Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Novice Learner Experiences in Software Development: A Study of Freshman Undergraduates

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2019)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1220))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 752 Accesses

Abstract

This paper presents a study that is part of a larger research project aimed at addressing the gap in the provision of educational software development processes for freshman, novice undergraduate learners, to improve proficiency levels. With the aim of understanding how such learners problem solve in software development in the absence of a formal process, this case study examines the experiences and depth of learning acquired by a sample set of novice undergraduates. A novel adaption of the Kirkpatrick framework known as AKM-SOLO is used to frame the evaluation. The study finds that without the scaffolding of an appropriate structured development process tailored to novices, students are in danger of failing to engage with the problem solving skills necessary for software development, particularly the skill of designing solutions prior to coding. It also finds that this lack of engagement directly impacts their affective state on the course and continues to negatively impact their proficiency and affective state in the second year of their studies leading to just under half of students surveyed being unsure if they wish to pursue a career in software development when they graduate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. United States Department of Labor.: Computer and Information Technology Occupations. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/home.htm. Assessed 2 Feb 2018

  2. Stachel, J., Marghitu, D., Brahim, T.B., Sims, R., Reynolds, L., Czelusniak, V.: Managing cognitive load in introductory programming courses: A cognitive aware scaffolding tool. J. Integr. Des. Process Sci. 17(1), 37–54 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Whalley, J., Kasto, N.: A qualitative think-aloud study of novice programmers’ code writing strategies. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education, pp. 279–284. ACM, Uppsala (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Caspersen, M.E., Kolling, M.: STREAM: a first programming process. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 9(1), 1–29 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Suo, X.: Toward more effective strategies in teaching programming for novice students. In: IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE), pp. T2A-1--T2A-3 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Coffey, J.W.: Relationship between design and programming skills in an advanced computer programming class. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 30(5), 39–45 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Huang, T.-C., Shu, Y., Chen, C.-C., Chen, M.-Y.: The development of an innovative programming teaching framework for modifying students’ maladaptive learning pattern. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 3(6), 591–596 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Simon et al.: Predictors of success in a first programming course. In: Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education, vol. 52, pp. 189–196. Australian Computer Society, Inc., Hobart (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Loftus, C., Thomas, L., Zander, C.: Can graduating students design: revisited. In: Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pp. 105–110. ACM, Dallas (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kirkpatrick, D.L.: Education Training Programs: The Four Levels, 3rd edn. Berrett-Kohler, San Francisco (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Higgins, C., O’Leary, C., McAvinia, C., Ryan, B.: A study of first year undergraduate computing students’ experience of learning software development in the absence of a software development process. In: Lane, H., Zvacek, S., Uhomoibhi, J. (eds.) CSEDU 2019–11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, 2019. SCITEPRESS, Heraklion, Crete (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pears, A., et al.: A survey of literature on the teaching of introductory programming. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 39(2), 2004–2023 (2007)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Guo, P.J.: Online python tutor: embeddable web-based program visualization for CS education. In: Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pp. 579–584. ACM, Denver (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gautier, M., Wrobel-Dautcourt, B.: artEoz-dynamic program visualization. In: International Conference on Informatics in Schools, pp. 70–71, Münster, Germany (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mozelius, P., Shabalina, O., Malliarakis, C., Tomos, F., Miller, C., Turner, D.: Let the students contruct their own fun and knowledge-learning to program by building computer games. In: European Conference on Games Based Learning, pp. 418–426. Academic Conferences International Limited, Porto, Portugal (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Trevathan, M., Peters, M., Willis, J., Sansing, L.: Serious games classroom implementation: teacher perspectives and student learning outcomes. In: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, pp. 624–631. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Savannah, Georgia (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dahiya, D.: Teaching software engineering: a practical approach. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 35(2), 1–5 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Savi, R., von Wangenheim, C.G., Borgatto, A.F.: A model for the evaluation of educational games for teaching software engineering. In: 25th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (SBES), pp. 194–203. IEEE, Sao Paulo (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rodriguez, G., Soria, Á., Campo, M.: Virtual Scrum: a teaching aid to introduce undergraduate software engineering students to scrum. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 23(1), 147–156 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wright, D.R. Inoculating novice software designers with expert design strategies. In: American Society for Engineering Education. ASEE (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hu, M., Winikoff, M., Cranefield, S.: A process for novice programming using goals and plans. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference, vol. 136, pp. 3–12. Australian Computer Society, Inc, Adelaide (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Neto, V.L., Coelho, R., Leite, L., Guerrero, D.S., Mendon, A.P.: POPT: a problem-oriented programming and testing approach for novice students. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 1099–1108. IEEE Press, San Francisco (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kirkpatrick, D.: Kirkpatrick, Evaluating Training Programs: The four levels, 3rd edn. Berrett-Koehler Publications, San Francisco (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Chang, N., Chen, L.: Evaluating the learning effectiveness of an online information literacy class based on the Kirkpatrick framework. 64(3), 211–223 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Byrne, J.R., Fisher, L., Tangney, B.: A 21st century teaching and learning approach to computer science education: teacher reactions. In: Zvacek, S., Restivo, M.T., Uhomoibhi, J., Helfert, M. (eds.) CSEDU 2015. CCIS, vol. 583, pp. 523–540. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29585-5_30

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Reio, T.G., et al.: A critique of kirkpatrick’s evaluation model. New Horizons Adult Educ. Hum. Resource Dev. 29(2), 35–53 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Guerci, M., Bartezzaghi, E., Solari, L.: Training evaluation in Italian corporate universities: a stakeholder-based analysis. Int. J. Training Dev. 14(4), 291–308 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hayes, H., et al.: A formative multi-method approach to evaluating training. Eval. Program Planning 58, 199–207 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Aluko, F.R., Shonubi, O.K.: Going beyond Kirkpatrick’s Training Evaluation Model: the role of workplace factors in distance learning transfer. Africa Educ. Rev. 11(4), 638–657 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Alliger, G.M., et al.: A meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria. Pers. Psychol. 50(2), 341–358 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Biggs, J.B., Collis, K.F.: Evaluation the Quality of Learning: the SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Biggs, J.B., Collis, K.F.: Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cronbach, L.J.: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3), 297–334 (1951)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kruskal, W.H., Wallis, W.A.: Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 47(260), 583–621 (1952)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3(2), 77–101 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Beins, B.C., McCarthy, M.A.: Research Methods and Statistics. Cambridge University Press (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Garner, S.: A quantitative study of a software tool that supports a part-complete solution method on learning outcomes. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Carini, R.M., Kuh, G.D., Klein, S.P.: Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Res. High. Educ. 47(1), 1–32 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sinclair, J., et al.: Measures of student engagement in computer science. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Garner, S.: A program design tool to help novices learn programming. In: ICT: Providing Choices for Learners and Learning (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Deek, F., Kimmel, H., McHugh, J.A.: Pedagogical changes in the delivery of the first-course in computer science: problem solving, then programming. J. Eng. Educ. 87(3), 313–320 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Morgado, C., Barbosa, F.: A structured approach to problem solving in CS1. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, Haifa (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ginat, D., Menashe, E.: SOLO taxonomy for assessing novices’ algorithmic design. In: Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Cabo, C.: Quantifying student progress through Bloom’s taxonomy cognitive categories in computer programming courses. In: ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Lahtinen, E., Ala-Mutka, K., Järvinen, H.-M.: A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. In: ACM SIGCSE Bulletin. ACM (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hummel, H.G.K.: Feedback model to support designers of blended learning courses. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 7(3) (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Liikkanen, L.A., Perttula, M.: Exploring problem decomposition in conceptual design among novice designers. Des. Stud. 30(1), 38–59 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hundhausen, C.D., Brown, J.L.: What You See Is What You Code: A “live” algorithm development and visualization environment for novice learners. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 18(1), 22–47 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Paschali, M.E., et al.: Tool-assisted Game Scenario Representation Through Flow Charts. In: ENASE (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Hu, C.: Can students design software?: The answer is more complex than you think. In: Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education. ACM, Memphis (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Eckerdal, A., et al.: Can graduating students design software systems? ACM SIGCSE Bull. 38(1), 403–407 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Eckerdal, A., et al.: Categorizing student software designs: methods, results, and implications. Comput. Sci. Educ. 16(3), 197–209 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Tenenberg, J.D., et al.: Students designing software: a multi-national, multi-institutional study. Inf. Educ. 4(1), 143–162 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

    Catherine Higgins, Ciaran O’Leary, Claire McAvinia & Barry Ryan

Authors
  1. Catherine Higgins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ciaran O’Leary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Claire McAvinia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Barry Ryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Higgins .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA

    H. Chad Lane

  2. Anderson Academic Commons, University of Denver, Denver, CO, USA

    Susan Zvacek

  3. School of Engineering, University of Ulster, Newtownabbey, UK

    James Uhomoibhi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Higgins, C., O’Leary, C., McAvinia, C., Ryan, B. (2020). Novice Learner Experiences in Software Development: A Study of Freshman Undergraduates. In: Lane, H.C., Zvacek, S., Uhomoibhi, J. (eds) Computer Supported Education. CSEDU 2019. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1220. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58459-7_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58459-7_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-58458-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-58459-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation