A Methodological Review of Computer Science Education Research
A Methodological Review of Computer Science Education Research
复制标题
计算机科学教育研究方法论回顾
DOI：
10.28945/183
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Guzdial
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lijun Ni;M. Guzdial
引言是关于计算机科学教育研究的最有影响力的书籍（Fincher＆Petre，2004年），始于以下声明：“计算机科学教育研究是紧急领域，仍在引起文献”（第1页）计算机科学教育研究人员如Mark Guzdial和Vicki Almtrum认为，必须克服计算机科学教育与教育研究适当的跨学科差距，包括在更广泛的行为研究领域中开发的方法，必须在计算机科学教育研究之前被认为是一个领域已经出现了（Almstrum，Hazzan，Guzdial和Petre，2005年）（在本方法论中，我们使用行为研究一词作为Guzdzial的同义词，在Almstrum等人（2005年，第192页）中“教育，认知科学和学习科学研究。”）解决与行为研究的缺乏联系，在Almstrum及其同事（2005年）中，计算机教育的真正挑战是避免诱惑重新发明方向盘。计算机是一个革命性的人类事故，因此我们认为有关计算机的教学需要一种完全错误的教育。在计算教育中，忽略了数百年的教育，认知科学和学习科学研究（第191-192页）。计算机科学教育的方法论，并将这些实践与本文中有关行为研究领域的最佳实践进行比较。科学的角度，关于如何改善计算机科学教育研究。出现（在这里我们使用Denning等人（1989，p。12）计算学科的定义：“描述和转换信息的算法过程的系统研究：他们的理论，分析，设计，效率，实施和实施以及应用程序。”）几个小组可以从这篇评论中获得。他们如何分析和呈现他们的数据 - 从有关如何改善自己的研究的建议。目前他们设定了哪些类型的研究活动可以接受的标准，以及下一部分的出版物。在本文的其余部分中，在简短讨论了偏见之后，读者将找到对所使用方法的描述，包括对编码书开发的描述，采样策略和采样框架，间介质培训程序以及数据分析。 ...
Introduction One of the most influential books on computer science education research (Fincher & Petre, 2004) begins with the following statement: "Computer science education research is an emergent area and is still giving rise to a literature" (p. 1). Top computer science education researchers like Mark Guzdial and Vicki Almstrum argue that the interdisciplinary gap between computer science education and educational research proper, including methods developed in the broader field of behavioral research, must be overcome before computer science education research can be considered to be a field which has emerged (Almstrum, Hazzan, Guzdial, & Petre, 2005). (In this methodological review, we use the term behavioral research as a synonym for what Guzdzial, in Almstrum et al. (2005, p. 192), calls "education, cognitive science, and learning sciences research.") Addressing this lack of connection with behavioral research, Guzdial, in Almstrum and colleagues (2005) wrote, The real challenge in computer education is to avoid the temptation to re-invent the wheel. Computers are a revolutionary human invention, so we might think that teaching and learning about computers requires a new kind of education. That's completely false: The basic mechanism of human learning hasn't changed in the last 50 years. Too much of the research in computing education ignores the hundreds of years of education, cognitive science, and learning sciences research that have gone before us. (pp. 191-192) One way to bridge the gap between computer science education research and behavioral research proper is to review current methodological practices in computer science education and to compare those practices with existing knowledge about best practices from the field of behavioral research. In this article, we do just that; we review the current methodological practices in computer science education and present recommendations, from a behavioral science standpoint, on how computer science education research might be improved. It is our hope that our results and recommendations will improve practice and inform policy about and, ultimately, help computer science education research transition from an emerging research area to an area that has already emerged. (Here we use Denning et al.'s (1989, p. 12) definition of the discipline of computing: "the systematic study of algorithmic processes that describe and transform information: their theory, analysis, design, efficiency, implementation, and application.") Several groups stand to gain from this review. The creators of computer science education research will benefit from knowledge of how their peers tend to conduct research--such as what variables they investigate, how they tend to measure those variables, and how they analyze and present their data--and from getting suggestions on how to improve their own research. The consumers of computer science education research, such as funders, practitioners, and educational administrators, will become more aware of the strengths and weakness of the current computer science education research and can use that knowledge to make decisions about policy or practice. Finally, the gatekeepers of computer science education, such as the funders, editors, and reviewers of computer science education research, are especially important stakeholders in this review because they set the standard for what types of research activities are acceptable and what types of reports merit publication. The next section begins with a discussion of three pre-existing reviews of the computer science education research and a rationale for the need for the current research. In the remaining sections of this paper, after a short discussion of biases, the reader will find a description of the methods used, including a description of the coding book development, the sampling strategy and sampling frame, interrater training procedures, and data analyses. …