Programming Trauma: Can it be avoided?M. Huggard The difficulty in the transition of students into degree courses in Computer Science is a major contributor to non-completion. The nature of a computer science degree programme is such that there is very little continuity between subjects studied during the secondary education senior cycle and those encountered during the first year in university. Courses in areas such as computer programming and computer networking require a style of logical thinking that many students have not experienced prior university entry. Moreover, many students are experiencing university life for the first time and haven't developed an appropriate sense of their own responsibility for, or owernership of, their learning. This is a complex and multi-dimensional problem and consequently there is no single solution. However, most students experiencing difficulties during their first year at university cite the challenges encountered while learning to programme as one of the major causes of their trauma. Psychological studies of programming date back over 30 years, but appear to have had little impact on the culture of learning in a programming class, with many students having little or no confidence in their programming abilities. Hence one of the grand challenges in computing education is to design an effective learning environment which results in a significant improvement in students' attitude to and attainment in programming.A negative attitude toward programming appears to be firmly established in many students' minds, even amongst those who have elected to take a computing degree course. In a recent survey of first year undergraduates, over half expressed anxiety about learning to programme before their university studies commenced. The factors that cause students to become disaffected with programming courses need to be clearly established and, where possible, early intervention taken. In particular, student programmers need to be actively encouraged to take an intrinsic pleasure in learning and hence become self-motivating, independent problem solvers.Some studies hypothesise that students who find programming difficult are those for whom programming is difficult. Proponents argue that “there is nothing inherently difficult in the subject; it is simply that some students have no aptitude” [1]. Various tests for determining a student’s aptitude for programming exist, but it has proven difficult to provide evidence for their effectiveness [2]. More recent work in this field has also proved inconclusive: In [3] it is suggested that a relationship exists between programming skills and experience in mathematics. While a study at the University of Leeds [4] which streamed students based on the results of an aptitude test, concluded that no relationship existed between the final result in programming and the measured aptitude. Other work has shown that demographic factors may not be used as predictors of success in programming [5].Winslow [6] gives an excellent overview of psychological studies into computer programming since the 1970s. He notes that “little of these results have been incorporated into curricular or text books” and details how these results can affect course design. He concludes that, by the end of a four year degree program, it should be possible for students to be competent computer programmers, capable of consciously choosing an organized plan to achieve a desired goal.“The key to reaching this level is practice, practice, practice – starting withsimple facts and problems and working up to more and more complicatedfacts, strategies and problems.”(Winslow, 1996, p21)Research by Boud [7] into university teachers views of assessment found that many had encountered very negative experiences of being assessed.“This hurt ... caused them to loose confidence, it dented their self-esteemand led them never to have anything to do with some subjects ever again.”(Boud, 1995, p35) He argues that if successful students (those who later become university teachers) have such a traumatic experience, then we can only surmise that assessment must have had an even more negative impact on the less academically able students. Hence assessment should be at the heart of any effective teaching and learning strategy for computer programming.Collaborative learning has proved highly successful in programming courses, with many students benefiting from interaction with their peers. However, the educator is then faced with the difficulty of trying to effectively evaluate and assess an individual's programming ability based on the outcomes of a collaborative project. The phenomenon of less able students hiding behind their more competent peers is common in programming courses. Recent research in this area includes that of Chamillard and Braun [8] which successfully combined a number of evaluation techniques to assess programming ability. In particular, Chamillard and Joiner [9] explored the use of lab practica to assess individual programming ability. Moreover, even when assessed individually, it may be argued that students who obtain a passing grade of between 40% and 50% in their first year programming examinations experience major difficulties with programming in the later years of their degree programme.To conclude, computer programming presents educators with many challenges; in particular how do we:• overcome the negative attitudes many students have towards programming?• establish student aptitude for programming?• incorporate the results of psychological studies into our curricula and textbooks?• encourage students to practice programming?• establish assessement methods that assess individual programming competency effectively?• prevent students “hiding” behind their more able peers?While educational researchers have sought to address individual issues, a more coherent approach is needed if we are to radically alter the learning environment in which programming is taught and assessed.References[1] Jenkins, T., “On the Difficulty of Learning to Program”, in Proc. 3rd LTSN for Information and Computer Science Conference, Loughborough, UK, pp. 65-71, 2002.[2] Mazlack, L. J., “Identifying potential to acquire programming skill”, Comm. ACM, Vol. 23, pp14-17, 1980.[3] Byrne, P. and Lyons, G., “The effect of students attributes on success in programming”, in Proc. ItiCSE 1999.[4] Davy, J., and Jenkins, T., “Research-led innovation in teaching and learning programming”, in Proc. ItiCSE 1999.[5] Evans, G., and Simkin, M., “What best Predicts Computer Proficiency?”, Comm. ACM, Vol. 32, No. 11, 1989.[6] Winslow, L. E., “Programming Pedagogy – A Psychological Overview”, SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 23, 1996.[7] Boud, D., “Assessment and learning: contradictory or complementary?”, in “Assessment for Learning in H igher Education”, P. Knight (Ed.) Kogan Page, London, pp35-48, 1995.[8] Chamillard, A. T. and Braun, K. A., “Evaluating Programming Ability in an Introductory Computer Science Course”, in Proc. SIGCSE, Austin, TX, March 2000.[9] Chamillard, A. T. and Joiner, J. K., “Using Lab Practica to Evaluate Programming Ability”, in Proc. SIGCSE, Charlotte, NC, Feb. 2001.。
