An Australasian study of reading and comprehension skills in novice programmers, using the bloom and SOLO taxonomies
By Jacqueline L. Whalley, Raymond Lister, Errol Thompson, T. Clear, Phil Robbins, P. Kumar, Christine Prasad. 2006
247 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Cognitive Science & Psychology, Software Engineering
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Cognitive Science & Psychology
In Software Engineering
Citations in the corpus
- Comparing Code Explanations Created by Students and Large Language Models (2023, methodology): “Early approaches for code explanation, such as the BRACElet project, provided students with ‘explain-in-plain-English’ type questions to encourage students to explain the purpose of their code at a higher level of abstraction [47].”
- Further evidence of a relationship between explaining, tracing and writing skills in introductory programming (2009, background): “● losses = [1, 25, 4, 9, 16] net = 100 for loss in losses: net = net - loss print net”
- Explaining program code: giving students the answer helps - but only just (2011, methodology): “…would be the question: What is the purpose or outcome of the following piece of code? x = a1; a1 = a2; a2 = x; The BRACElet project has conducted much research on the inclusion of code-explaining questions in programming exams and their analysis according to the SOLO taxonomy [2, 9, 15, 22].”
- Code comprehension problems as learning events (2012, background): “In order to comprehend code, novices must understand (parse) individual commands, and attempt to construct a larger understanding of the algorithm as a whole[21, 18].”
- Experiences from Using Code Explanations Generated by Large Language Models in a Web Software Development E-Book (2022, background): “For example, the BRACElet project provided students with ‘explain in plain English’ type questions to encourage students to explain the purpose of code fragments at an abstract level [43].”
- Students’ Misconceptions and Other Difficulties in Introductory Programming (2017, background): “Unlike experts, novices usually hold fragile programming knowledge and lack programming strategies and patterns (Clancy and Linn 1999; Davies 1993; Lister et al 2004; Lister et al 2006; Perkins and Martin 1986; Sajaniemi and Prieto 2005; Soloway 1986; Whalley et al. 2006).”
- Ability to 'explain in plain english' linked to proficiency in computer-based programming (2012, methodology): “Whalley et al. (2006) [10] analyzed student responses to EiPE questions using the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) taxonomy [1].”
- CodeAid: Evaluating a Classroom Deployment of an LLM-based Programming Assistant that Balances Student and Educator Needs (2024, unknown): “For example, ‘explain in plain English’ questions prompt students to explain their understanding of code at an abstract level [62], and provides both long-term and short-term learning benefits [45, 59].”
- Not seeing the forest for the trees: novice programmers and the SOLO taxonomy (2006, methodology): “This question was given as Question 10 in the BRACElet study [14].”
- Relationships between reading, tracing and writing skills in introductory programming (2008, background): “In skeleton-code questions, students were given a piece of code with one or two lines missing, they were also told what the code should do, and they were then required to identify the missing lines of code (as the question was multiple choice, the students did not have to write the lines, but…”
- Automatic Generation of Programming Exercises and Code Explanations Using Large Language Models (2022, methodology): “This type of question was first studied as part of the BRACElet project [88], where student responses were classified by researchers according to the first four levels of the SOLO taxonomy [8].”