Learning and Teaching Programming: A Review and Discussion

By Anthony V. Robins, J. Rountree, Nathan Rountree. Computer Science Education, 2003

1,727 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Computer Science Applications, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/64644ccecc3db4e104e4d3ba2634563cea9cc145

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Computer Science Applications

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Introductory programming: a systematic literature review (2018, neutral): “[554] provided a comprehensive overview of novice”
A Systematic Literature Review on Teaching and Learning Introductory Programming in Higher Education (2019, background): “in their review from 2003 [9] were also identified in the present review, including: problem solving (strategies and skills); solution expression (abstraction, use of data structures like variables and arrays, use of control structures like loops, conditional statements, and recursions); and solutio”
Computer games created by middle school girls: Can they be used to measure understanding of computer science concepts? (2012, background): “Robins, Rountree, and Rountree (2003) found that novices approached a program in a line-by-line way rather than in ‘chunks.’”
Learning computer science concepts with scratch (2010, background): “Tracking code (Applying) is traditionally considered easier for students than creating code [10, 19, 25], but according to the rationale of our taxonomy, the complexity of the code, expressed in the SOLO abilities it requires (Multistructural or Relational), is more significant.”
Comparing Block-Based and Text-Based Programming in High School Computer Science Classrooms (2017, result): “…low on the comprehension questions echoes similar work looking at the relationship between modality and conceptual understanding (Weintrop and Wilensky 2015) and matches prior work on students’ di ffi culties in drawing larger meaning and purpose when reading programs (Robins et al. 2003).”
Students’ Misconceptions and Other Difficulties in Introductory Programming (2017, background): “A typical introductory programming course often focuses on covering features and rules of a programming language (Muller et al. 2007; Robins et al. 2003).”
A Survey of Automated Assessment Approaches for Programming Assignments (2005, background): “Novice programmers have common problems in expressing their program solutions as computer programs, i.e., in applying programming concepts to program construction (Robins, Rountree & Rountree, 2003).”
Failure rates in introductory programming (2007, background): “It is generally accepted that it is very difficult to learn to programming [7, 11, 14].”
Developing a computer science-specific learning taxonomy (2007, background): “We also recommend that instructors and course designers use Bloom’s taxonomy of the affective domain to achieve constructive alignment between their desire to produce”
Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students (2015, background): “Prior research suggests that FOR loops are problematic for older novice programmers too (Robins et al., 2003) due to the complex “ behind-the-scenes ” action involved with incre-menting the loop variable.”
A study of the difficulties of novice programmers (2005, background): “[7] provide a comprehensive review on the research relating to programming education.”
A survey of literature on the teaching of introductory programming (2007, background): “We assume that readers of this paper have little experience or exposure to general literature in the theory of teaching and learning in higher education.”