学生对动态编程的误解:一项复制研究

IF 3 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Computer Science Education Pub Date : 2022-06-19 DOI:10.1080/08993408.2022.2079865
Michael Shindler, Natalia Pinpin, Mia Markovic, Frederick Reiber, Jee Hoon Kim, Giles Pierre Nunez Carlos, M. Dogucu, Mark, Hong, Michael Luu, Brian Anderson, Aaron Cote, Matthew, Ferland, Palak Jain, T. LaBonte, Leena Mathur, Ryan, Moreno, Ryan Sakuma
{"title":"学生对动态编程的误解:一项复制研究","authors":"Michael Shindler, Natalia Pinpin, Mia Markovic, Frederick Reiber, Jee Hoon Kim, Giles Pierre Nunez Carlos, M. Dogucu, Mark, Hong, Michael Luu, Brian Anderson, Aaron Cote, Matthew, Ferland, Palak Jain, T. LaBonte, Leena Mathur, Ryan, Moreno, Ryan Sakuma","doi":"10.1080/08993408.2022.2079865","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background and Context We replicated and expanded on previous work about how well students learn dynamic programming, a difficult topic for students in algorithms class. Their study interviewed a number of students at one university in a single term. We recruited a larger sample size of students, over several terms, in both large public and private universities as well as liberal arts colleges. Objective Our aim was to investigate whether the results of the previous work generalized to other universities and also to larger groups of students. Method We interviewed students who completed the relevant portions of their algorithms class, asking them to solve problems. We observed the students' problem solving process to glean insight into how students tackle these problems. Findings We found that students generally struggle in three ways, “technique selection,” ”recurrence building,” and “inefficient implementations.” We then explored these themes and specific misconceptions qualitatively. We observed that the misconceptions found by the previous work generalized to the larger sample of students. Implications Our findings demonstrate areas in which students struggle, paving way for better algorithms education by means of identifying areas of common weakness to draw the focus of instructors.","PeriodicalId":45844,"journal":{"name":"Computer Science Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Student misconceptions of dynamic programming: a replication study\",\"authors\":\"Michael Shindler, Natalia Pinpin, Mia Markovic, Frederick Reiber, Jee Hoon Kim, Giles Pierre Nunez Carlos, M. Dogucu, Mark, Hong, Michael Luu, Brian Anderson, Aaron Cote, Matthew, Ferland, Palak Jain, T. LaBonte, Leena Mathur, Ryan, Moreno, Ryan Sakuma\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08993408.2022.2079865\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Background and Context We replicated and expanded on previous work about how well students learn dynamic programming, a difficult topic for students in algorithms class. Their study interviewed a number of students at one university in a single term. We recruited a larger sample size of students, over several terms, in both large public and private universities as well as liberal arts colleges. Objective Our aim was to investigate whether the results of the previous work generalized to other universities and also to larger groups of students. Method We interviewed students who completed the relevant portions of their algorithms class, asking them to solve problems. We observed the students' problem solving process to glean insight into how students tackle these problems. Findings We found that students generally struggle in three ways, “technique selection,” ”recurrence building,” and “inefficient implementations.” We then explored these themes and specific misconceptions qualitatively. We observed that the misconceptions found by the previous work generalized to the larger sample of students. Implications Our findings demonstrate areas in which students struggle, paving way for better algorithms education by means of identifying areas of common weakness to draw the focus of instructors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45844,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computer Science Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computer Science Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2022.2079865\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computer Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2022.2079865","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

摘要背景和上下文我们复制并扩展了以前关于学生如何学习动态编程的工作,这是算法课上学生的一个难题。他们的研究在一个学期内采访了一所大学的一些学生。我们在大型公立和私立大学以及文科学院招募了更大样本量的学生,为期数个学期。目的我们的目的是调查先前工作的结果是否适用于其他大学以及更大的学生群体。方法我们采访了完成算法课相关部分的学生,要求他们解决问题。我们观察了学生解决问题的过程,以了解学生如何解决这些问题。研究结果我们发现,学生通常在三个方面挣扎,“技术选择”、“重复构建”和“低效实施”。然后,我们定性地探讨了这些主题和具体的误解。我们观察到,先前工作中发现的误解普遍存在于更大的学生样本中。启示我们的研究结果展示了学生们在哪些领域苦苦挣扎,通过识别共同弱点的领域来吸引导师的注意力,为更好的算法教育铺平了道路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Student misconceptions of dynamic programming: a replication study
ABSTRACT Background and Context We replicated and expanded on previous work about how well students learn dynamic programming, a difficult topic for students in algorithms class. Their study interviewed a number of students at one university in a single term. We recruited a larger sample size of students, over several terms, in both large public and private universities as well as liberal arts colleges. Objective Our aim was to investigate whether the results of the previous work generalized to other universities and also to larger groups of students. Method We interviewed students who completed the relevant portions of their algorithms class, asking them to solve problems. We observed the students' problem solving process to glean insight into how students tackle these problems. Findings We found that students generally struggle in three ways, “technique selection,” ”recurrence building,” and “inefficient implementations.” We then explored these themes and specific misconceptions qualitatively. We observed that the misconceptions found by the previous work generalized to the larger sample of students. Implications Our findings demonstrate areas in which students struggle, paving way for better algorithms education by means of identifying areas of common weakness to draw the focus of instructors.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Computer Science Education
Computer Science Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
3.70%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Computer Science Education publishes high-quality papers with a specific focus on teaching and learning within the computing discipline. The journal seeks novel contributions that are accessible and of interest to researchers and practitioners alike. We invite work with learners of all ages and across both classroom and out-of-classroom learning contexts.
期刊最新文献
“These two worlds are antithetical”: epistemic tensions in integrating computational thinking in K12 humanities and arts Exploring young people’s perceptions and discourses of technology occupations through descriptive drawings and a questionnaire Epistemic practices in conceptions of computer science The use of makerspaces for the development of computational thinking skills and dispositions: pedagogical practices facilitators use Teachers’ understanding of assessing computational thinking
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1