classroom Assessment Design) of a Computer Programming Course. Online Submission. Ismail, M. N., Ngah, N. A., & Umar, I. N. (2010). INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY IN THE TEACHING OF COMPUTER PROGRAMMING: A NEED ASSESSMENT ANALYSES. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2). Kuechler, W. L., & Simkin, M. G. (2003). How well do multiple choice tests evaluate student understanding in computer programming classes?. Journal of Information Systems Education, 14(4), 389-400.
  26. Lopez, M., Whalley, J., Robbins, P., & Lister, R. (2008, September). Relationships between reading, tracing and writing skills in introductory programming. In Proceedings of the Fourth international Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 101-112).
  27. ACM. Pears, A. N. (2010, October). Enhancing student engagement in an introductory programming course. In 40th Frontiers in Education Conference, ser. Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference (No. 40). Pears, A., Seidman, S., Malmi, L., Mannila, L., Adams, E., Bennedsen, J.,. & Paterson, J. (2007, December). A survey of literature on the teaching of introductory programming. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 204-223).
  28. ACM. Rajaravivarma, R. (2005). A games-based approach for teaching the introductory programming course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(4), 98-102.