research-article

Teaching Introductory Programming: A Quantitative Evaluation of Different Approaches

Authors:

Theodora Koulouri,

Stanislao Lauria,

Robert D. MacredieAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), Volume 14, Issue 4

Article No.: 26, Pages 1 - 28

https://doi.org/10.1145/2662412

Published: 29 December 2014 Publication History

Abstract

Teaching programming to beginners is a complex task. In this article, the effects of three factors—choice of programming language, problem-solving training, and the use of formative assessment—on learning to program were investigated. The study adopted an iterative methodological approach carried out across 4 consecutive years. To evaluate the effects of each factor (implemented as a single change in each iteration) on students’ learning performance, the study used quantitative, objective metrics. The findings revealed that using a syntactically simple language (Python) instead of a more complex one (Java) facilitated students’ learning of programming concepts. Moreover, teaching problem solving before programming yielded significant improvements in student performance. These two factors were found to have variable effects on the acquisition of basic programming concepts. Finally, it was observed that effective formative feedback in the context of introductory programming depends on multiple parameters. The article discusses the implications of these findings, identifies avenues for further research, and argues for the importance of studies in computer science education anchored on sound research methodologies to produce generalizable results.

References

[1]

A. Agresti and I. M. Liu. 1999. Modeling a categorical variable allowing arbitrarily many category choices. Biometrics, 55, 3 (Sept. 1999), 936--943.

[2]

V. L. Almstrum, O. Hazzan, M. Guzdial, and M. Petre. 2005, Challenges to computer science education research. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 37, 1 (2005), 191--192.

Digital Library

[3]

T. Beaubouef and J. Mason. 2005. Why the high attrition rate for computer science students: Some thoughts and observations. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 37, 2 (2005), 103--106.

Digital Library

[4]

L. Beck and A. Chizhik. 2013. Cooperative learning instructional methods for CS1: Design, implementation, and evaluation. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. (TOCE) 13, 3 (Aug. 2013), Article 10.

Digital Library

[5]

J. Bennedsen and M. E. Caspersen. 2007. Assessing process and product: A practical lab exam for an introductory programming course 1. Inn. Teaching Learning Inf. Comput. Sci. 6, 4 (Oct. 2007), 183--202.

[6]

S. B. Berenson, K. M. Slaten, L. Williams, and C. W. Ho. 2004. Voices of women in a software engineering course: Reflections on collaboration. J. Educ. Res. Comput. (JERIC), 4, 1 (March 2004), Article 3.

Digital Library

[7]

P. Black. 1999. Assessment, learning theories and testing systems. In Learners, Learning and Assessment. Paul Chapman Publishing, London, 118--134.

[8]

P. Black and D. Wiliam. 1998. Assessment and classroom learning. Assess. Educ. 5, 1 (1998), 7--74.

[9]

S. J. Bostock. 2004. Motivation and electronic assessment. Effective Learning and Teaching in Computing. Routledge Falmer, London. 86--99.

[10]

G. Braught, T. Wahls, and L. M. Eby. 2011. The case for pair programming in the computer science classroom. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. (TOCE), 11, 1, Article 2 (Feb. 2011).

Digital Library

[11]

A. L. Brown. 1992. Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. J. Learn. Sci. 2, 2 (1992), 141--178.

[12]

M. E. Califf and M. Goodwin. 2002. Testing skills and knowledge: Introducing a laboratory exam in CS1. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 34, 1 (Feb. 2002), 217--221.

Digital Library

[13]

J. Carter and R. Boyle. 2002. Teaching delivery issues: Lessons from computer science. J. Inf. Technol. 1, 2 (2002), 65--90.

[14]

A. T. Chamillard and K. A. Braun. 2000. Evaluating programming ability in an introductory computer science course. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 32, 1 (March 2000), 212--216.

Digital Library

[15]

A. Collins. 1992. Toward a design science of education. Springer, Berlin, 15--22.

[16]

A. Collins, D. Joseph, and K. Bielaczyc. 2004. Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. J. Learn. Sci. 13, 1 (2004), 15--42.

[17]

Computing Curricula. 2001. IEEE CS, ACM Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula. IEEE Computer Society Press and ACM Press. Retrieved from http://www.acm.org/education/curricula.html.

[18]

Computing Curricula: The overview report. 2005. IEEE CS, ACM Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula. IEEE Computer Society Press and ACM Press. Retrieved from http://www.acm.org/education/curricula.html.

[19]

A. T. Corbett and J. R. Anderson. 1990. The effect of feedback control on learning to program with the LISP tutor. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 796--803.

[20]

A. T. Corbett and J. R. Anderson. 2001. Locus of feedback control in computer-based tutoring: Impact on learning rate, achievement and attitudes. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, 245--252.

Digital Library

[21]

C. Daly and J. Waldron. 2004. Assessing the assessment of programming ability. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 36, 1 (March 2004), 210--213.

Digital Library

[22]

DARPA. 2010. Computer Science—Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (CS-STEM) Education Research Announcement (RA). DARPA-RA-10-03.

[23]

P. Denny, A. Luxton-Reilly, and E. Tempero. 2012. All syntax errors are not equal. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’12). 75--80.

Digital Library

[24]

P. Denny, A. Luxton-Reilly, E. Tempero, and J. Hendrickx. 2011. Understanding the syntax barrier for novices. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’11). ACM, New York, 208--212.

Digital Library

[25]

N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.). 1998. The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

[26]

B. Du Boulay. 1986. Some Difficulties of Learning to Program. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2, 1 (1986), 57--73.

[27]

K. Ecclestone. 1998. “Just tell me what to do” barriers to assessment-in-learning in higher education. In Scottish Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Dundee. 25--26.

[28]

A. Ehlert and C. Schulte. 2009. Empirical comparison of objects-first and objects-later. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Computing Education Research Workshop. ACM Press, New York, NY, 15--26.

Digital Library

[29]

M. H. Goldwasser and D. Letscher. 2008. Using Python to Teach Object-Oriented Programming in CS1. Innov. Technol. Comput. Sci. Ed. (June 2008), 30--32.

Digital Library

[30]

L. Grandell, M. Peltomäki, R. J. Back, and T. Salakoski. 2006. Why complicate things&quest;: Introducing programming in high school using Python. In Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education—Volume 52. Australian Computer Society, Inc., 71--80.

Digital Library

[31]

M. Guzdial. 2009. Education: Teaching computing to everyone. Commun. ACM, 52, 5 (2009), 31--33.

Digital Library

[32]

R. Higgins, P. Hartley, and A. Skelton. 2002. The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies Higher Educ. 27, 1 (2002), 53--64.

[33]

A. Irons. 2010. An Investigation into the Impact of Formative Feedback on the Student Learning Experience Doctoral dissertation. Durham University, Durham, UK.

[34]

M. C. Jadud. 2005. A first look at novice compilation behaviour using BlueJ. Comput. Sci. Educ. 15, 1 (2005), 25--40.

[35]

J. Kasurinen and U. Nikula. 2007. Lower dropout rates and better grades through revised course infrastructure. In Proceedings of the 10th IASTED International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education. ACTA Press, Calgary, Canada. 152--157.

Digital Library

[36]

M. Kölling. 1999. The problem of teaching object-oriented programming, Part 1: Languages. J. Obj. Orient. Prog. 11, 8, 8--15.

[37]

V. Koshy. 2009. Action Research for Improving Educational Practice: A Step-by-Step Guide. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

[38]

S. K. Kummerfeld and J. Kay. 2003. The neglected battle fields of syntax errors. In Proceedings of the Fifth Australasian Conference on Computing Education—Vol. 20. Australian Computer Society, Inc., 105--111.

Digital Library

[39]

C. B. Lee. 2013. Experience report: CS1 in MATLAB for non-majors, with media computation and peer instruction. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM Press, New York, NY, 35--40.

Digital Library

[40]

M. Lilley and T. Barker. 2007. Students’ perceived usefulness of formative feedback for a computer-adaptive test. Electron. J. e-learning 5 (2007), 31--38.

[41]

T. Lillis and J. Turner. 2001. Student writing in higher education: Contemporary confusion, traditional concerns. Teaching Higher Educ. 6, 1 (2001), 57--68.

[42]

M. C. Linn and J. Dalbey. 1989. Cognitive consequences of programming instruction. In Studying the Novice Programmer, E. Soloway and J. C. Spohrer (Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 57--81.

[43]

R. Lister, E. S. Adams, S. Fitzgerald, W. Fone, J. Hamer, M. Lindholm, and L. Thomas. 2004. A multi-national study of reading and tracing skills in novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 36, 4 (2007), 119--150.

Digital Library

[44]

L. Ma, J. Ferguson, M. Roper, and M. Wood. 2007. Investigating the viability of mental models held by novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 39, 1 (March 2007), 499--503.

Digital Library

[45]

L. Mannila and M. de Raadt. 2006. An objective comparison of languages for teaching introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 6th Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research: Koli Calling 2006. ACM, New York, 32--37.

Digital Library

[46]

L. Mannila, M. Peltomki, and T. Salakoski. 2006. What about a simple language&quest; Analyzing the difficulties in learning to program. Comput. Sci. Educ. 16, 3 (2006), 211--227.

[47]

M. McCracken, V. Almstrum, D. Diaz, M. Guzdial, D. Hagan, Kolikant, C. Laxer, L. Thomas, I. Utting, and T. Wilusz. 2001. A multi-national, multi-institutional study of assessment of programming skills of first-year CS students. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 33, 4 (Dec. 2001), 125--180.

Digital Library

[48]

C. McDowell, L. Werner, H. E. Bullock, and J. Fernald. 2003. The impact of pair programming on student performance, perception and persistence. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, 602--607.

Digital Library

[49]

A. McGettrick, R. Boyle, R. Ibbett, J. Lloyd, G. Lovegrove, and K. Mander. 2004. Grand challenges in computing: Education. British Computer Society.

[50]

B. N. Miller and D. L. Ranum. 2005. Teaching an introductory computer science sequence with Python. In Proceedings of the 38th Midwest Instructional and Computing Symposium.

[51]

B. Miller and D. Ranum. 2006. Freedom to succeed: A three course introductory sequence using Python and Java. J. Comput. Sci. Colleges 22, 1 (2006), 106--116.

Digital Library

[52]

M. Molina, E. Castro, and E. Castro. 2007. Teaching experiments within design research. Int. J. Interdisc. Social Soc. Sci. 2, 4 (2007), 435--440.

[53]

R. Moreno. 2004. Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instruct. Sci. 32, 1--2 (2004), 99--113.

[54]

National Audit Office. Staying the course: The retention of students in higher education. 2007. Report by the National Audit Office, 44. Retrieved from http://www.nao.org.uk/report/staying-the-course-the-retention-of-students-in-higher-education/.

[55]

U. Nikula, O. Gotel, and J. Kasurinen. 2011. A motivation guided holistic rehabilitation of the first programming course. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. (TOCE) 11, 4 (2011), 24.

Digital Library

[56]

J. D. Oldham. 2005. What happens after Python in CS1&quest; J. Comput. Sci. Colleges 20, 6 (2005), 7--13.

Digital Library

[57]

D. B. Palumbo. 1990. Programming language/problem-solving research: A review of relevant issues. Rev. Educ. Res. 60, 1 (1990), 65--89.

[58]

H. Patterson-McNeill. 2006. Experience: From C++ to Python in 3 easy steps. J. Comput. Sci. Colleges 22, 2 (2006), 92--96.

Digital Library

[59]

A. Pears and L. Malmi. 2009. Values and objectives in computing education research. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. (TOCE), 9, 3 (2009), 15.

Digital Library

[60]

A. Pears, S. Seidman, L. Malmi, L. Mannila, E. Adams, J. Bennedsen, M. Devlin, and J. Paterson. 2007. A survey of literature on the teaching of introductory programming. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 39, 4 (Dec. 2007), 204--223.

Digital Library

[61]

G. Polya. 1973. How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method. Princeton University Press.

[62]

L. Porter, C. Bailey Lee, B. Simon, Q. Cutts, and D. Zingaro. 2011. Experience report: A multi-classroom report on the value of peer instruction. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, 138--142.

Digital Library

[63]

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. 2003. Learning from subject review. Retrieved from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/learningFromSubjectReview.pdf.

[64]

R Development Core Team. 2010. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation Statistical Computing.

[65]

A. Radenski. 2006. Python First: A lab-based digital introduction to computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 38, 3 (2006), 197--201.

Digital Library

[66]

J. Randolph, G. Julnes, E. Sutinen, and S. Lehman. 2008. A methodological review of computer science education research. J. Inf. Tech. Educ.: Res. 7, 1 (2008), 135--162.

[67]

T. Reeves. 2011. Can educational research be both rigorous and relevant. Educ. Des. 1, 4 (2011), 1--24.

[68]

V. G. Renumol, D. Janakiram, and S. Jayaprakash. 2010. Identification of cognitive processes of effective and ineffective students during computer programming. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. (TOCE) 10. 3 (2010), 10.

Digital Library

[69]

A. Robins, J. Rountree, and N. Rountree. 2003. Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Comput. Sci. Educ. 13, 2 (2003), 137--172.

[70]

J. Rogalski and R. Samurçay. 1990. Acquisition of programming knowledge and skills. Psych. Prog. 18 (1990), 157--174.

[71]

M. B. Rosson, J. M. Carroll, and H. Sinha. 2011. Orientation of undergraduates toward careers in the computer and information sciences: Gender, self-efficacy and social support. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. (TOCE) 11, 3 (2011), 14.

Digital Library

[72]

C. Rust. 2002. The impact of assessment on student learning: How can the research literature practically help to inform the development of departmental assessment strategies and learner-centred assessment practices&quest; Active Learn. Higher Educ. 3, 2 (July 2002), 145--158.

[73]

C. Shannon. 2003. Another breadth-first approach to CS I using python. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 35, 1 (Sept. 2003), 248--251.

Digital Library

[74]

V. J. Shute. 2008. Focus on formative feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 78, 1 (2008), 153--189.

[75]

R. M. Siegfried, D. Chays, and K. G. Herbert. 2008. Will there ever be consensus on cs1. In Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Frontiers in Education: Computer Science and Computer Engineering--FECS. Vol. 8, 18--23.

[76]

B. Simon, M. Kohanfars, J. Lee, K. Tamayo, and Q. Cutts. 2010. Experience report: Peer instruction in introductory computing. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, 341--345.

Digital Library

[77]

R. E. Slavin. 2003. A reader's guide to scientifically based research. Educ. Leadership 60, 5 (2003), 12--16.

[78]

R. H. Sloan and P. Troy. 2008. CS 0.5: A better approach to introductory computer science for majors. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 40, 1 (2008), 271--275.

Digital Library

[79]

D. Sleeman, R. T. Putnam, J. Baxter, and L. Kuspa. 1988. An introductory Pascal class: A case study of students' errors. Teaching and Learning Computer Programming: Multiple Research Perspectives. RE Mayer (Ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 237--257.

[80]

J. Stamey and S. Sheel. 2010. A boot camp approach to learning programming in a CS0 course. J. Comput. Sci. Colleges 25, 5 (2010), 34--40.

Digital Library

[81]

A. Stefik and S. Siebert. 2013. An empirical investigation into programming language syntax. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. (TOCE) 13, 4 (2013), 19.

Digital Library

[82]

L. Stenhouse. 1975. An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. Heinemann, London.

[83]

J. O. Talton, D. L. Peterson, S. Kamin, D. Israel, and J. Al-Muhtadi. 2006. Scavenger hunt: Computer science retention through orientation. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 38, 1 (2006), 443--447.

Digital Library

[84]

J. J. Tu and J. R. Johnson. 1990. Can computer programming improve problem-solving ability&quest; ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 22, 2 (1990), 30--33.

Digital Library

[85]

S. Turner and G. Hill. 2007. Robots in problem-solving and programming. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences.

[86]

U.S. Department of Education. 2001. No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.

[87]

M. R. Weaver. 2006. Do students value feedback&quest; Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses. Assess. Eval. Higher Educ. 31, 3 (2006), 379--394.

[88]

J. M. Zelle. 1999. Python as a first language. In Proceedings of 13th Annual Midwest Computer Conference. Vol. 2.

Cited By

Geçitli EYurdakul B(2025)Teaching Programming Through MetaphorsEffective Computer Science Education in K-12 Classrooms10.4018/979-8-3693-4542-9.ch012(319-348)Online publication date: 24-Jan-2025
https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-4542-9.ch012
SHIBUYA HOZAWA K(2024)EVALUATION OF FACILITY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT BY NOVICE FOR A MEDIUM-SIZED ORGANIZATION未経験者による中規模組織のFM支援システム開発の評価Japanese Journal of JSCE10.2208/jscejj.24-0010480:11(n/a)Online publication date: 2024
https://doi.org/10.2208/jscejj.24-00104
Christensen IMarcher MInie NBrabrand C(2024)Invisible Women in IT: Examining Gender Representation in K-12 ICT Teaching MaterialsProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3632620.3671111(246-262)Online publication date: 12-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3632620.3671111
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Teaching Introductory Programming: A Quantitative Evaluation of Different Approaches
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. Computing education programs
        Computer science education
      2. Model curricula

Recommendations

A model for teaching an introductory programming course using ADRI

High failure and drop-out rates from introductory programming courses continue to be of significant concern to computer science disciplines despite extensive research attempting to address the issue. In this study, we include the three entities of the ...
Notional machines and introductory programming education

This article brings together, summarizes, and comments on several threads of research that have contributed to our understanding of the challenges that novice programmers face when learning about the runtime dynamics of programs and the role of the ...
Building Skills in Introductory Programming
TEEM'18: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality

Learning to program is difficult and requires a lot of work, dedication, and training. The difficulties of teaching and learning programming are a cause for concern for everyone where this subject is needed. It is a universal problem. The theme of ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education

ACM Transactions on Computing Education Volume 14, Issue 4

February 2015

116 pages

EISSN:1946-6226

DOI:10.1145/2698235

Editors:
Robert McCartney
University of Connecticut, USA
,
Josh Tenenberg
University of Washington,Tacoma, USA

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2014 Owner/Author.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 29 December 2014

Accepted: 01 August 2014

Revised: 01 July 2014

Received: 01 July 2013

Published in TOCE Volume 14, Issue 4

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

83
Total Citations
View Citations
3,956
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)314
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)27

Reflects downloads up to 25 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Geçitli EYurdakul B(2025)Teaching Programming Through MetaphorsEffective Computer Science Education in K-12 Classrooms10.4018/979-8-3693-4542-9.ch012(319-348)Online publication date: 24-Jan-2025
https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-4542-9.ch012
SHIBUYA HOZAWA K(2024)EVALUATION OF FACILITY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT BY NOVICE FOR A MEDIUM-SIZED ORGANIZATION未経験者による中規模組織のFM支援システム開発の評価Japanese Journal of JSCE10.2208/jscejj.24-0010480:11(n/a)Online publication date: 2024
https://doi.org/10.2208/jscejj.24-00104
Christensen IMarcher MInie NBrabrand C(2024)Invisible Women in IT: Examining Gender Representation in K-12 ICT Teaching MaterialsProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3632620.3671111(246-262)Online publication date: 12-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3632620.3671111
Zdravkova KDalipi FAhlgren FIlijoski BOlsson T(2024)Unveiling the Impact of Large Language Models on Student Learning: A Comprehensive Case Study2024 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)10.1109/EDUCON60312.2024.10578855(1-8)Online publication date: 8-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON60312.2024.10578855
Lubarda MPhan ASchurgers CDelson NGhazinejad MBaghdadchi SMinnes MKim MPilegard CRelaford-Doyle JSandoval CQi H(2024)Virtual pair programming and online oral exams: effects on social interaction, performance, and academic integrity in a remote computer programming courseComputer Science Education10.1080/08993408.2024.2344401(1-41)Online publication date: 5-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2024.2344401
Cheng GZou DXie HWang F(2024)Exploring differences in self-regulated learning strategy use between high- and low-performing students in introductory programmingComputers & Education10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104948208:COnline publication date: 1-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104948
Tsai CLin MCheng YLee LLin CLin JHung MChen W(2024)Integrating online partial pair programming and socially shared metacognitive regulation for the improvement of students’ learningUniversal Access in the Information Society10.1007/s10209-024-01127-wOnline publication date: 9-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-024-01127-w
Tsai CLee LCheng YLin CHung MLin J(2024)Integrating online meta-cognitive learning strategy and team regulation to develop students’ programming skills, academic motivation, and refusal self-efficacy of Internet use in a cloud classroomUniversal Access in the Information Society10.1007/s10209-022-00958-923:1(395-410)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10209-022-00958-9
Leidner JReiche M(2024)Language-Model Assisted Learning How to Program?Artificial Intelligence. ECAI 2023 International Workshops10.1007/978-3-031-50485-3_41(425-438)Online publication date: 25-Jan-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50485-3_41
Mak DDunn SCoombes DCarere CAllison JNock VHudson ADobson R(2024)Enzyme Kinetics Analysis: An online tool for analyzing enzyme initial rate data and teaching enzyme kineticsBiochemistry and Molecular Biology Education10.1002/bmb.2182352:3(348-358)Online publication date: 24-Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21823
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents