Comparison of Three Instructional Strategies in Teaching Programming: Restudying Material, Testing and Worked Example
Abstract
The aim of the study is to determine the effects of different instructional strategies on retention performance and cognitive load in teaching programming. The study also aimed to compare these strategies in terms of instructional efficiency. The study group consisted of 106 students 49 female and 57 male enrolled in the first grade at a high school. Instructional strategies used in the study are testing n=38 , restudying material n=31 and studying worked example with self-explanation prompts n=37 . In the implementation process, the study booklet was first presented to all groups. The booklet prepared for this study covers topics such as variable identification, decision structures, pseudo-codes and flow charts in teaching programming basics. The booklet was presented to restudying group for three times and they were expected to study material in depth for each session. Subsequently, isomorphic problems were presented for testing group. In the other group, worked examples were presented and learners were expected to comprehend the logic underlying the problems. Immediately after the implementation, the first retention test and the cognitive load scale were applied. The final retention test was conducted three weeks later the first retention test was implemented. The study concluded that worked example with self-explanation prompts is more efficient than the other two strategies in teaching programming basics in terms of instructional efficiency. In addition, the fact that testing has increased the long-term retention of knowledge has been confirmed. However, when cognitive load levels were taken into account, there was no difference between the testing and the restudying material strategies. It is expected that the study will contribute to the literature due to the findings in regard to pedagogy of programming.
Keywords
References
- Abdul-Rahman, S. S., & Du Boulay, B. (2014). Learning programming via worked-examples: Relation of learning styles to cognitive load. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 286-298.
- Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of educational research, 70(2), 181-214.
- Bergersen, G. R., & Gustafsson, J. E. (2011). Programming skill, knowledge, and working memory among professional software developers from an investment theory perspective. Journal of Individual Differences.
- Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Testing improves long-term retention in a simulated classroom setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4-5), 514-527.
- Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self‐explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive science, 13(2), 145-182.
- Demiraslan Çevik, Y., & Çoban, T. (2016). Testing effect in learning digital property and cyber ethics. SDU International Journal of Educational Studies, 3(1), 84-99.
- Hoogerheide, V., Renkl, A., Fiorella, L., Paas, F., & van Gog, T. (2018). Enhancing example-based learning: Teaching on video increases arousal and improves problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology.
- Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2009). A testing effect with multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 621.
- Kılıç, E., & Karadeniz, Ş. (2004). Hiper ortamlarda öğrencilerin bilişsel yüklenme ve kaybolma düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 10(4), 562-579.
- Leahy, W., Hanham, J., & Sweller, J. (2015). High element interactivity information during problem solving may lead to failure to obtain the testing effect. Educational Psychology Review, 27(2), 291-304.