A problem-like branching system describing what prizes (A through F) were awarded for particular outcomes of a tournament of games among three teams was presented to 200 subjects as either a verbal list with “go to” structure (Jump), a shortened verbal list (Short-Jump), nested verbal paragraphs with “if ... then..., else” structure (Nest), a matrix table (Example), or as diagrammatic representations of each of these. In tests of comprehension, the overall performance increased from lowest to highest as follows: Jump < Short-Jump ≃ Nest < Example, and this order was particularly strong for performance on complex questions relative to less complex questions. Jump and Short-Jump performance was relatively higher with diagrams and Example was lower with diagrams. Implications for a theory of problem representation and for development of computer programming languages were discussed.

/pdf/comprehension-as-affected-by-structure-of-problem-1yzwlp8exa.pdf

Instructional Variables in Meaningful Learning of Computer Programming.

Comprehension as affected by structure of problem representation

In the early stages of the development of high-level languages, radically differing alternatives were often promulgated. Each language had a dedicated corps of adherents who advocated the primacy of their facility. Turbulent debates among the protagonists were a common affair at conferences and in the trade journals. Now as the field matures, the vehement discussions have subsided and there is a widespread recognition of the usefulness of a variety of languages. Even the proponents of a single universal language have softened their tone and have accepted the multiple language condition.

background

/pdf/experimental-testing-in-programming-languages-stylistic-1wldf7az82.pdf

Experimental testing in programming languages, stylistic considerations and design techniques

Eighty non-programmers either received pretraining with a concrete model of the computer or not (Model vs. No Model) , received either a Logical or Scrmmblec sequence of text frmnes for computer programming, and were either alloyed to alter the order or not (S vs. E control). On a test, Model pretraining and S-control resulted in better performance on far transfer items, while No Model pretraining and E-control resulted in superior performance on straightforward problems. There were no reliable effects due to sequencing of frames. implications for instruction for technical information were discussed. S DEPARTMENTOP HEALTH. EDUCATION & WELPARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OP EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPROOuCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED PROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN ATH40 tT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY REPOS SENTOFF ICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE Or EOUCATION POSITION OR POLICY Paper read at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April 20, 19T6. Reprints may be obtained from: Richard E. Mayer, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106. 2 Objectives and theca. Mayer and Greens (19T2) have suggested that meaningful learning depends on the following processes: (1) recetring the to-be-learned information, (2) having a meaningful learning set available to which new information may be assimilated, (3) actively processing or activating the meaningful learning set during learning. The present experiment investigated tbree factors influencing the acquisition of a technical computer programming language by non-programmerspretraining with a concrete model of the computer expressed In familiar terms (which may influence the availability of a meaningful learning set), subject coutrol over the order of presentation of instructional frames (which may influence the activation of a meaningful learning set), and logical vs. scrambled sequencing of text frmnes (which may influence the amount, of information received). According to Ausubers (1968) concept of "advance organizers," pretraining with the model could help establish a meaningful learning set, and result in a qualitatively different kind of learning outcome as compared to nonanodel sabjeets who assimilated information to a less meaningful learning set. Differences in the transfer performancethe pattern of transferwould be predicted betueen the Model and No Model subjects. Similarly, subject control could result in active cognitive involvement (e.g., as suggested by Rothkopfis (19T0) concept of "Mathemmgenic activity"); hence such subjects would assimilate new information to a different type of set than EXperimenter-eontrol subjects, and develop qualitatively different learning outcomes. Again, differences in the pattern of transfer performance would be predicted. Finally, the sequencing of material may result in overall differences if the material is highly sequential and lengthy, but no difference in the pattern of transfer is predicted. Data sourte. The subjects ware 80 Indiana University students who participated in the experiment in order to fulfill a requirement for their introductor7

result

/pdf/differences-in-breadth-of-transfer-due-to-advance-organizers-5dhpaw37r2.pdf

Differences in Breadth of Transfer Due to Advance Organizers and Subject Control of Frame Sequencing.

/pdf/instructional-variables-in-meaningful-learning-of-computer-ij33o4uvvm.pdf

Instructional Variables in Meaningful Learning of Computer Programming.

Citations

Comprehension as affected by structure of problem representation

Experimental testing in programming languages, stylistic considerations and design techniques

Differences in Breadth of Transfer Due to Advance Organizers and Subject Control of Frame Sequencing.

Related Papers (5)

Different problem-solving competencies established in learning computer programming with and without meaningful models.

Some Conditions of Meaningful Learning for Computer Programming: Advance Organizers and Subject Control of Frame Order.

Teaching Ecology with a Programming Language

Practice and experience in the application of problem-based learning in computer programming course

The use of learning objects for teaching computer programming