Using Commutative Assessments to Compare Conceptual Understanding in Blocks-based and Text-based Programs
Using Commutative Assessments to Compare Conceptual Understanding in Blocks-based and Text-based Programs
复制标题
DOI：
10.1145/2787622.2787721
复制
发表时间：
2015-07
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
David Weintrop;U. Wilensky
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
David Weintrop;U. Wilensky
基于块的编程环境在入门编程课程中变得越来越普遍，但到目前为止，很少有比较工作来了解这种方法是否以及如何影响学生对基本编程概念的理解。为了理解Scratch和Blockly等工具在概念理解方面与更传统的基于文本的入门编程语言的不同之处，我们开发了一组“可交换”评估。评估中的每个多项选择题都包括一个简短的程序，可以以基于块或基于文本的形式显示。每个问题的潜在答案集包括正确答案沿着选择，这些选择是根据先前对新手编程误解的研究得出的。在本文中，我们介绍了交换性评估，讨论了评估的理论和实践动机，并提出了使用评估的研究结果。该研究让90名高中生在编程课程介绍的前十周的三个点进行评估，在评估的三个管理过程中，每个问题的模式（块与文本）交替进行。我们的分析揭示了基于块和基于文本的问题之间的性能的差异，以及基于模态的误解的频率的差异。未来的工作，潜在的影响，这些研究结果的局限性进行了讨论。
Blocks-based programming environments are becoming increasingly common in introductory programming courses, but to date, little comparative work has been done to understand if and how this approach affects students' emerging understanding of fundamental programming concepts. In an effort to understand how tools like Scratch and Blockly differ from more conventional text-based introductory programming languages with respect to conceptual understanding, we developed a set of "commutative" assessments. Each multiple-choice question on the assessment includes a short program that can be displayed in either a blocks- based or text-based form. The set of potential answers for each question includes the correct answer along with choices informed by prior research on novice programming misconceptions. In this paper we introduce the Commutative Assessment, discuss the theoretical and practical motivations for the assessment, and present findings from a study that used the assessment. The study had 90 high school students take the assessment at three points over the course of the first ten weeks of an introduction to programming course, alternating the modality (blocks vs. text) for each question over the course of the three administrations of the assessment. Our analysis reveals differences on performance between blocks-based and text-based questions as well as differences in the frequency of misconceptions based on the modality. Future work, potential implications, and limitations of these findings are also discussed.