Bilgisayar Programlamada Öğrencilerin Zihinsel Süreçlerinin İncelenmesi: Bir Bilişsel Etnografya Çalışması

Year 2019, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 1 - 25, 30.01.2019

Sibel Doğan , Orhan Aslan , Mehmet Dönmez , Soner Yıldırım

https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.428953

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Bu
çalışmanın amacı, programlama ile ilgili belirlenen bir öğrenme görevinde
acemi, yarı uzman ve uzman olarak sınıflandırılan öğrencilerin sözde kod
oluşturma esnasındaki zihinsel süreçlerinin nasıl farklılaştığını
araştırmaktır. Bu amacı gerçekleştirebilmek için bilişsel etnografya araştırma deseni
olarak tercih edilmiştir. Çalışmada, Bilgisayar Eğitimi ve Öğretim
Teknolojileri (CEIT) bölümünden üç lisans öğrencisi katılımcı olarak yer
almıştır. Bu öğrenciler, öncelikle aldıkları dersler ve programlama konusundaki
deneyimlerini göz önünde bulundurarak sınıflandırılmıştır. Katılımcı seçerken,
amaçlı ve kartopu örnekleme yöntemleri kullanıldı. Verilerin toplanması için
yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler, video kaydı, yüksek sesli düşünme, geriye
dönük inceleme, gözlem ve doküman analizi kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar,
katılımcıların karar verme ve görev tamamlama süreleri, takip ettikleri yol ve
bu soruları ele alma perspektifleri açısından farklılaştıklarını göstermiştir.

Keywords

Bilişsel etnografya, programlama, sözde kod, zihinsel süreç, kodlama

Investigation of Students' Cognitive Processes in Computer Programming: A Cognitive Ethnography Study

Abstract

The
aim of the current study is to investigate how cognitive processes of students
categorized as novice, semi-expert and expert differ in terms of creating
pseudocode for a given programming task. To conduct this aim, cognitive
ethnography research design was employed to reveal the cognitive process of the
participants behind the specified task. In the study, three undergraduate
students from a Computer Education and Instructional Technology (CEIT)
department were included as participants. These students were categorized based
on two parameters. The first one was the courses that took and the second on
was their experiences on programming. While selecting participants, purposeful
and snowball sampling methods were used. To collect data, semi-structured
interviews, video recording, think aloud procedure, retrospective reviews,
observations and document analysis were used. The results showed that
participants differed in terms of their decision making and task completion
durations, the path they followed, and their perspectives about handling the
question.

Keywords

Cognitive ethnography, programming, pseudocode, coding, cognitive process, coding

References

• Ball, L. J., & Ormerod, T. C. (2000). Putting ethnography to work: The case for a cognitive ethnography of design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53(1), 147–168. http://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2000.0372
• Driscoll, M.P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Allyn & Bacon: Needham Heights, MA.
• Dubbels, B. (2011). Cognitive ethnography: A methodology for measure and analysis of learning for game studies. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations (IJGCMS), 3(1), 68–78.
• Garner, S. (2006). The development, use and evaluation of a program design tool in the learning and teaching of software development. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 3, 253–260.
• Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 428-444). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
• Hutchins, E. (1991). The social organization of distributed cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 283–307). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://doi.org/10.1037/10096-012.
• Hutchins, E. (1995a). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008642111457
• Hutchins, E. (1995b). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19(3), 265–288. http://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(95)90020-9
• Hutchins, E. (2003, July). Cognitive ethnography (Plenary address). In R. Alterman, & D. Kirsh (Chairs), 25th meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston.
• Hutchins, E., & Klausen, T. (1996). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and Communication at Work (pp. 15-34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174077.002
• Johnson, R. B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 118(2), 282-292.
• Kalelioglu, F., & Gulbahar, Y. (2014). The effects of teaching programming via Scratch on problem-solving skills: A discussion from learners’ perspective. Informatics in Education-An International Journal, 13(1), 33–50.
• Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate ? American Educational Research Association, 17(2), 13–17. http://doi.org/10.2307/1174583
• Merikle, P. M., Smilek, D., & Eastwood, J. D. (2001). Perception without awareness: Perspectives from cognitive psychology. Cognition, 79(1-2), 115-134. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00126-8
• Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Dados (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
• Milková, E., & Turčáni, M. (2006). Digital objects supporting development of algorithmic thinking. In A. Méndez-Vilas, A. Solano Martín, J. Mesa González, & J. A. Mesa González (Eds.), Current Developments in Technology-Assisted Education (pp. 376–380. Badajos, Spain, Formatex
• Nelson, J. (2009). Celebrating Scratch in libraries: Creation software helps young people develop 21st century literacy skills. School Library Journal. Retrieved from http://www.slj.com/2009/05/opinion/the-gaming-life/celebrating-scratch-in-libraries-the-gaming-life/#_ Noss, R., Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1997). The construction of mathematical meanings: connecting the visual with the symbolic. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33(2), 202–233. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002943821419
• Özdener, N. (2008). A comparison of the misconceptions about the time-efficiency of algorithms by various profiles of computer-programming students. Computers and Education, 51(3), 1094–1102. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.10.008
• Papadopoulos, Y., & Tegos, S. (2012). Using microworlds to introduce programming to novices. In Proceedings of the 2012 16th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics, PCI 2012 (pp. 180–185). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). http://doi.org/10.1109/PCi.2012.18
• Robbins, P., & Aydede, M. (2009). The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816826
• Spohrer, J. C., & Soloway, E. (1986). Novice mistakes: are the folk wisdoms correct? Communications of the ACM, 29(7), 624–632. http://doi.org/10.1145/6138.6145
• Thelen, E., Schöner, G., Scheier, C., & Smith, L. B. (2001). The dynamics of embodiment: A field theory of infant perseverative reaching. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 1–34.
• Williams, R. F. (2006). Using cognitive ethnography to study instruction. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Sciences (pp. 838–844). International Society of the Learning Sciences. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1150156
• Williams, R. F. (2012). Image schema in clock-reading: Latent errors and emerging expertise. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 216–246. http://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.553259