An Analysis of Java Programming Behaviors, Affect, Perceptions, and Syntax Errors among Low-Achieving, Average, and High-Achieving Novice Programmers
Ma. Mercedes T. Rodrigo
Thor Collin S. Andallaza
Francisco Enrique Vicente G. Castro
Marc Lester V. Armenta
Thomas T. Dy
Matthew C. Jadud

2013

Journal of Educational Computing Research, Volume 49, Issue 3

In this article we quantitatively and qualitatively analyze a sample of novice programmer compilation log data, exploring whether (or how) low-achieving, average, and high-achieving students vary in their grasp of these introductory concepts. High-achieving students self-reported having the easiest time learning the introductory programming topics. In a quantitative analysis, though, high-achieving and average students were: 1) more effective at debugging (on average, as quantified by Jadud's Error Quotient (EQ)) than low-achieving students; and 2) were least confused, as quantified using Lee's confusion metric. However, the differences in EQ and confusion between groups were not statistically significant. This implied that all groups struggled with programming to similar extents. This finding was further supported by was used to delineate two sets of variables. The results indicate that preference for autonomy in computer science learning positively predicts selfefficacy in learning computer science with the strongest coefficient. Computer science learner preference for teacher control is also a positive predictor. However, preference for participation in managing the computer class and preference for depending on the teacher did not play a significant role in the students' self-efficacy in learning computer science.

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

Programming Languages

Java

Method

Qualitative and quantitative study analyzing about 190'000 compilation logs

Subjects

180 undergraduates

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.)

Errors
Qualitative, sample-based observations of code snippets

Fig11
Code snippet showing a use of '=' as comparator
This provides evidence potentially relevant for the following Progmiscon.org misconceptions:
Pag20
[Students] forget to use a '( )' after the name of a method with no parameters
This provides evidence potentially relevant for the following Progmiscon.org misconceptions:
Fig12
Some students put statements after a return [...]
This provides evidence potentially relevant for the following Progmiscon.org misconceptions:
Fig14
Students also make the mistake of assigning values to parameters instead of using the parameters to initialize field variables
This provides evidence potentially relevant for the following Progmiscon.org misconceptions: