Instructional Science

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 385–411 | Cite as

Empirical studies of functional programming learners evaluating recursive functions

  • Judith Segal


In this paper, we report some empirical studies of students evaluating recursive functions defined according to the rules of the functional programming language Miranda, and describe the misconceptions and processing strategies observed. We then discuss the implications of these observations as regards teaching content.


Empirical Study Programming Language Processing Strategy Teaching Content Programming Learner 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson J., Farrell R. & Sauers R. (1984). Learning to program in LISP.Cognitive Science 8: 87–129.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson J. R., Pirolli P. & Farrell R. (1988). Learning to program recursive functions, in CM, Glaser, Fair, eds,The Nature of Expertise. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Bhuiyan S., Greer J. & McCalla G. (1991). Characterizing, rationalizing and reifying mental models of recursion.13th Cognitive Science Conference. Chicago: Illinois, pp. 120–125.Google Scholar
  4. Bird R. & Wadler P. (1988).Introduction to Functional Programming. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Booth S. (1992). The experience of learning to program. Example: Recursion.Fifth Annual Psychology of Programming Interest Group workshop. Paris: INRIA, pp. 122–145.Google Scholar
  6. du Boulay B., O'Shea T. & Monk J. (1981). The black box inside the glass box: presenting computing concepts to novices.International journal of Man-Machine Studies 14: 237–249.Google Scholar
  7. Fung P., Brayshaw M., du Boulay B. & Elsom-Cook M. (1990). Towards a taxonomy of novices' misconceptions of the PROLOG interpreter.Instructional Science 19: 311–336.Google Scholar
  8. Green T. R. G., Bellamy R. K. E. & Parker J. (1987). Parsing-gnisrap: a model of device use, in G. Oison, S. Sheppard & E. Soloway, eds,Empirical Studies of Programmers, Vol. 2. Ablex.Google Scholar
  9. Holyer I. (1991).Functional Programming with Miranda. Pitman.Google Scholar
  10. Kahney H. (1989). What do novice programmers know about recursion?, in E. Soloway & J. Spohrer, eds,Studying the Novice Programmer, Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.Google Scholar
  11. Kessler C. M. & Anderson J. R. (1989). Learning flow of control: recursive and iterative procedures, in E. Soloway & J. Spohrer, eds,Studying the Novice Programmer. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.Google Scholar
  12. Kurland D. M. & Pea R. D. (1983). Children's mental models of recursive logo programs.Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Rochester N.Y.: University of Rochester.Google Scholar
  13. Mayer R. (1979). A psychology of learning BASIC.Communications of the ACM 22(11): 589–593.Google Scholar
  14. Pirolli P. & Anderson J. (1985). The role of learning from examples in the acquisition of recursive programming skills.Canadian Journal of Psychology 39(2): 240–272.Google Scholar
  15. Pirolli P. (1986). A cognitive model and computer tutor for programming recursion.Human-Computer Interaction 2: 319–355.Google Scholar
  16. Pirolli P. (1991). Effects of examples and their explanations in a lesson on recursion: a production system analysis.Cognition and Instruction 8(3): 207–259.Google Scholar
  17. Scherz Z., Goldberg D. & Fund Z. (1990). Cognitive Implications of Learning PROLOG-Mistakes and Misconceptions.Journal of Educational Computing Research 6: 89–110.Google Scholar
  18. Segal J. (1992). Empirical studies of functional programming learners evaluating recursive functions.Technical Report CS-92-19, Department of Mathematical and Computing Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 5XH, England.Google Scholar
  19. Segal J. & Schuman S. (1992). Empirical studies of learners of functional programming.Proceedings of the Fifth Annual PPIG workshop, France: INRIA, Dec. 1992, pp. 197–206.Google Scholar
  20. Soloway E. (1985). From problems to programs via plans: The content and structure of knowledge for introductory LISP programming.Journal Educational Computing Research 1(2): 157–172.Google Scholar
  21. Taylor J. (1990). Analysing novices analysing PROLOG: what stories do novices tell them-selves about PROLOG?.Instructional Science 19: 283–309.Google Scholar
  22. Van Someren M. W. (1990). What's wrong? Understanding beginner's problems with PROLOG.Instructional Science 19: 257–282.Google Scholar
  23. White R. (1988). Effects of Pascal knowledge on Novice PROLOG Programmers.DAI Research paper no. 399. University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judith Segal
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematical and Computing SciencesUniversity of SurreyGuildfordEngland

Personalised recommendations