Comparison of Three Instructional Strategies in Teaching Programming: Restudying Material, Testing and Worked Example
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 enrolled in the...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
JOLTIDA
2018-07-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://joltida.org/index.php/joltida/article/view/66/130 |
| _version_ | 1828017926572081152 |
|---|---|
| author | Mustafa Tepgeç Yasemin Demiraslan Çevik |
| author_facet | Mustafa Tepgeç Yasemin Demiraslan Çevik |
| author_sort | Mustafa Tepgeç |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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 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 intervention 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 flowcharts in teaching programming basics. The booklet was presented to the restudying group for three times and they were expected to study material in depth for each session. Subsequently, isomorphic problems were presented for the testing group. In the other group, worked examples were presented and learners were expected to comprehend the logic underlying the problems. Immediately after the intervention, 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-10T10:55:16Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-6951f808758047c7bd6ec9f527c51bca |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2458-8350 2458-8350 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-10T10:55:16Z |
| publishDate | 2018-07-01 |
| publisher | JOLTIDA |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age |
| spelling | doaj.art-6951f808758047c7bd6ec9f527c51bca2023-02-15T16:19:59ZengJOLTIDAJournal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age2458-83502458-83502018-07-01324250Comparison of Three Instructional Strategies in Teaching Programming: Restudying Material, Testing and Worked ExampleMustafa Tepgeç0Yasemin Demiraslan Çevik1Hacettepe University, TurkeyHacettepe University, TurkeyThe 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 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 intervention 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 flowcharts in teaching programming basics. The booklet was presented to the restudying group for three times and they were expected to study material in depth for each session. Subsequently, isomorphic problems were presented for the testing group. In the other group, worked examples were presented and learners were expected to comprehend the logic underlying the problems. Immediately after the intervention, 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.http://joltida.org/index.php/joltida/article/view/66/130testing effectteaching programmingworked exampleself-explanationprogramming pedagogycognitive load |
| spellingShingle | Mustafa Tepgeç Yasemin Demiraslan Çevik Comparison of Three Instructional Strategies in Teaching Programming: Restudying Material, Testing and Worked Example Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age testing effect teaching programming worked example self-explanation programming pedagogy cognitive load |
| title | Comparison of Three Instructional Strategies in Teaching Programming: Restudying Material, Testing and Worked Example |
| title_full | Comparison of Three Instructional Strategies in Teaching Programming: Restudying Material, Testing and Worked Example |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Three Instructional Strategies in Teaching Programming: Restudying Material, Testing and Worked Example |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Three Instructional Strategies in Teaching Programming: Restudying Material, Testing and Worked Example |
| title_short | Comparison of Three Instructional Strategies in Teaching Programming: Restudying Material, Testing and Worked Example |
| title_sort | comparison of three instructional strategies in teaching programming restudying material testing and worked example |
| topic | testing effect teaching programming worked example self-explanation programming pedagogy cognitive load |
| url | http://joltida.org/index.php/joltida/article/view/66/130 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mustafatepgec comparisonofthreeinstructionalstrategiesinteachingprogrammingrestudyingmaterialtestingandworkedexample AT yasemindemiraslancevik comparisonofthreeinstructionalstrategiesinteachingprogrammingrestudyingmaterialtestingandworkedexample |