Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies

Living Edition
| Editors: Arthur Tatnall

Programming Misconceptions at the K-12 Level

  • Monika MladenovićEmail author
  • Žana Žanko
  • Ivica Boljat
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0_234-1

Synonyms

Overview

As computing today is included in many fields, there are many efforts, by science or national communities, to engage K-12 students in programming through national curriculums, many movements, and new programming tools. However, teaching introductory programming is not as successful as we would like it to be. Various assessments of student knowledge reveal flawed understandings of the taught concepts, which we call misconceptions. Misconceptions in programming refer to incorrect models of some programming concepts. Despite the emergence of a plethora of new programming languages, students experience the same or similar misconceptions as they did more than 30 years ago. Identifying misconceptions can be crucial to minimize or even prevent misconceptions for both teachers and students alike. Over the last few decades, numerous researchers...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bayman P, Mayer RE (1983) A diagnosis of beginning programmers’ misconceptions of BASIC programming statements. Commun ACM 26(9):677–679. Available at: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=358172.358408. Accessed 9 May 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bruner JS (1961) The act of discovery. Harvard Educ Rev 31:21–32Google Scholar
  3. Bruner JS (1977) The process of education. Harvard UP, Cambridge, MA. 1960Google Scholar
  4. Brusilovsky P et al (1997) Mini – languages: a way to learn programming principles. Educ Inf Technol 2(1):65–83. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1018636507883. Accessed 31 Mar 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chi MTH, Roscoe RD (2002) The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In: Reconsidering conceptual change: issues in theory and practice. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 3–27. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/0-306-47637-1_1. Accessed 15 May 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dann W, Cooper S (2009) Alice 3: concrete to abstract. Commun ACM 52(8):27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dann W et al (2012) Mediated transfer: Alice 3 to Java. In: Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on computer science education, New York, 12:141–146Google Scholar
  8. Du Boulay B (1986) Some difficulties of learning to program. J Educ Comput Res 2(1):57–73. Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2190/3LFX-9RRF-67T8-UVK9. Accessed 10 May 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grover S Basu S 2017 Measuring student learning in introductory block-based programming. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education – SIGCSE ‘17. ACM Press, New York, pp 267–272. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3017680.3017723. Accessed 24 May 2018
  10. Hyslop-Margison EJ, Strobel J (2007) Constructivism and education: misunderstandings and pedagogical implications. Teach Educ 43(1):72–86. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08878730701728945. Accessed 23 May 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kohn T (2017) Variable evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education – SIGCSE ‘17. ACM Press, New York, pp 345–350. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3017680.3017724. Accessed 10 May 2018
  12. Kwon K (2017) Student’s misconception of programming reflected on problem-solving plans. Int J Comput Sci Educ Sch 1:14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Li SL, Hoch SO (1974) Amino terminal sequence of the tryptophan synthetase α chain of Bacillus subtilis. J Bacteriol 118(1):187–191. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2698235.2677087. Accessed 7 Mar 2017Google Scholar
  14. Lister R (2016) Toward a developmental epistemology of computer programming. In: Proceedings of the 11th workshop in primary and secondary computing education on ZZZ – WiPSCE ‘16. ACM Press, New York, pp 5–16. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2978249.2978251. Accessed 23 May 2018
  15. Maloney JH et al (2008) Programming by choice. ACM SIGCSE Bullet 40(1):367. Available at: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1352322.1352260. Accessed 6 Mar 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mladenović S, Krpan D, Mladenovic M (2016a) Using games to help novices embrace programming: from elementary to higher education. Int J Eng Educ 32(1):521–531Google Scholar
  17. Mladenović M, Rosić M, Mladenović S (2016b) Comparing elementary students ’ programming success based on programming environment. Int J Modern Educ Comput Sci 8:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mladenović M, Boljat I, Žanko Ž (2018) Comparing loops misconceptions in block-based and text-based programming languages at the K-12 level. Educ Inf Technol 23(4):1483–1500. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10639-017-9673-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Papert S (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Book, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Piaget J (1952) The origins of intelligence in children. W W Norton & Co, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Plass D (2015) Identifying and addressing common programming misconceptions with variables (part 1)., (part 1). Available at: https://essay.utwente.nl/70455/1/Oude%20Bos%20Danny%20-%20S0021407%20-%20Afstudeerscriptie.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2018
  22. Putnam RT et al (1986) A summary of misconceptions of high school basic programmers. J Educ Comput Res 2(4):459–472. Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2190/FGN9-DJ2F-86V8-3FAU. Accessed 10 May 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Resnick M et al (2009) Scratch: programming for all. Commun ACM 52(11):60–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sekiya T Yamaguchi K (2013) Tracing quiz set to identify novices’ programming misconceptions. In: Proceedings of the 13th Koli Calling international conference on computing education research – Koli Calling ‘13. ACM Press, New York, pp 87–95. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2526968.2526978. Accessed 24 May 2017
  25. Shi N et al (2018) Evaluating the effectiveness roles of variables in the novice programmers learning. J Educ Comput Res 56(2):181–201. Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0735633117707312. Accessed 24 May 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sorva J (2018) Misconceptions and the beginner programmer. Computer Science Education: Perspectives on Teaching and Learning in School, 171Google Scholar
  27. Swidan A, Hermans F Smit M (2018) Programming misconceptions for school students. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM conference on international computing education research – ICER ‘18. ACM Press, New York, pp 151–159. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3230977.3230995. Accessed 13 Sept 2018
  28. Weintrop D Wilensky U (2015) To block or not to block, that is the question: students’ perceptions of blocks-based programming. Proceedings of the 14th international conference on interaction design and children – IDC ‘15. pp 199–208. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2771839.2771860. Accessed 28 Aug 2017
  29. White G (2001) Misconceptions in CIS education. J Comput Sci Coll 16(3):149–152Google Scholar
  30. Žanko Ž, Mladenović M Boljat I (2018) Misconceptions about variables at the K-12 level. Education and information technologies. pp 1–18. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10639-018-9824-1. Accessed 18 Oct 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monika Mladenović
    • 1
    Email author
  • Žana Žanko
    • 2
  • Ivica Boljat
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of ScienceUniversity of SplitSplitCroatia
  2. 2.Elementary school “Mejaši”SplitCroatia

Section editors and affiliations

  • Sigrid Schubert
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty IV: Science and TechnologyUniversity of SiegenSiegenGermany