2000
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2729.2000.00118.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Programming by discovery

Abstract: The concept of Programming by Discovery refers to the process of designing programming environments and systems which use various visualisation, programming and interaction technologies in an effective way to help users, especially beginner programmers, in writing computer programs, understanding their dynamic behaviour, detecting any misconceptions and bugs associated with them, and seeing the effect of these programs on the underlying machine. A system for programming by discovery encourages a user to become… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0
3

Year Published

2003
2003
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
(18 reference statements)
0
18
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…In such a discovery type of learning the users are more likely to master the syntactic and semantic knowledge of programming because they are supported by algorithms and pseudocode like languages that are built around a small number of concepts, instead of having to cope with the dense detailed syntax of a programming language. At the same time, the users were aided to practise with full control, exploring their questions, forming hypotheses, testing the hypotheses and drawing their conclusions (Ramadhan, 2000). Although not all students using TLSS will develop such kinds of knowledge, the typical case reported in this study provides evidence for this as the students were gradually able to generate conclusions about the operation of the software and gain a greater understanding of the characteristics and functions of different commands.…”
Section: Providing An Active and Dynamic Learning Experiencementioning
confidence: 86%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In such a discovery type of learning the users are more likely to master the syntactic and semantic knowledge of programming because they are supported by algorithms and pseudocode like languages that are built around a small number of concepts, instead of having to cope with the dense detailed syntax of a programming language. At the same time, the users were aided to practise with full control, exploring their questions, forming hypotheses, testing the hypotheses and drawing their conclusions (Ramadhan, 2000). Although not all students using TLSS will develop such kinds of knowledge, the typical case reported in this study provides evidence for this as the students were gradually able to generate conclusions about the operation of the software and gain a greater understanding of the characteristics and functions of different commands.…”
Section: Providing An Active and Dynamic Learning Experiencementioning
confidence: 86%
“…Linn and Clancy (1992) advocated the case study approach to computer programming instruction. With the advance of technology, computer-based tools such as program visualization (Mayer, 1981;Jehng et al ., 1999;Ramadhan, 2000;Smith & Webb, 2000), animation (Kann et al ., 1997) and simulation (Thomas & Upah, 1996) have been developed and employed by researchers. They believed that the usefulness of the mental models provided by all these computer-based tools could help students to visualize hidden and internal changes in some conceptual parts of the underlying computer system, which in turn would enable them to observe how programs work and thus enhance their understanding of computer programming.…”
Section: Tools and Methods For Learning Programmingmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The literature also supports this kind of learning process, with findings suggesting that the learning takes place with more success using the theory and practice at the same time following the provision of the basics to the students (Crews and Murphy, 2004;Ziegler andCrews, 1999 as cited in Hu, 2004). In addition, there are studies emphasising that use of visuals in software ─ especially making use of visual tools in subjects associated with conditional statements and loops ─ and interactive methods have significant effect on student success and motivation (Arabacıoğlu, Bülbül, & Filiz, 2007;Cooper, Dann, & Pausch, 2003;Gültekin, 2006;Hu, 2004;Kelleher, Pausch, & Kiesler, 2007;Malan & Leitner, 2007;Peppler & Kafai, 2007;Ramadhan, 2000). There also are other studies demonstrating that using graphics and animations helps students pay more attention to classes (Bishop-Clark, Courte, & Howard, 2007;Brusilovsky & Spring, 2004;Lin & Zhang, 2003).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ramadhan (2000) synthesised certain empirical results (Gilmore & Green, 1988;Jones, 1984;Norman, 1983) and concluded:…”
Section: ) Points Out Thatmentioning
confidence: 99%