Can Fragmentation Learning Promote Students’ Deep Learning in C Programming?

  • Lifeng Zhang
  • Baoping LiEmail author
  • Ying Zhou
  • Ling Chen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Educational Technology book series (LNET)


In order to reduce students’ difficulties in programming learning, this study developed a mobile platform called Dquiz with the advantage of distributed effects, which can provide 2-3 multiple-choice questions per day. The study applied it to C programming courses and explored whether the system can improve students’ learning outcome and which factor influence the outcome. A total number of 74 freshmen were randomly divided into two groups. One group can practice every 3 days at least. The other students practice once a week. Both groups of students practice the same number of questions. The result showed that the students who used the platform several times a week score higher than students who used it once a week. The factors that affect students’ learning outcomes during their practice include intervals of platform usage, correctness and the total number of comments.


programming learning practice platform mobile learning fragmentation learning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This research was supported by Open Funding Project of the Key Laboratory of Modern Teaching Technology, MOE of PRC(Grant No. SYSK201802).


  1. [1] Truong, N., Bancroft, P., Roe, P.: A web-based environment for learning to program. In Proceedings of the 26th Australasian computer science conference-Volume 16. Australian Computer Society, Inc. (2003)Google Scholar
  2. [2] Wang, L., Pan J.B., Feng H.Y.: Study on the New Teaching Mode of College Classroom Based on BYOD. Modern Educational Technology. (1), 39–45(2015)Google Scholar
  3. [3] Huang J. F.: Research on fragmented learning strategies based on “Internet+”—transformation from “fragmentation” to “whole”. E-education Research. 38(8), 78–82 (2017)Google Scholar
  4. [4] Winslow, L. E.: Programming pedagogy—a psychological overview. ACM Sigcse Bulletin. 28(3), 17–22(1996)Google Scholar
  5. [5] Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A.: Practice tests, spaced practice, and successive relearning: Tips for classroom use and for guiding students’ learning. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. 1(1), 72(2015)Google Scholar
  6. [6] Roediger III, H. L., Marsh, E. J.: The positive and negative consequences of multiple-choice testing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.31(5), 1155 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. [7] Butler, A. C., Roediger, H. L.: Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing. Memory & Cognition. 36(3), 604–616(2008)Google Scholar
  8. [8] Hovemeyer, D., pacco, J.: CloudCoder: a web-based programming exercise system. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 28(3), 30–30 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. [9] Pritchard, D., Vasiga, T.: CS circles: an in-browser python course for beginners. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 591–596). ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  10. [10] Marcelino, M., Mihaylov, T., Mendes, A.: H-SICAS, a handheld algorithm animation and simulation tool to support initial programming learning. In Frontiers in Education Conference, 2008. FIE 2008. 38th Annual (pp. T4A–7). IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  11. [11] Tillmann, N., Moskal, M., De Halleux, J., Fahndrich, M., Bishop, J., Samuel, A., Xie, T.: The future of teaching programming is on mobile devices. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 156–161). ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  12. [12] Karpicke, J. D., Roediger III, H. L.: Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention. Journal of Memory and Language. 57(2), 151–162 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. [13] Gerbier, E., Toppino, T. C.: The effect of distributed practice: Neuroscience, cognition, and education. Trends in Neuroscience and Education. 4(3), 49–59 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. [14] Barry, N. H.: The effects of practice strategies, individual differences in cognitive style, and gender upon technical accuracy and musicality of student instrumental performance. Psychology of Music. 20(2), 112–123 (1992)Google Scholar
  15. [15]Rohrer, D., Taylor, K.: The effects of overlearning and distributed practice on the retention of mathematics knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 20(9), 1209–1224 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. [16] Alzaid, M., Trivedi, D., Hsiao, I. H.: The effects of bite-size distributed practices for programming novices. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1–9). IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  17. [17] Zhang, L.S., Li, B.P. Zhang, Q.J., Hsiao. Can distributed practice improve students’ efficiency in learning their first programming language? [C]. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computers in Education. New Zealand ( 2017)Google Scholar
  18. [18] Ma, Y.H., Zhao, L., Li, N.N., Wang, S.S.: A New Type of Mobile Learning Resources—A Probe into the Development Model of Education APP [J]. China Educational Technology. 64–70 (2016)Google Scholar
  19. [19] Yang, T. C., Hwang, G. J., Yang, S. J. H., Hwang, G. H.: A Two-Tier Test-based Approach to Improving Students’ Computer-Programming Skills in a Web-Based Learning Environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 18(1), 198–210 (2015)Google Scholar
  20. [20] Cetin, I., Sendurur, E., Sendurur, P.: Assessing the Impact of Meta-Cognitive Training on Students’ Understanding of Introductory Programming Concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 50(4), 507–524 (2014)Google Scholar
  21. [21] Gerbier, E., Toppino, T. C.: The effect of distributed practice: Neuroscience, cognition, and education. Trends in Neuroscience and Education. 4(3), 49–59 (2015)Google Scholar
  22. [22] Karpicke, J. D., Roediger III, H. L.: Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention. Journal of Memory and Language. 57(2), 151–162 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. [23] Chai, S.M., Li, K.D.: Research on the Construction of Collaborative Meaning Based on Dialogue in CSCL [J]. Journal of Distance Education. 28(04),19–26(2010)Google Scholar
  24. [24] Wu X. j., Zhang H., Ni J. Q.: Deep Learning Based on Reflection: Connotation and Process. E-education Research. 35(12), 23–28(2014)Google Scholar
  25. [25] Dunleavy, J., Milton, P.: Student engagement for effective teaching and deep learning. Education Canada.48(5), 4–8(2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lifeng Zhang
    • 1
    • 3
  • Baoping Li
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Ying Zhou
    • 1
  • Ling Chen
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty Of EducationBeijing Normal UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Modern Teaching TechnologyShaanxi Normal UniversityXi AnChina
  3. 3.Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Future EducationBeijing Normal UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations