A Comparison of Novice Algorithm Composition Performance Using Flowcharting or Pseudocode as the Design Tool

Abstract

little empirical evidence is available concef"'Yling the comparative suitability 0f various algorithm design tools in the program design and maintenance process. Even less is known about their relative usefulness for introaucing the concepts of algorithm design to novices. This study was designed to empirically evatua!e two of the most commonl}·advocated design tools, flowcharting and pseudocode, with introductory computer information students in an algorithm composition task. An experiment was designed in which ncvice programmers were asked to construct an algorithm that »'l:;uld solve a simple, everyday problem, using either a flowchart or pseudocode. Results siz!Jwed tizat the scores recerved on the algorithm composition task were dependent on whether a s!udent was in the flov:charting or pseudocode group. In particular, a larger propor:wn of novices who used pseudocode were able to produce a working algorithm. Tentative explanations of the results are provided. (Keywords: programming, software design.) During the early years of computer programming, flowcharts were advocated as the primary algorithmic development tool. As the discipline of programming matured, flowcharting was increasingly scrutinized by academicians and practitioners. Advocates of flowcharting claimed that it was an essential problem solving tool (Bohl, 1971) while detractors called flowcharts a curse and a thoroughly oversold piece of program documentation (Brooks, 1977). New techniques were introduced that were claimed to promote development of better programs and to provide superioc documentation. Most of these techniques retained a diagrammatic component which would presumably increase the user's understanding of the logical processes involved in the algorithm and included such tools as pseudocode, Nassi-Schneiderman diagrams, Chapin charts, and W arnier-Orr diagrams. Pseudocode represents the most extreme departure from the basic premise of the traditional flowchart, relying on identification alone to provide spacial information about program logic. These developments led to the beginning of empirical research into the differences between tools for problem solving and algorithm developme:1t with a particular foclli on flowcharting and pseudocode for program design.The results of such research have implications deserving attention from information systems educators. Large numbers of students are required to have a degree of computer literacy w.hi;h includes some knowledge of algorithm development proceses. For many of these students, who are primarily business majors, this will be the flrst and last formal exposure to this process they encounter. An informal survey of g very recent introductory business computing or supporting texts represents an interesting comparison when viewed from the perspective of program design tools. While all of the texts present both 82 Fall1988 Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 00:05 13 August 2015 flowcharting and psuedocode as possible algorithm design tools, the majority use only flowcharts in th...

The Effect of User-Specified Language Elements on Learning to Program

“…In addition, the lectures had already covered the xse of pseudocode for algorithm design. It should be noted that Glorfeld & Palko (1988) found that novice programmers pafarmed Notes: There were 25 subjects in Section 1, the control group, and 24 subjeczs in Section 2, the experimental group.…”

“…Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 18:56 13 August 2015 results have application in the overlapping domains of instruction in computer programming (Mayer,198 l), implementing man-machine dialogue (Good et al, 1984;Martin 1973), end-user computing by nontechnical users (Rockart, 1979), and, in particular, software psychology (Badre & Shneidennan, 1982;Eastman, 1982;Gannon & Hornung, 1975;Glorfeld & Palko, 1988;Mayer, 1979;Ramsey, Atwood, & VanDoren, 1983;Shiel, 1981;Sime, Green, & Guest, 1973;van Merrienboer, 1988). The next section presents a brief review of related literature.…”