Teachers’ Perceptions of Student Misconceptions in Introductory Programming
Yizhou Qian
Susanne Hambrusch
Aman Yadav
Sarah Gretter
Yue Li

2020

Journal of Educational Computing Research, Volume 58, Issue 2

A quality computer science (CS) teacher needs to understand students’ common misconceptions in learning CS. This study explored one aspect of CS teachers’ understanding of student misconceptions: their perceptions of student misconceptions related to introductory programming. Perceptions in this study included three parts: teachers’ perceived frequency of a student misconception, teachers’ perceived importance of a misconception in learning, and teachers’ confidence in addressing a misconception. Teachers in our study taught a Python-based CS course for high schools students. A survey was designed and administered to assess teachers’ perceptions of students’ misconceptions. Our results indicated that teachers’ confidence of addressing misconceptions and the teaching context may affect their perceptions of student misconceptions. We also found that some latent misconceptions are likely to lead to a perception of low frequency as they can be more difficult to detect. Moreover, our study found that teachers’ degrees and additional computing training showed positive relationships with their confidence of addressing student misconceptions and that additional computing training also showed a positive relationship with teachers’ perceived importance of student misconceptions. Implications of the findings for future research and practice of CS education are discussed.

Study Information
Manually extracted from the paper by the Progmiscon.org team

Programming Languages

Python

Method

A quantitative survey of teachers to assess their perceptions of the frequency and importance of student misconceptions

Subjects

44 high school teachers

Artifact

Note by Progmiscon.org Team
We are not aware of an artifact supporting this paper.

Related Study Results
Phenomena studied in this paper that map to Progmiscon.org misconceptions

The following list summarizes those phenomena reported in this study that provide evidence for misconceptions documented on Progmiscon.org. (The paper may provide evidence for other misconceptions as well. This list focuses exclusively on misconceptions documented on Progmiscon.org.)

Misconceptions
Survey about 37 pre-selected misconceptions

AppendixA.1(F)
A variable can hold more than one value at the same time
Never
1
 
2.14
Very Frequent
4
Average Perceived Frequency
This provides evidence potentially relevant for the following Progmiscon.org misconceptions:
AppendixA.1(I)
A variable can hold more than one value at the same time
Not Important
1
 
3.19
Very Important
4
Average Importance Rating
This provides evidence potentially relevant for the following Progmiscon.org misconceptions:
AppendixA.3(F)
The assignment statement A = B + 1 changes the value of B by 1, as well as changing A
Never
1
 
1.93
Very Frequent
4
Average Perceived Frequency
This provides evidence potentially relevant for the following Progmiscon.org misconceptions:
AppendixA.3(I)
The assignment statement A = B + 1 changes the value of B by 1, as well as changing A
Not Important
1
 
2.98
Very Important
4
Average Importance Rating
This provides evidence potentially relevant for the following Progmiscon.org misconceptions:
AppendixA.4(F)
Assigning the value of a variable to another variable 'links' the two variables, so changing the value of one changes the value of the other
Never
1
 
2.19
Very Frequent
4
Average Perceived Frequency
This provides evidence potentially relevant for the following Progmiscon.org misconceptions:
AppendixA.4(I)
Assigning the value of a variable to another variable 'links' the two variables, so changing the value of one changes the value of the other
Not Important
1
 
3.3
Very Important
4
Average Importance Rating
This provides evidence potentially relevant for the following Progmiscon.org misconceptions:
AppendixA.5(F)
The assignment statement a = b + 1 stores the formula 'b + 1' in a rather than the value of b + 1
Never
1
 
1.98
Very Frequent
4
Average Perceived Frequency
This provides evidence potentially relevant for the following Progmiscon.org misconceptions:
AppendixA.5(I)
The assignment statement a = b + 1 stores the formula 'b + 1' in a rather than the value of b + 1
Not Important
1
 
2.88
Very Important
4
Average Importance Rating
This provides evidence potentially relevant for the following Progmiscon.org misconceptions:
AppendixA.19(F)
The symbol '=' tests for equality
Never
1
 
2.93
Very Frequent
4
Average Perceived Frequency
This provides evidence potentially relevant for the following Progmiscon.org misconceptions:
AppendixA.19(I)
The symbol '=' tests for equality
Not Important
1
 
3.4
Very Important
4
Average Importance Rating
This provides evidence potentially relevant for the following Progmiscon.org misconceptions:
AppendixA.14(F)
Strings can be defined without quotation marks [...]
Never
1
 
2.36
Very Frequent
4
Average Perceived Frequency
This provides evidence potentially relevant for the following Progmiscon.org misconceptions:
AppendixA.14(I)
Strings can be defined without quotation marks [...]
Not Important
1
 
3.17
Very Important
4
Average Importance Rating
This provides evidence potentially relevant for the following Progmiscon.org misconceptions: