More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

The 'Art' of Programming: Exploring Student Conceptions of Programming through the Use of Drawing Methodology

Authors:

Adon Christian Michael Moskal,

Dale ParsonsAuthors Info & Claims

ICER '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research

Pages 39 - 46

https://doi.org/10.1145/3105726.3106170

Published: 14 August 2017 Publication History

Abstract

In this exploratory study, we analysed 396 drawings by first-year programming students in response to the question "what does programming mean to you". We were surprised by the level of care that students gave to their drawings, and we were confronted by the degree of emotion contained within the drawings. To date, few studies have focused specifically on programming students' emotional reactions to their learning experiences. Here, we analysed our student drawings as 'group data', taking note of recurring artefacts, actors, activities, aspirations and affect across the entire dataset. The observed patterns noted in the drawings raised questions around how students conceptualise programming, both as a subject and potential future profession. As contributions to the field, we: (1) discuss the potential of drawing as a research methodology for computer science; (2) present our findings and observations; and (3) suggest how this type of data could be used to better inform teaching practice in novice programming courses.

References

[1]

D. Knuth. 1974. Computer programming as an art. Communications of the ACM, v.17 n.12, pp.667--673, Dec 1974.

Digital Library

[2]

E. Lahtinen, K. Ala-Mutka, and H-M. Järvinen. 2005. A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. Acm Sigcse Bulletin, vol. 37, no. 3, pp.14--18. ACM, 2005.

Digital Library

[3]

A. Robins, J. Rountree, and N. Rountree. 2003. Learning and teaching programming: a review. Computer Science Education. 13, 2, pp.137--172.

[4]

A. Berglund, and R. Lister. 2010. Introductory programming and the didactic triangle. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Australasian Conference on Computing Education-Volume 103 (pp. 35--44). Australian Computer Society, Inc.

[5]

M. Butler, and M. Morgan. 2007. Learning challenges faced by novice programming students studying high level and low feedback concepts. In Proceedings of the 24th ascilite Conference (pp. 2--5).

[6]

A. Pears, S. Seidman, L. Malmi, L. Mannila, E. Adams, J. Bennedsen, M. Devlin, and J. Paterson. 2007. A survey of literature on the teaching of introductory programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(4), pp.204--223.

Digital Library

[7]

S. Fincher, A. Robins, B. Baker, I. Box, Q. Cutts, M. de Raadt, P. Haden, J. Hamer, M. Hamilton, R. Lister, and M. Petre. 2006. Predictors of success in a first programming course. In Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education-Volume 52 (pp. 189--196). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Jan 2006.

[8]

P. Kinnunen, and B. Simon. 2012. My program is ok, am I? Computing freshmen's experiences of doing programming assignments. Computer Science Education, 22(1), pp.1--28.

[9]

J. Gasson, D. Parsons, K. Wood, and P. Haden. In review. Student affect in CS1: Insights from an easy data collection tool. Koli Calling, November 16--19, 2017, Koli, Finland.

[10]

C. Edmondson. 2008. Teaching tales: some student perceptions of computing education. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(4), pp.103--106.

Digital Library

[11]

L.C. Kaczmarczyk, E.R. Petrick, J.P. East, and G.L. Herman. 2010. Identifying student misconceptions of programming. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 107--111). ACM. Mar 2010.

Digital Library

[12]

J.C. Liang, Y.C. Su, and C.C. Tsai. 2015. The assessment of Taiwanese college students' conceptions of and approaches to learning computer science and their relationships. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(4), pp.557--567.

[13]

I. Stamouli, and M. Huggard. 2006. Object oriented programming and program correctness: the students' perspective. In Proceedings of the second international workshop on Computing education research (pp. 109--118). ACM. Sep 2006.

Digital Library

[14]

D. Krpan, M. Rosić, and S. Mladenović. 2014. Teaching basic programming skills to undergraduate students. In Contemporary issues in economy and technology. Jan 2014.

[15]

A. Eckerdal, M. Thuné, and A. Berglund. 2005. What does it take to learn 'programming thinking'?. In Proceedings of the first international workshop on Computing education research (pp. 135--142). ACM. Oct 2005.

Digital Library

[16]

S. Fincher, J. Tenenberg, and A. Robins. 2011. Research design: necessary bricolage. In Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on Computing education research (pp. 27--32). ACM. Aug 2011.

Digital Library

[17]

T. Hübscher-Younger, and N.H. Narayanan. 2003. Dancing hamsters and marble statues: characterizing student visualizations of algorithms. In Proceedings of the 2003 ACM symposium on Software visualization (pp. 95--104). ACM. Jun 2003.

Digital Library

[18]

C. Golomb. 2003. The child's creation of a pictorial world. Psychology Press.

[19]

R.P. Jolley. 2010. Children and pictures: Drawing and understanding. John Wiley & Sons.

[20]

M.R. Lea, and B.V. Street. 1998. Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach. Studies in higher education 23(2), pp. 157--172.

[21]

K. Hyland. 2008. As can be seen: lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for specific purposes, 27(1), pp. 4--21.

[22]

M. Guillemin. 2004. Understanding illness: Using drawings as a research method. Qualitative health research, 14(2), pp.272--289.

[23]

N. Selwyn, S. Boraschi, and S.M. Özkula. 2009. Drawing digital pictures: An investigation of primary pupils' representations of ICT and schools. British Educational Research Journal, 35(6), pp.909--928.

[24]

W.M. Hsieh, and C.C. Tsai. 2016. Learning illustrated: An exploratory cross-sectional drawing analysis of students' conceptions of learning. The Journal of Educational Research, pp.1--12.

[25]

W.M. Hsieh, and C.C. Tsai. 2017. Exploring students' conceptions of science learning via drawing: a cross-sectional analysis. International Journal of Science Education, pp.1--25.

[26]

K.N. Sim. 2016. An investigation into the way PhD students utilise ICT to support their doctoral research process (Doctoral dissertation, University of Otago).

[27]

S. Köse. 2008. Diagnosing student misconceptions: Using drawings as a research method. World Applied Sciences Journal, 3(2), pp.283--293.

[28]

F. Cornish, A. Gillespie, and T. Zittoun. 2013. Collaborative analysis of qualitative data. Sage Publications Limited.

[29]

P.A. Nielsen. 2016. Towards a Design Theory for Collaborative Qualitative Data Analysis. Practice-based Design and Innovation of Digital Artifacts.

[30]

F. Trede, R. Macklin, and D. Bridges. 2012. Professional identity development: a review of the higher education literature. Studies in Higher Education, 37(3), pp.365--384.

[31]

A. Reid, L.O. Dahlgren, P. Petocz, and M.A. Dahlgren. 2008. Identity and engagement for professional formation. Studies in Higher Education, 33(6), pp.729--742.

[32]

Y. Lindsjørn, D.I. Sjøberg, T. Dingsøyr, G.R. Bergersen, and T. Dybå. 2016. Teamwork quality and project success in software development: A survey of agile development teams. Journal of Systems and Software, 122, pp.274--286.

Digital Library

[33]

C. McDowell, L. Werner, H. Bullock, and J. Fernald. 2002. The effects of pair-programming on performance in an introductory programming course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(1), pp.38--42.

Digital Library

[34]

K. Wood, D. Parsons, J. Gasson, and P. Haden. 2013. It's never too early: pair programming in CS1. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference-Volume 136 (pp. 13--21). Australian Computer Society, Inc. Jan 2013.

[35]

T. Jenkins. 2001. The motivation of students of programming. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 53--56). ACM. Jun 2001.

Digital Library

[36]

L.M. Leventhal, and D.W. Chilson. 1989. Beyond Just a Job: Expectations of Computer Science Students. Computer Science Education, 1(2), pp.129--143.

[37]

A. Dean, and P. Gibbs. 2015. Student satisfaction or happiness? A preliminary rethink of what is important in the student experience. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(1), pp.5--19.

[38]

M. Kölling. 1999. The problem of teaching object-oriented programming. Journal of Object Oriented Programming, 11(8), pp.8--15.

[39]

K. Sanders, J. Boustedt, A. Eckerdal, R. McCartney, J.E. Moström, L. Thomas, and C. Zander. 2008. Student understanding of object-oriented programming as expressed in concept maps. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), pp.332--336.

Digital Library

[40]

R. Wass, and C. Golding. 2014. Sharpening a tool for teaching: the zone of proximal development. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(6), pp.671--684.

[41]

E.L. Bjork, and R.A. Bjork. 2011. Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society, pp.56--64.

[42]

S. D'Mello, and A. Graesser. 2012. Dynamics of affective states during complex learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), pp.145--157.

Cited By

Doore SCao QZafiris CMonga MLonati VBarendsen ESheard JPaterson J(2024)Student Perceptions of Computer Science as a ProfessionProceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3649217.3653623(339-345)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3649217.3653623
Brocker ASchäfer RRemy CVoelker SBorchers J(2023)Flowboard: How Seamless, Live, Flow-Based Programming Impacts Learning to Code for Embedded ElectronicsACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/353301530:1(1-36)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3533015
Wang CWu KJiang W(2023)Web-based drawing for students with different learning styles and cognitive abilitiesEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-022-11542-228:7(9049-9079)Online publication date: 7-Jan-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11542-2
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

The 'Art' of Programming: Exploring Student Conceptions of Programming through the Use of Drawing Methodology
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. Computing education programs
        Computer science education

Recommendations

Student affect in CS1: insights from an easy data collection tool
Koli Calling '17: Proceedings of the 17th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research

Recent research, and our own experience as educators, has highlighted the need for an approach to CS1 that includes consideration of students' emotional state. Unfortunately, collection of affect data usually requires a large investment of time and ...
Teachers' Experiences of using PRIMM to Teach Programming in School
SIGCSE '19: Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

PRIMM is an approach to teaching programming at K-12 that facilitates the structure of lessons in a purposeful way. PRIMM stands for Predict-Run-Investigate-Modify-Make, and draws on recent research in programming education. In particular the PRIMM ...
Programming in context: a model-first approach to CS1
SIGCSE '04: Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education

The recommendations of the Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula 2001 encompass suggestions for an object-first introductory programming course. We have identified conceptual modeling as a lacking perspective in the suggestions for CS1. Conceptual ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

ICER '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research

August 2017

316 pages

ISBN:9781450349680

DOI:10.1145/3105726

General Chairs:
Josh Tenenberg
University of Washington Tacoma, USA
,
Donald Chinn
University of Washington Tacoma, USA
,
Judy Sheard
Monash University, Australia
,
Lauri Malmi
Aalto University, Finland
,
Program Chairs:
Josh Tenenberg
University of Washington Tacoma, USA
,
Lauri Malmi
Aalto University, Finland

Copyright © 2017 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].

Sponsors

SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 14 August 2017

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

ICER '17

Sponsor:

SIGCSE

ICER '17: International Computing Education Research Conference

August 18 - 20, 2017

Washington, Tacoma, USA

Acceptance Rates

ICER '17 Paper Acceptance Rate 29 of 180 submissions, 16%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 189 of 803 submissions, 24%

Upcoming Conference

ICER 2025

Sponsor:
sigcse

ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research

August 3 - 6, 2025

Charlottesville , VA , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

10
Total Citations
View Citations
486
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)25
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

Reflects downloads up to 14 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Doore SCao QZafiris CMonga MLonati VBarendsen ESheard JPaterson J(2024)Student Perceptions of Computer Science as a ProfessionProceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3649217.3653623(339-345)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3649217.3653623
Brocker ASchäfer RRemy CVoelker SBorchers J(2023)Flowboard: How Seamless, Live, Flow-Based Programming Impacts Learning to Code for Embedded ElectronicsACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/353301530:1(1-36)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3533015
Wang CWu KJiang W(2023)Web-based drawing for students with different learning styles and cognitive abilitiesEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-022-11542-228:7(9049-9079)Online publication date: 7-Jan-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11542-2
Borjas MSerrano JMolina AAltamar Jde Alba M(2022)Drawing as an Opportunity to Assess Meaningful Learning in College StudentsDesign and Measurement Strategies for Meaningful Learning10.4018/978-1-7998-9128-4.ch009(171-191)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2022
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-9128-4.ch009
Kapoor AGardner-Mccune C(2022)Categorizing Research on Identity in Undergraduate Computing EducationProceedings of the 22nd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3564721.3565948(1-13)Online publication date: 17-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3564721.3565948
Coto MMora SGrass BMurillo-Morera J(2021)Emotions and programming learning: systematic mappingComputer Science Education10.1080/08993408.2021.192081632:1(30-65)Online publication date: 17-May-2021
https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2021.1920816
Zavaleta Bernuy AHarrington BGiannakos MSindre GLuxton-Reilly ADivitini M(2020)What are We Asking our Students? A Literature Map of Student Surveys in Computer Science EducationProceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education10.1145/3341525.3387383(418-424)Online publication date: 15-Jun-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3341525.3387383
Xu ZRitzhaupt AUmapathy KNing YTsai C(2020)Exploring college students’ conceptions of learning computer science: a draw-a-picture technique studyComputer Science Education10.1080/08993408.2020.178315531:1(60-82)Online publication date: 28-Jun-2020
https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1783155
Parsons DWood KGasson JMoskal ASimon Luxton-Reilly A(2019)Development of a Self-Reporting Tool for Capturing Student Emotions During Programming ActivitiesProceedings of the Twenty-First Australasian Computing Education Conference10.1145/3286960.3286968(64-68)Online publication date: 29-Jan-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3286960.3286968
Wang CWu KJiang W(undefined)Web-Based Drawing for Students with Different Learning Styles and Cognitive AbilitiesSSRN Electronic Journal10.2139/ssrn.3981393
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3981393

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents