Abstract
Learning to program and learning a new programming language is difficult because it requires learners to undergo conceptual change. Research on conceptual change has shown that instructors’ awareness of their students’ misconceptions can significantly affect learning outcomes. In this demo we present “conceptual checks”, a web-based tool that allows instructors and teaching assistants of programming courses to quickly get an overview of the misconceptions that might come up at a given point in their course. Based on the idea of refutation texts, it asks users to assess the correctness of statements about programming language concepts. We implemented conceptual checks on top of progmiscon.org, an educational repository of programming language misconceptions observed in students learning to program. The inventory currently catalogues more than 200 misconceptions. This demonstration illustrates conceptual checks as an efficient and effective means for instructors to access the relevant information in the large body of misconceptions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Chambers, S.K., Andre, T.: Gender, prior knowledge, interest, and experience in electricity and conceptual change text manipulations in learning about direct current. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 34(2), 107–123 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199702)34:2%3C107::AID-TEA2%3F3.0.CO%3C2-X
Chiodini, L., Moreno Santos, I., Gallidabino, A., Tafliovich, A., Santos, A.L., Hauswirth, M.: A curated inventory of programming language misconceptions. In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE ’21, vol, 1, pp. 380–386. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3430665.3456343
Keogh, B., Naylor, S.: Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: an evaluation. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 21(4), 431–446 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290642
Qian, Y., Lehman, J.: Students’ misconceptions and other difficulties in introductory programming: a literature review. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 18(1), 1–24 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3077618
Sawyer, R.K. (ed.): The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2014). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526
Shulman, L.S.: Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educ. Res. 15(2), 4–14 (1986). https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Tippett, C.D.: Refutation text in science education: a review of two decades of research. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 8(6), 951–970 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9203-x
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Chiodini, L., Hauswirth, M., Gallidabino, A. (2021). Conceptual Checks for Programming Teachers. In: De Laet, T., Klemke, R., Alario-Hoyos, C., Hilliger, I., Ortega-Arranz, A. (eds) Technology-Enhanced Learning for a Free, Safe, and Sustainable World. EC-TEL 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12884. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86436-1_43
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86436-1_43
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-86435-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-86436-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)