Visualised worked examples for learning introductory programming at tertiary level

The objectives of this study were to design and develop visualised worked examples for introductoryprogramming at tertiary level, evaluate their effectiveness compared to subgoal labelled workedexamples, explore students engagements with visualised worked examples, and explore studentspreferences an...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Mariam Nainan T.K.Nainan
Format:	thesis
Language:	eng
Published:	2021
Subjects:	LB Theory and practice of education
Online Access:	https://ir.upsi.edu.my/detailsg.php?det=5814
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

id	oai:ir.upsi.edu.my:5814
record_format	uketd_dc
institution	Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
collection	UPSI Digital Repository
language	eng
topic	LB Theory and practice of education
spellingShingle	LB Theory and practice of education Mariam Nainan T.K.Nainan Visualised worked examples for learning introductory programming at tertiary level
description	The objectives of this study were to design and develop visualised worked examples for introductoryprogramming at tertiary level, evaluate their effectiveness compared to subgoal labelled workedexamples, explore students engagements with visualised worked examples, and explore studentspreferences and perceptions of the two types of worked examples. Quasi-experiment was conductedwith 87, 79, and 78 students in three sessions in an introductory programming course in afoundation programme at a university in Selangor. Test data were collected and analysedusing analysis of covariance and chi square tests. Students engagements with visualisedworked examples were observed and analysed qualitatively. Another intervention wasconducted with 38 students in undergraduate programmes from the same university, who werepresented both types of worked examples. Questionnaire data were collected and analysedquantitatively and qualitatively. The findings of this study showed no significant differences in effectiveness for knowledge and skill development but, forprogramming language and patterns knowledge development, pattern applications weresignificantly associated with type of worked examples ((2)= 16.48, p <.001; (2) = 11.18, p = .004; (1) = 5.07, p = .024). Also, students wereengaged with visualised worked examples. Additionally, 73.7% of the students preferredvisualised worked examples and students perceived that visualised worked examples supported theirunderstanding in various aspects. The conclusion was that visualised worked examples were able tosignificantly reduce the likelihood of wrong or omitted program statements in students patternapplications. Also, students were engaged with visualised worked examples behaviourally,and by implication, cognitively. In addition, visualised worked examples were preferred bymore students with positive perceptions. The implications were that this study extended research onworked example design, employing concepts of attention cueing and learner control, for programmingeducation and provided empirical evidence of worked examplesusage for programming education practice.
format	thesis
qualification_name
qualification_level	Doctorate
author	Mariam Nainan T.K.Nainan
author_facet	Mariam Nainan T.K.Nainan
author_sort	Mariam Nainan T.K.Nainan
title	Visualised worked examples for learning introductory programming at tertiary level
title_short	Visualised worked examples for learning introductory programming at tertiary level
title_full	Visualised worked examples for learning introductory programming at tertiary level
title_fullStr	Visualised worked examples for learning introductory programming at tertiary level
title_full_unstemmed	Visualised worked examples for learning introductory programming at tertiary level
title_sort	visualised worked examples for learning introductory programming at tertiary level
granting_institution	Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
granting_department	Fakulti Seni, Komputeran dan Industri Kreatif
publishDate	2021
url	https://ir.upsi.edu.my/detailsg.php?det=5814
_version_	1747833230597292032
spelling	oai:ir.upsi.edu.my:58142021-04-12 Visualised worked examples for learning introductory programming at tertiary level 2021 Mariam Nainan T.K.Nainan LB Theory and practice of education The objectives of this study were to design and develop visualised worked examples for introductoryprogramming at tertiary level, evaluate their effectiveness compared to subgoal labelled workedexamples, explore students engagements with visualised worked examples, and explore studentspreferences and perceptions of the two types of worked examples. Quasi-experiment was conductedwith 87, 79, and 78 students in three sessions in an introductory programming course in afoundation programme at a university in Selangor. Test data were collected and analysedusing analysis of covariance and chi square tests. Students engagements with visualisedworked examples were observed and analysed qualitatively. Another intervention wasconducted with 38 students in undergraduate programmes from the same university, who werepresented both types of worked examples. Questionnaire data were collected and analysedquantitatively and qualitatively. The findings of this study showed no significant differences in effectiveness for knowledge and skill development but, forprogramming language and patterns knowledge development, pattern applications weresignificantly associated with type of worked examples ((2)= 16.48, p <.001; (2) = 11.18, p = .004; (1) = 5.07, p = .024). Also, students wereengaged with visualised worked examples. Additionally, 73.7% of the students preferredvisualised worked examples and students perceived that visualised worked examples supported theirunderstanding in various aspects. The conclusion was that visualised worked examples were able tosignificantly reduce the likelihood of wrong or omitted program statements in students patternapplications. Also, students were engaged with visualised worked examples behaviourally,and by implication, cognitively. In addition, visualised worked examples were preferred bymore students with positive perceptions. The implications were that this study extended research onworked example design, employing concepts of attention cueing and learner control, for programmingeducation and provided empirical evidence of worked examplesusage for programming education practice. 2021 thesis https://ir.upsi.edu.my/detailsg.php?det=5814 https://ir.upsi.edu.my/detailsg.php?det=5814 text eng closedAccess Doctoral Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris Fakulti Seni, Komputeran dan Industri Kreatif Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., Masa'deh, R., & Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating e-learning systemssuccess: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 67- 86.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.004Alhassan, R. (2017). The effect of employing self-explanation strategy with worked examples onacquiring computer programming skills. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(6), 186-196.Allen, J. T., Bidjerano, T., & Hren, T. (2017). What do novices think about when they program?.Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 33(2), 171-181.Altintas, T., Gunes, A., & Sayan, H. (2016). A peer-assisted learning experience in computerprogramming language learning and developing computer programming skills. Innovations in Educationand Teaching International, 53(3), 329-337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.993418Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learningworks: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.Anderson, R. C., Spiro, R. J., & Anderson, M. C. (1978). Schemata as scaffolding for therepresentation of information in connected discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 15(3),433-440. http://doi.org/10.3102/00028312015003433Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its controlprocesses. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2, 89-195.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60422-3Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples:Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70(2),181-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543070002181Atkinson, R. K., & Renkl, A. (2007). Interactive example-based learning environments: Usinginteractive elements to encourage effective processing of worked examples. Educational PsychologyReview, 19(3), 375-386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9055-2Bennedsen, J., & Caspersen, M. E. (2005, February). Revealing the programming process. InProceedings of the 36th SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 186-190).ACM.https://doi.org/10.1145/1047344.1047413Bennedsen, J., & Caspersen, M. E. (2007). Failure rates in introductory programming.ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(2), 32-36.http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1272848.1272879Bennedsen, J., & Caspersen, M. E. (2019). Failure rates in introductory programming: 12 yearslater. ACM Inroads, 10(2), 30-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3324888Bokosmaty, S., Sweller, J., & Kalyuga, S. (2015). Learning geometry problem solving by studyingworked examples: Effects of learner guidance and expertise.American Educational Research Journal, 52(2), 307-333. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831214549450Busjahn, T., Bednarik, R., Begel, A., Crosby, M., Paterson, J. H., Schulte, C., ... & Tamm, S.(2015, May). Eye movements in code reading: Relaxing the linear order. In 2015 IEEE 23rdinternational conference on program comprehension (pp. 255-265). IEEE.http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICPC.2015.36Busjahn, T., & Schulte, C. (2013, November). The use of code reading in teaching programming. InProceedings of the 13th Koli calling international conference on computing education research (pp.3-11). ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/2526968.2526969Cardellini, L. (2014). Problem solving: How can we help students overcome cognitive difficulties.Journal of Technology and Science Education, 4(4), 237-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jotse.121Carolan, T. F., Hutchins, S. D., Wickens, C. D., & Cumming, J. M. (2014). Costs and benefits ofmore learner freedom: Meta-analyses of exploratory and learner control training methods. HumanFactors, 56(5), 999-1014. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813517710Caspersen, M. E., & Bennedsen, J. (2007, September). Instructional design of a programming course:a learning theoretic approach. In Proceedings of the third international workshop on computingeducation research (pp. 111-122). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1288580.1288595Castro, F. E. V., & Fisler, K. (2016, February). On the interplay between bottom-up anddatatype-driven program design. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM technical symposium on computingscience education (pp. 205-210). ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844574Catrambone, R. (1994). Improving examples to improve transfer to novel problems.Memory & Cognition, 22(5), 606-615. http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198399Catrambone, R. (1996). Generalizing solution procedures learned from examples.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(4), 1020-1031.http://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.4.1020Catrambone, R. (1998). The subgoal learning model: Creating better examples so that students cansolve novel problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(4), 355-376.http://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.127.4.355Catrambone, R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1990). Learning subgoals and methods for solving probabilityproblems. Memory & Cognition, 18(6), 593-603. http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197102Catrambone, R., & Yuasa, M. (2006). Acquisition of procedures: The effects of example elaborationsand active learning exercises. Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 139-153.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.002Chen, J. C., Whittinghill, D. C., & Kadlowec, J. A. (2010). Classes that click: Fast, rich feedbackto enhance student learning and satisfaction. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2), 159-168.https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168- 9830.2010.tb01052.xCherenkova, Y., Zingaro, D., & Petersen, A. (2014, March). Identifying challenging CS1 concepts ina large problem dataset. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on computer scienceeducation (pp. 695-700). ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538966Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self- explanations: Howstudents study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145-182.https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(89)90002-5Chow, W. S., & Shi, S. (2014). Investigating students satisfaction and continuance intentiontoward e-learning: An extension of the expectationconfirmation model. Procedia-Social andBehavioral Sciences, 141, 1145-1149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.193Clark, R. E., Kirschner, P. A., & Sweller, J. (2012). Putting students on the path to learning: Thecase for fully guided instruction. American Educator, 36(1), 6-11.Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.Crooks, S. M., Cheon, J., Inan, F., Ari, F., & Flores, R. (2012). Modality and cueing in multimedialearning: Examining cognitive and perceptual explanations for the modality effect. Computers inHuman Behavior, 28(3), 1063-1071.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.010Crow, T., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Wuensche, B. (2018, January). Intelligent tutoring systems forprogramming education: a systematic review. In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian computingeducation conference (pp. 53-62). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3160489.3160492Da?han, G., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2016). Modeling the continuance usage intention of online learningenvironments. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 198-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.066Deuter, M., Bradbery, J., Turnbull, J., Hey, L., & Holloway, S. (Eds.). (2015).Visualize. In Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English (9th ed.). Oxford UniversityPressDe Barros, L. N., dos Santos Mota, A. P., Delgado, K. V., & Matsumoto, P. M. (2005, October). Atool for programming learning with pedagogical patterns. In Proceedings of the 2005 OOPSLA workshopon eclipse technology exchange (pp. 125-129). ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/1117696.1117722De Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Somefood for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105-134. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2007). Attention cueing as ameans to enhance learning from an animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 731-746.http://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1346De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2009). Towards a framework forattention cueing in instructional animations: Guidelines for research and design. EducationalPsychology Review, 21(2), 113-140. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9098-7De Raadt, M., Watson, R., & Toleman, M. (2009, January). Teaching and assessing programmingstrategies explicitly. In Proceedings of the eleventh Australasian conference on computingeducation (Vol. 95, pp. 45-54). Australian Computer Society Inc..De Souza, D. M., Maldonado, J. C., & Barbosa, E. F. (2011, May). ProgTest: An environment for thesubmission and evaluation of programming assignments based on testing activities. In 2011 24thIEEE-CS conference on software engineering education and training (CSEE&T) (pp. 1-10). IEEE.Deek, F. P., Turoff, M., & McHugh, J. a. (1999). A common model for problem solving and programdevelopment. IEEE Transactions on Education, 42(4), 331-336. http://doi.org/10.1109/13.804541Denscombe, M. (2010). Ground rules for social research: guidelines for goodpractice. Open University Press.Derry, J. (2007). Epistemology and conceptual resources for the development of learningtechnologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(6), 503-510.http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00246.xDomagk, S., Schwartz, R. N., & Plass, J. L. (2010). Interactivity in multimedia learning: Anintegrated model. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1024- 1033.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.003dos Santos, M. T., Vianna Jr, A. S., & Le Roux, G. A. (2018). Programming skills in the industry4.0: are chemical engineering students able to face new problems? Education for Chemical Engineers,22, 69-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2018.01.002Duran, R., Sorva, J., & Leite, S. (2018, August). Towards an analysis of program complexity from acognitive perspective. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM conference on international computingeducation research (pp. 21-30). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3230977.3230986East, J. P., Thomas, R., Wallingford, E., Beck, W., & Drake, J. (1996, June). Pattern basedprogramming instruction. [Paper presentation] 1996 American Society for Engineering Education(ASEE) Annual Conference, Washington, USA, 1-10.Elo, S., & Kyngs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of AdvancedNursing, 62(1), 107-115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2648.2007.04569.xFernndez Alemn, J. L., & Oufaska, Y. (2010, June). SAMtool, a tool for deducing and implementingloop patterns. In Proceedings of the fifteenth annual conference on innovation and technology incomputer science education (pp. 68- 72). ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/1822090.1822111Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning.Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 717-741. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of theconcept, state of the evidence. Review of EducationalResearch, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059Garner, S., Haden, P., & Robins, A. (2005, January). My program is correct but it doesnt run: Apreliminary investigation of novice programmers' problems. In Proceedings of the 7th Australasianconference on computing education, (Vol 42, pp.173-180). Australian Computer Society, Inc..Gaspar, A., & Langevin, S. (2007, October). Restoring coding with intention in introductoryprogramming courses. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGITE conference on information technologyeducation (pp. 91-98). ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/1324302.1324323Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R. (2004). Designing instructional examples to reduceintrinsic cognitive load: Molar versus modular presentation of solution procedures. InstructionalScience, 32(1-2), 33-58. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021809.10236.71Ginat, D. (2007, June). Hasty design, futile patching and the elaboration of rigor. In Proceedingsof the 12th annual SIGCSE conference on innovation and technology in computer science education(pp. 161-165). ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/1269900.1268832Gomes, A., & Mendes, A. J. (2007, September). Learning to program-difficulties and solutions.International Conference on Engineering Education, European Journal of Engineering Education,32(1), 109. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790601135014Graneheim, U. H., Lindgren, B. M., & Lundman, B. (2017). Methodological challenges in qualitativecontent analysis: A discussion paper. Nurse Education Today, 56, 29-34.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.06.002Gray, S., St. Clair, C., James, R., & Mead, J. (2007, September). Suggestions for graduatedexposure to programming concepts using fading worked examples. In Proceedings of the thirdinternational workshop on computing education research (pp. 99-110). ACM.https://doi.org/10.1145/1288580.1288594Greene, J., Moos, D., & Azevedo, R. (2011). Self-regulation of learning with computer-basedlearning environments. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011(126), 107-115.https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.449Griffin, J. M. (2016, September). Learning by taking apart: Deconstructing code by reading,tracing, and debugging. In Proceedings of the 17th annual conference on information technologyeducation (pp. 148-153). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2978192.2978231Grover, S., & Basu, S. (2017, March). Measuring student learning in introductory block-basedprogramming: Examining misconceptions of loops, variables, andboolean logic. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium oncomputer science education (pp. 267-272). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017723Gusukuma, L., Bart, A. C., Kafura, D., & Ernst, J. (2018, August). Misconception- driven feedback:Results from an experimental study. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM conference on internationalcomputing education research (pp. 160-168). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3230977.3231002Guzdial, M., Hohmann, L., Konneman, M., Walton, C., & Soloway, E. (1998).Supporting programming and learning-to-program with an integrated CAD and scaffolding workbench.Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1-2), 143-179. http://doi.org/10.1076/ilee.6.1.143.3609Hanks, B., & Brandt, M. (2009, March). Successful and unsuccessful problem solving approaches ofnovice programmers. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on computer scienceeducation (pp. 24-28). ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/1508865.1508876Harskamp, E., & Suhre, C. (2007). Schoenfelds problem solving theory in a student controlledlearning environment. Computers & Education, 49(3), 822-839.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.024Heinonen, K., Hirvikoski, K., Luukkainen, M., & Vihavainen, A. (2014, March).Using CodeBrowser to seek differences between novice programmers.In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 229-234).ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538981Hesser, T. L., & Gregory, J. L. (2015). Exploring the use of faded worked examples as a problemsolving approach for underprepared students. Higher Education Studies, 5(6), 36-46.http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/hes.v5n6p36Hohn, R. L., & Moraes, I. (1998). Use of rule-based elaboration of worked examples to promote theacquisition of programming plans. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 38(2), 35-40.Hoy, A. W. (2013). Educational psychology (12th ed.). Pearson.Hu, M., Winikoff, M., & Cranefield, S. (2013, January). A process for novice programming usinggoals and plans. In Proceedings of the fifteenth Australasian computing education conference (Vol.136, pp. 3-12).Huang, T. C. (2019). Do different learning styles make a difference when it comes tocreativity? An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 100, 252-257.Ichinco, M., & Kelleher, C. (2015, October). Exploring novice programmer example use. In 2015 IEEEsymposium on visual languages and human-centric computing (VL/HCC) (pp. 63-71). IEEE.https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7357199Izu, C., Weerasinghe, A., & Pope, C. (2016, August). A study of code design skills in noviceprogrammers using the SOLO taxonomy. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM conference on internationalcomputing education research (pp. 251-259). ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2960310.2960324Jamet, E., & Fernandez, J. (2016). Enhancing interactive tutorial effectiveness through visualcueing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 631-641.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9437-6Jamet, E., Gavota, M., & Quaireau, C. (2008). Attention guiding in multimedia learning. Learningand Instruction, 18(2), 135-145. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.01.011Jenkins, T. (2002, August). On the difficulty of learning to program. In Proceedings of the 3rdannual conference of the LTSN centre for information and computer sciences (pp. 53-58).Jenkinson, J. (2009). Measuring the effectiveness of educational technology?: what are weattempting to measure?. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 7(3), 273-280.http://www.ejel.org/volume7/issue3Johnson, B. and Christensen, L. (2014) Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixedapproaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula (2015). Curriculum guidelines for undergraduate degrees insoftware engineering. Computing Curricula Series. ACM.Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Designing research-based instruction for story problems.Educational Psychology Review, 15(3), 267-296. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024648217919Jonassen, D. H. (2010, September). Research issues in problem solving. In The 11th Internationalconference on education research: New education paradigm for learning and instruction (pp. 1-15).Jung, E., Kim, D., Yoon, M., Park, S., & Oakley, B. (2019). The influence of instructional designon learner control, sense of achievement, and perceived effectiveness in a supersize MOOC course.Computers & Education, 128, 377-388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.001Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversaleffect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23-31. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4Kalyuga, S., & Singh, A. M. (2016). Rethinking the boundaries of cognitive load theory in complexlearning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 831-852.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9352-0Kay, J., Barg, M., Fekete, A., Greening, T., Hollands, O., Kingston, J. H. & Crawford,K. (2000). Problem-based learning for foundation computer science courses. Computer ScienceEducation, 10(2), 109-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/0899- 3408(200008)10:2;1-C;FT109Kim, A. S., & Ko, A. J. (2017, March). A pedagogical analysis of online coding tutorials. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 321-326).http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017728Kinnunen, P., & Simon, B. (2010, August). Experiencing programming assignments in CS1: theemotional toll. In Proceedings of the sixth international workshop on computing education research(pp. 77-85). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1839594.1839609Kirschner, P. A., Ayres, P., & Chandler, P. (2011). Contemporary cognitive load theory research:The good, the bad and the ugly. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 99-105.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.025Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction doesnot work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, andinquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.Kohn, T. (2017, March). Variable evaluation: An exploration of novice programmers' understandingand common misconceptions. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computerscience education (pp. 345-350).ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017724Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlationcoefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155-163.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012Kopec, D., Yarmish, G., & Cheung, P. (2007). A description and study of intermediate studentprogrammer errors. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(2), 146-156.https://doi.org/10.1145/1272848.1272899Kranch, D. A. (2012). Teaching the novice programmer: A study of instructional sequences andperception. Education and Information Technologies, 17(3), 291- 313.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-011-9158-8Kumar, A. N. (2015, June). Automated generation of self-explanation questions in worked examples ina model-based tutor. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp.682-685). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19773-9_91Kunkle, W. M., & Allen, R. B. (2016). The impact of different teaching approaches and languages onstudent learning of introductory programming concepts. ACM Transactions on Computing Education(TOCE), 16(1), 1-26. ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2785807Kyun, S., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2013). The effect of worked examples when learning to writeessays in English literature. Journal of Experimental Education, 81(3), 385-408.http://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.727884Kyun, S., & Lee, H. (2009). The effects of worked examples in computer-based instruction: Focus onthe presentation format of worked examples and prior knowledge of learners. Asia Pacific EducationReview, 10(4), 495-503. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-009-9044-xLahtinen, E., Ala-Mutka, K., & Jrvinen, H.-M. (2005). A study of the difficulties of noviceprogrammers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(3), 14-18. http://doi.org/10.1145/1151954.1067453Landers, R. N., & Reddock, C. M. (2017). A meta-analytic investigation of objective learner controlin web-based instruction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(4), 455-478.http://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9452-yLane, H. C., & VanLehn, K. (2005). Teaching the tacit knowledge of programming to novices withnatural language tutoring. Computer Science Education, 15(3), 183- 201.http://doi.org/10.1080/08993400500224286Lee, M. J., & Ko, A. J. (2015, August). Comparing the effectiveness of online learning approacheson CS1 learning outcomes. In Proceedings of the eleventh annual international conference oninternational computing education research (pp. 237-246). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2787622.2787709Liaw, S. S. (2008). Investigating students perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, andeffectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2),864-873.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.005Lin, L., Atkinson, R. K., Savenye, W. C., & Nelson, B. C. (2016). Effects of visual cues andself-explanation prompts: Empirical evidence in a multimedia environment. Interactive LearningEnvironments, 24(4), 799-813. http://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2014.924531Linn, M. C., & Clancy, M. J. (1992). The case for case studies of programming problems.Communications of the ACM, 35(3), 121-132. https://doi.org/10.1145/131295.131301Lister, R., Simon, B., Thompson, E., Whalley, J. L., & Prasad, C. (2006). Not seeing the forest forthe trees: novice programmers and the SOLO taxonomy. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(3), 118-122.http://doi.org/10.1145/1140123.1140157Loksa, D., & Ko, A. J. (2016, September). The role of self-regulation in programming problemsolving process and success. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM international conference on compuingeducation research (pp. 83-91). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2960310.2960334Lorch, R. F. (1989). Text-signaling devices and their effects on reading and memory processes.Educational Psychology Review, 1(3), 209-234. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320135Lorch, R., Lemari, J., & Grant, R. (2011). Signaling hierarchical and sequential organization inexpository text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(3), 267-284.http://doi.org/10.1080/10888431003747535Lui, A. K., Cheung, Y. H., & Li, S. C. (2008). Leveraging students' programming laboratory work asworked examples. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(2), 69-73. https://doi.org/10.1145/1383602.1383638Lui, A. K., Kwan, R., Poon, M., & Cheung, Y. H. (2004). Saving weak programming students: applyingconstructivism in a first programming course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(2), 72-76. ACM.http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1024338.1024376Luxton-Reilly, A. (2016, July). Learning to program is easy. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACMconference on innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 284-289).http://doi.org/10.1145/2899415.2899432Luxton-Reilly, A., Simon, Albluwi, I., Becker, B. A., Giannakos, M., Kumar, A. N., Ott, L.,Paterson, J., Scott, M. J., Sheard, J., & Szabo, C. (2018, July).Introductory programming: a systematic literature review. In Proceedings companion of the 23rdannual ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 55-106).http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3293881.3295779Malhotra, V. M., & Anand, A. (2019, January). Teaching a university-wide programming laboratory:managing a C programming laboratory for a large class with diverse interests. In Proceedings of thetwenty-first Australasian computing education conference (pp. 1-10). Australian Computer Society,Inc. https://doi.org/10.1145/3286960.3286961Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The Scratch programminglanguage and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4), 16:116:15.http://doi.org/10.1145/1868358.1868363Mandrekar, J. N. (2011). Measures of interrater agreement. Journal of Thoracic Oncology, 6(1), 6-7.https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e318200f983Margulieux, L. E., & Catrambone, R. (2016). Improving problem solving with subgoal labels inexpository text and worked examples. Learning and Instruction, 42, 58-71.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.12.002Margulieux, L. E., Catrambone, R., & Guzdial, M. (2016). Employing subgoals in computer programmingeducation. Computer Science Education, 26(1), 44-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2016.1144429Mason, R., Cooper, G., & de Raadt, M. (2012, January). Trends in introductory programming coursesin Australian universities: languages, environments and pedagogy. In Proceedings of the fourteenthAustralasian computing education conference (Vol. 123, pp. 33-42). Australian Computer Society,Inc..Mathieson, K. (2012). Exploring student perceptions of audiovisual feedback via screencasting inonline courses. American Journal of DistanceEducation, 26(3), 143-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2012.689166Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning.Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 377-389. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.377Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?.American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003- 066X.59.1.14Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning.Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6McCartney, R., Boustedt, J., Eckerdal, A., Sanders, K., & Zander, C. (2013, August).Can first-year students program yet? : a study revisited. In Proceedings of the ninth annualinternational ACM conference on international computingeducation research (pp. 91-98). http://doi.org/10.1145/2493394.2493412McCracken, M., Almstrum, V., Diaz, D., Guzdial, M., Hagan, D., Kolikant, Y. B.-D., Laxer, C.,Thomas, L., Utting, I., & Wilusz, T. (2001, December). A multi- national, multi-institutional studyof assessment of programming skills of first- year CS students. In Working group reports fromITiCSE on innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 125-180).https://doi.org/10.1145/572133.572137McLaren, B. M., Adams, D. M., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Delayed learning effects with erroneousexamples: A study of learning decimals with a web-based tutor.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 25(4), 520-542.http://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0064-xMcLaren, B. M., van Gog, T., Ganoe, C., Karabinos, M., & Yaron, D. (2016). The efficiency of workedexamples compared to erroneous examples, tutored problem solving, and problem solving incomputer-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 87-99.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.038Medeiros, R. P., Ramalho, G. L., & Falco, T. P. (2019). A systematic literature review on teachingand learning introductory programming in higher education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 62(2),77-90. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2018.2864133Miller, D. (2010). Using a three-step method in a calculus class: Extending the worked example.College Teaching, 58(3), 99-104. http://doi.org/10.1080/87567550903521249Miot, H. A. (2016). Agreement analysis in clinical and experimental trials. Jornal VascularBrasileiro, 15(2), 89-92.Moreno, R. (2006a). Learning in high-tech and multimedia environments. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 15(2), 63-67. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963- 7214.2006.00408.xMoreno, R. (2006b). When worked examples dont work: Is cognitive load theory at an impasse?.Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 170-181. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.006Moreno, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory: More food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2),135-141. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9122-9Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments.Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309-326. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2Moreno, R., Reisslein, M., & Delgoda, G. M. (2006, October). Toward a fundamentalunderstanding of worked example instruction: Impact of means-ends practice,backward/forward fading, and adaptivity. In Proceedings frontiers in education36th annual conference (pp. 5-10). IEEE. http://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2006.322285Morrison, B. B., Decker, A., & Margulieux, L. E. (2016, September). Learning loops: A replicationstudy illuminates impact of HS courses. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM conference on internationalcomputing education research (pp. 221-230). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2960310.2960330Morrison, B. B., Margulieux, L. E., & Guzdial, M. (2015, August). Subgoals, context, and workedexamples in learning computing problem solving. In Proceedings of the eleventh annual internationalconference on international computing education research (pp. 21-29). ACM.http://doi.org/10.1145/2787622.2787733Moura, I. C. (2012, July). Worked-out examples in a computer science introductory module. InProceedings of the world congress on engineering (pp.1082-1085).http://www.iaeng.org/publication/WCE2012/WCE2012_pp1082-1085.pdfMoura, I. C. (2013, July). Visualizing the execution of programming worked-out examples withPortugol. In Proceedings of the world congress on engineering (pp. 404-408).http://www.iaeng.org/publication/WCE2013/WCE2013_pp404-408.pdfMulder, Y. G., Lazonder, A. W., & De Jong, T. (2014). Using heuristic worked examples to promoteinquiry-based learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 56-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.08.001Najar, A. S., Mitrovic, A., & McLaren, B. M. (2014). Adaptive support versus alternating workedexamples and tutored problems: Which leads to better learning? In V. Dimitrova, T. Kuflik, D. Chin,F. Ricci, P. Dolog, G. J. Houben (Eds.), User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization: LectureNotes in Computer Science, 8538, 171-182. Springer, Cham. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08786-3_15Nandigam, D., & Bathula, H. (2013). Competing dichotomies in teaching computer programming tobeginner-students. American Journal of Educational Research, 1(8), 307-312.http://doi.org/10.12691/education-1-8-7Nelson, B. C., Kim, Y., & Slack, K. (2016). Visual signaling in a high-search virtual world-basedassessment: A SAVE science design study. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 21(2), 211224.http://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-016-9281-0Newby, P. (2014). Research methods for education (2nd ed.). Routledge.Nugroho, M. A., Setyorini, D., & Novitasari, B. T. (2019). The role of satisfaction on perceivedvalue and e-learning usage continuity relationship. Procedia ComputerScience, 161, 82-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.102Ozcelik, E., Arslan-Ari, I., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning?Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 110-117.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.001Paas, F. G. W. C., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design:Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.Parsons, D., Wood, K., & Haden, P. (2015, January). What are we doing when we assess programming?.In Proceedings of the 17th Australasian computing education conference (pp. 119-127). AustralianComputer Society.Peart, D. J., Rumbold, P. L., Keane, K. M., & Allin, L. (2017). Student use and perception oftechnology enhanced learning in a mass lecture knowledge-rich domain first year undergraduatemodule. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 40.https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017- 0078-6Price, T. W., & Barnes, T. (2015, August). Comparing textual and block interfaces in a noviceprogramming environment. In Proceedings of the eleventh annual international conference oninternational computing education research (pp. 91- 99). http://doi.org/10.1145/2787622.2787712Proulx, V. K. (2000). Programming patterns and design patterns in the introductory computer sciencecourse. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 32(1), 80-84. http://doi.org/10.1145/331795.331819Prunuske, A. J., Henn, L., Brearley, A. M., & Prunuske, J. (2016). A randomized crossover design toassess learning impact and student preference for active and passive online learning modules.Medical Science Educator, 26(1), 135-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-015-0224-5Qian, Y., & Lehman, J. (2017). Students misconceptions and other difficulties in introductoryprogramming: A literature review. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 18(1), 1-24.https://doi.org/10.1145/3077618Quilici, J. L., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Teaching students to recognize structural similaritiesbetween statistics word problems. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16(3), 325-342.http://doi.org/10.1002/acp.796Reeves, T. C., & Oh, E. G. (2017). The goals and methods of educational technology research over aquarter century (1989-2014). Educational Technology Researchand Development, 65(2), 325-339. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9474-1Renkl, A. (2014). Toward an instructionally oriented theory of example-based learning. CognitiveScience, 38(1), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12086Renkl, A. (2017). Learning from worked-examples in mathematics: students relate procedures toprinciples. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(4), 571-584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0859-3Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Learning from examples: Fostering self- explanations incomputer-based learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 10(2), 105-119.http://doi.org/10.1076/ilee.10.2.105.7441Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problemsolving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective.Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 15-22. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_3Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Interactive learning environments: Contemporary issues andtrends. An introduction to the special issue. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 235-238.http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9052-5Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., Maier, U. H., & Staley, R. (2002). From example study to problemsolving: Smooth transitions help learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70(4), 293-315.http://doi.org/10.1080/00220970209599510Richey, J. E., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2013). How much is too much? Learning and motivation effectsof adding instructional explanations to worked examples.Learning and Instruction, 25, 104-124. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.006Rist, R. S. (1996). Teaching Eiffel as a first language. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming,9(1), 30-41.Robins, A. (2010). Learning edge momentum: A new account of outcomes in CS1.Computer Science Education, 20(1), 37-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08993401003612167Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review anddiscussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 137-172. http://doi.org/10.1076/csed.13.2.137.14200Sanford, J. P., Tietz, A., Farooq, S., Guyer, S., & Shapiro, R. B. (2014, March).Metaphors we teach by. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on computer scienceeducation (pp. 585-590).http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538945Schindler, M., & Lilienthal, A. J. (2019). Domain-specific interpretation of eye tracking data:towards a refined use of the eye-mind hypothesis for the field of geometry. Educational Studies inMathematics, 101(1), 123-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-9878-zSchoenfeld, A. H. (1980). Teaching problem-solving skills. The American Mathematical Monthly,87(10), 794-805. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00029890.1980.11995155Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, andsense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teachingand learning (pp. 334370). Macmillan.Schulte, C. (2008, September). Block Model: an educational model of program comprehension as a toolfor a scholarly approach to teaching. In Proceedings of the fourth international workshop oncomputing education research (pp. 149- 160). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1404520.1404535Schulte, C., Clear, T., Taherkhani, A., Busjahn, T., & Paterson, J. H. (2010). An introduction toprogram comprehension for computer science educators. In Proceedings of the 2010 ITiCSE workinggroup reports (pp. 65-86). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1971681.1971687Schwonke, R., Renkl, A., Krieg, C., Wittwer, J., Aleven, V., & Salden, R. (2009). Theworked-example effect: Not an artefact of lousy control conditions. Computers in Human Behavior,25(2), 258-266. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.011Selby, C. C. (2015, November). Relationships: computational thinking, pedagogy of programming, andBloom's Taxonomy. In Proceedings of the workshop in primary and secondary computing education (pp.80-87). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2818314.2818315Seppl, O., Ihantola, P., Isohanni, E., Sorva, J., & Vihavainen, A. (2015, November).Do we know how difficult the rainfall problem is?. In Proceedings of the 15th Koli callingconference on computing education research (pp. 87-96). https://doi.org/10.1145/2828959.2828963Skudder, B., & Luxton-Reilly, A. (2014, January). Worked examples in computer science. InProceedings of the sixteenth Australasian computing education conference (Vol. 148, pp. 59-64).Australian Computer Society, Inc..Smith, A. R., Cavanaugh, C., & Moore, W. A. (2011). Instructional multimedia: An investigation ofstudent and instructor attitudes and student studybehavior. BMC Medical Education, 11(1), 38-49.http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-11-38Soloway, E. (1986). Learning to program = learning to construct mechanisms andexplanations. Communications of the ACM, 29(9), 850-858. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/6592.6594Soloway, E., & Ehrlich, K. (1984). Empirical studies of programming knowledge.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 10(5), 595-609. http://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.1984.5010283Sorva, J., Karavirta, V., & Malmi, L. (2013). A review of generic program visualization systems forintroductory programming education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 13(4), 1-64.http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2490822Sorva, J., & Seppl, O. (2014, November). Research-based design of the first weeks of CS1. InProceedings of the 14th Koli calling international conference on computing education research (pp.71-80). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2674683.2674690Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. InHandbook of qualitative research (pp. 273-285). Sage Publications.Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solvingin learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59-89.http://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0201_3Sweller, J., van Merrinboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructionaldesign: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261- 292.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5Tan, P. H., Ting, C. Y., & Ling, S. W. (2009, November). Learning difficulties in programmingcourses: undergraduates' perspective and perception. In 2009 International Conference on ComputerTechnology and Development (Vol. 1, pp. 42-46). IEEE. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICCTD.2009.188Teague, D., & Lister, R. (2014, January). Longitudinal think aloud study of a novice programmer. InProceedings of the sixteenth Australasian computing education conference (Vol. 148, pp. 41-50).Australian Computer Society, Inc..Tepge, M., & evik, Y. D. (2018). Comparison of three instructional strategies in teachingprogramming: restudying material, testing and workedexample. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 3(2), 42-50.Trevethan, R. (2017). Intraclass correlation coefficients: clearing the air, extending somecautions, and making some requests. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 17(2),127-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10742-016-0156-6van og, T. (2011). Effects of identical example-problem and problem-example pairson learning. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1775-1779. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.019van Gog, T., Kester, L., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (2011). Effects of worked examples, example-problem,and problem-example pairs on novices learning.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(3), 212-218. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.004van Gog, T., Paas, F. G. W. C., & van Merrinboer, J. J. G. (2006). Effects of process-orientedworked examples on troubleshooting transfer performance. Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 154-164.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.003van Merrinboer, J. J. G. (2013). Perspectives on problem solving and instruction.Computers & Education, 64, 153-160. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.025van Merrinboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recentdevelopments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147-177.http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0Vieira, C., Yan, J., & Magana, A. J. (2015). Exploring design characteristics of worked examples tosupport programming and algorithm design. Journal of Computational Science Education, 6(1), 2-15.https://doi.org/10.22369/issn.2153-4136/6/1/1Vihavainen, A., Miller, C. S., & Settle, A. (2015, February). Benefits of self- explanation inintroductory programming. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM technical symposium on computer scienceeducation (pp. 284-289). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2676723.2677260Ward, M., & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition and Instruction,7(1), 1-39. http://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0701_1Watson, C., & Li, F. (2014, June). Failure rates in introductory programming revisited. InProceedings of the 2014 conference on innovation & technology in computer science education (pp.39-44). http://doi.org/10.1145/2591708.2591749Whalley, J., & Kasto, N. (2014, January). How difficult are novice code writing tasks? A softwaremetrics approach. In Proceedings of the sixteenth Australasian computing education conference (Vol.148, pp. 105-112).Whalley, J. L., Lister, R., Thompson, E., Clear, T., Robbins, P., Ajith Kumar, P. K., &Prasad, C. (2006, December). An Australasian study of reading and comprehension skills in novice programmers, using the Bloom and SOLO taxonomies. In Proceedings ofthe 8th Australasian conference on computing education (Vol. 52, pp. 243252). Australian ComputerSociety.Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33- 35.http://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215Winslow, L. E. (1996). Programming pedagogy - a psychological overview. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 28(3),17-22. http://doi.org/10.1145/234867.234872Wismath, S., Orr, D., & MacKay, B. (2015). Threshold concepts in the development of problem-solvingskills. Teaching & Learning Inquiry The ISSOTL Journal, 3(1), 63-73.http://dx.doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.3.1.63Yan, J., & Lavigne, N. C. (2014). Promoting college students problem understanding usingschema-emphasizing worked examples. The Journal of Experimental Education, 82(1), 74-102.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.745466Zhi, R., Price, T.W., Marwan, S., Milliken, A., Barnes, T. & Chi, M. (2019, February). Exploringthe impact of worked examples in a novice programming environment. In Proceedings of the 50th ACMtechnical symposium on computer science education. (pp. 98-104). ACM.http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287385Zientek, L., Nimon, K., & Hammack-Brown, B. (2016). Analyzing data from a pretest-posttest controlgroup design. European Journal of Training andDevelopment, 40(8/9), 638-659. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-08-2015-0066

Visualised worked examples for learning introductory programming at tertiary level

Similar Items