Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:38:42.973Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

27 - Student Knowledge and Misconceptions

from Teacher and Student Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2019

By
Colleen M. Lewis ,
Michael J. Clancy  and
Jan Vahrenhold
Edited by
Sally A. Fincher  and
Anthony V. Robins
Sally A. Fincher
Affiliation:
University of Kent, Canterbury
Anthony V. Robins
Affiliation:
University of Otago, New Zealand
Get access

Summary

Students’ knowledge is at the center of computing education. Research relating to this knowledge has frequently focused on the difficulties experienced by students when learning, aspects of which are often referred to as “misconceptions.” We can see this research as helping educators with anticipating and understanding students’ learning difficulties. While there is a considerable body of literature on misconceptions in introductory computing, we review literature to demonstrate that documentation of misconceptions in computing extends beyond introductory topics. Additionally, we highlight strands of education research outside of CEdR and how it might apply within computing. For researchers, this chapter charts potential directions for future research that connects CEdR with education research outside of computing. For educators, this chapter provides resources for better understanding students’ difficulties and their origins and for adapting teaching practice.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research , pp. 773 - 800
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, W. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2011). Development and validation of instruments to measure learning of expert-like thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 33(9), 1289–1312.Google Scholar
Almstrum, V. L., Henderson, P. B., Harvey, V. J., Heeren, C., Marion, W. A., Riedesel, C., Soh, K.-L., & Tew, A. E. (2006). Concept inventories in computer science for the topic discrete mathematics. SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(4), 132–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, L. J., Garvin-Doxas, K., & Jackson, M. (2002). Defensive climate in the computer science classroom. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2002) (pp. 43–47). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8, 47–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, G. P., & Glaser, R. (1998). Investigating the cognitive complexity of science assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(3), 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, K. (2003). Test-Driven Development by Example. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Buswell, G. T. (1930). Summary of arithmetic investigations (1929). The Elementary School Journal, 30(10), 766–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonar, J., & Soloway, E. (1989). Preprogramming knowledge: A major source of misconceptions in novice programmers. Human–Computer Interaction, 1(2), 133–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How People Learn: Mind, Brain, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380–400.Google Scholar
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., & Carey, D. A. (1988). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of students’ problem solving in elementary arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(5), 385–401.Google Scholar
Chan, W. W. L., Au, T. K., & Tang, J. (2014). Strategic counting: A novel assessment of place-value understanding. Learning and Instruction, 29, 78–94.Google Scholar
Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045–1060.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4(1), 55–81.Google Scholar
Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Handron, C., & Hudson, L. (2013). The stereotypical computer scientist: Gendered media representations as a barrier to inclusion for women. Sex Roles, 69(1–2), 58–71.Google Scholar
Cheryan, S., Siy, J. O., Vichayapai, M., Drury, B. J., & Kim, S. (2011). Do female and male role models who embody STEM stereotypes hinder women’s anticipated success in STEM? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(6), 656–664.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–52.Google Scholar
Chung, A., Shao, P., & Vasquez, A. (2017). Students’ misconceptions about the types of values data structures can store. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 32(4), 72–78.Google Scholar
Clancy, M. (2004). Misconceptions and attitudes that interfere with learning to program. In Fincher, S. & Petre, M. (Eds.), Computer Science Education Research (pp. 85–100). Abingdon, UK: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science, and programming. Review of Research in Education, 16, 3–56.Google Scholar
Danielsiek, H., Paul, W., & Vahrenhold, J. (2012). Detecting and understanding students’ misconceptions related to algorithms and data structures. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2012) (pp. 21–26). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Davis, E. A., Linn, M. C., Mann, L. M., & Clancy, M. J. (1993). Mind your P’s and Q’s: Using parentheses and quotes in LISP. In Cook, C. R., Scholtz, J. C., & Spohrer, J. C. (Eds.), Empirical Studies of Programmers: Fifth Workshop (pp. 63–85). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Davis, E. A., Linn, M. C., & Clancy, M. J. (1995). Learning to use parentheses and quotes in LISP. Computer Science Education, 6(1), 15–31.Google Scholar
Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Simon, B. (2008). Evaluating a new exam question: Parsons’ problems. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘08) (pp. 113–124). New York: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
diSessa, A. A. (2014a). A history of conceptual change research: Threads and fault lines. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 88–108). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
diSessa, A. A. (2014b). The construction of causal schemes: Learning mechanisms at the knowledge level. Cognitive Science, 38(5), 795–850.Google Scholar
Dowhower, S. L. (1994). Repeated reading revisited: Research into practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 10(4), 343–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckerdal, A., & Thuné, M. (2005). Novice Java programmers’ conceptions of “object” and “class”, and variation theory. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘05) (pp. 89–93). New York: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felleisen, M., Findler, R. B., Flatt, M., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2000). How to Design Programs: An Introduction to Programming and Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fisler, K. (2014). The Recurring Rainfall Problem. In Proceedings of the International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER 2014) (pp. 35–42). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Fisler, K., Krishnamurthi, S., & Tunnell Wilson, P. (2017). Assessing and teaching scope, mutation, and aliasing in upper-level undergraduates. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2017) (pp. 21–26). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Fuson, K. C. (1998). Pedagogical, mathematical, and real-world conceptual-support nets: A model for building children’s multidigit domain knowledge. Mathematical Cognition, 4(2), 147–186.Google Scholar
Gal-Ezer, J., & Trakhtenbrot, M. (2016). Identification and addressing reduction-related misconceptions. Computer Science Education, 26(2–3), 89–103.Google Scholar
Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., & Vlissides, J. (1995). Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Ginat, D., & Blau, Y. (2017). Multiple levels of abstraction in algorithmic problem solving. In Proceedings of the 48th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2017) (pp. 237–242). New York: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gobet, F., Lane, P. C. R., Croker, S., Cheng, P. C.-H., Jones, G., Oliver, I., & Pine, J. M. (2001). Chunking mechanisms in human learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(6), 236–243.Google Scholar
Guzdial, M. (2015). Learner-centered design of computing education: Research on computing for everyone. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 8(6), 1–165.Google Scholar
Hamouda, S., Edwards, S. H., Elmongui, H. G., Ernst, J. V., & Shaffer, C. A. (2017). A basic recursion concept inventory. Computer Science Education, 27(2), 121–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). An instructional study: Improving the inferential comprehension of good and poor fourth-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(6), 821–829.Google Scholar
Herman, G. L., Loui, M. C., Kaczmarczyk, L. C., & Zilles, C. B. (2012). Describing the what and why of students’ difficulties in Boolean logic. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 12(1), Article 3, 28 pages.Google Scholar
Holland, S., Griffiths, R., & Woodman, M. (1997). Avoiding object misconceptions. In Proceedings of the 28th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGSCE 1997) (pp. 131–134). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, E. M., Witzel, B. S., Riccomini, P. J., Fries, K. M., & Kanyongo, G. Y. (2014). A meta-analysis of algebra interventions for learners with disabilities and struggling learners. Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 15(1), 36–47.Google Scholar
Kahney, H. (1989). What do novice programmers know about recursion? In Soloway, E. & Spohrer, J. C. (Eds.), Studying the Novice Programmer (pp. 209–228). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Karpierz, K., & Wolfman, S. A. (2014). Misconceptions and concept inventory questions for binary search trees and hash tables. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘13) (pp. 109–114). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Keeley, P., Eberle, F., & Farrin, L. (2005). Uncovering Student Ideas in Science, Vol. 1: 25 Formative Assessment Probes. Arlington, VA: National Science Teacher Association Press.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (1994). The Psychology of Writing. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kölling, M., & Rosenberg, J. (2001). Guidelines for teaching object orientation with Java. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘01) (pp. 33–36). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3–21.Google Scholar
Ladd, H. F., & Sorensen, L. C. (2017). Returns to teacher experience: Student achievement and motivation in middle school. Education Finance and Policy, 12(2), 241–279.Google Scholar
Lane, P. C., Cheng, P. C. H., & Gobet, F. (2000). CHREST+: A simulation of how humans learn to solve problems using diagrams. AISB Quarterly, 103, 24–30.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, J. R., Levin, M. E., Glasman, L. D., & Nordwall, M. B. (1992). Mnemonic vocabulary instruction: Additional effectiveness evidence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17(2), 156–174.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. M. (2012). Applications of Out-of-Domain Knowledge in Students’ Reasoning about Computer Program State (PhD dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
McCauley, R., Grissom, S., Fitzgerald, S., & Murphy, L. (2015). Teaching and learning recursive programming: A review of the research literature. Computer Science Education, 25(1), 37–66.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.Google Scholar
Miller, S. P., Butler, F. M., & Lee, K.-H. (1998). Validated practices for teaching mathematics to students with learning disabilities: A review of literature. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Murphy, L., Fitzgerald, S., Lister, R., & McCauley, R. (2012). Ability to “explain in plain English” linked to proficiency in computer-based programming. In Proceedings of the International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER ‘12) (pp. 111–118). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Nasir, N. S., & Hand, V. (2008). From the court to the classroom: Opportunities for engagement, learning, and identity in basketball and classroom mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(2), 143–179.Google Scholar
Nasir, N. S., & Shah, N. (2011). On defense: African American males making sense of racialized narratives in mathematics education. Journal of African American Males in Education, 2(1), 24–45.Google Scholar
Nathan, M. J., & Petrosino, A. (2003). Expert blind spot among preservice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 905–928.Google Scholar
O’Brien, D., Dias, M. G., Roazzi, A., & Cantor, J. B. (1998). Pinocchio’s nose knows: Preschool children recognize that a pragmatic rule can be violated, an indicative conditional can be falsified, and that a broken promise is a false promise. In Braine, M. D. S. & O’Brien, D. P. (Eds.), Mental Logic (pp. 447–457). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
O’Brien, D. P., Roazzi, A., Dias, M. G., Cantor, J. B., & Brooks, P. J. (2004). Violations, lies, broken promises, and just plain mistakes: The pragmatics of counterexamples, logical semantics, and the evaluation of conditional assertions, regulations, and promises in variants of Wason’s selection task. In Manktelow, K. & Chung, M. C. (Eds.), Psychology of Reasoning: Theoretical and Historical Perspectives (pp. 95–126). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, D., & Haden, P. (2006). Parson’s programming puzzles: A fun and effective learning tool for first programming courses. In Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education (pp. 157–163). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar
Pea, R. D. (1986). Language-independent conceptual “bugs” in novice programming. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1), 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedroni, M. & Meyer, B. (2010). Object-oriented modeling of object-oriented concepts: A case study in structuring an educational domain. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2010), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5941 (pp. 155–169). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Pollack, I. (1953). Assimilation of sequentially encoded information. The American Journal of Psychology, 66(3), 421–435.Google Scholar
Pollard, S., & Duvall, R. C. (2006). Everything I needed to know about teaching I learned in kindergarten: Bringing elementary education techniques to undergraduate computer science classes. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2006) (pp. 224–228). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Qian, Y. & Lehman, J. (2017). Students’ misconceptions and other difficulties in introductory programming: A literature review. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 18(1), Article 1, 24 pages.Google Scholar
Ragonis, N., & Ben-Ari, M. (2005). A long-term investigation of the comprehension of OOP concepts by novices. Computer Science Education, 15(3), 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rich, K. M., Strickland, C., Binkowski, T. A., Moran, C., & Franklin, D. (2017). K–8 learning trajectories derived from research literature: Sequence, repetition, conditionals. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘17) (pp. 182–190). New York: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivera, D., & Smith, D. D. (1988). Using a demonstration strategy to teach midschool students with learning disabilities how to compute long division. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(2), 77–81.Google Scholar
Rinderknecht, C. (2014). A survey on teaching and learning recursive programming. Informatics in Education, 13(1), 87–119.Google Scholar
Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 137–172.Google Scholar
Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Coyle, H. P., Cook-Smith, N., & Miller, J. L. (2013). The influence of teachers’ knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1020–1049.Google Scholar
Sajaniemi, J., & Kuittinen, M. (2005). An experiment on using roles of variables in teaching introductory programming. Computer Science Education, 15(1), 59–82.Google Scholar
Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32(4), 403–408.Google Scholar
Sanders, K., & Thomas, L. (2007). Checklists for grading object-oriented CS1 programs: Concepts and misconceptions. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘07) (pp. 166–170). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2014). Introduction: The new science of learning. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 1–18). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seppälä, O., Malmi, , , L., & Korhonen, A. (2006). Observations on student misconceptions – A case study of the build-heap algorithm. Computer Science Education, 16(3), 241–255.Google Scholar
Sfard, A. (1995). The development of algebra: Confronting historical and psychological perspectives. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14(1), 15–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, N. (2017). Race, ideology, and academic ability: A relational analysis of racial narratives in mathematics. Teachers College Record, 119(7), 1–42.Google Scholar
Smagorinsky, P., & Mayer, R. E. (2014). Learning to be literate. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 605–625). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, III, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.Google Scholar
Soloway, E. (1986). Learning to program = learning to construct mechanisms and explanations. Communications of the ACM, 29(9), 850–858.Google Scholar
Spohrer, J. G., & Soloway, E. (1986). Analyzing the high frequency bugs in novice programs. In Papers Presented at the First Workshop on Empirical Studies of Programmers (pp. 230–251). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Stahl, S. A., & Heubach, K. M. (2005). Fluency-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(1), 25–60.Google Scholar
Stephens-Martinez, K., Ju, A., Parashar, K., Ongowarsito, R., Jain, N., Venkat, S., & Fox, A. (2017). Taking advantage of scale by analyzing frequent constructed-response, code tracing wrong answers. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 56–64). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, R., O'Connor, K., Garrison, L., Jocuns, A., & Amos, D. M. (2008). Becoming an engineer: Toward a three dimensional view of engineering learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 355–368.Google Scholar
Vahrenhold, J., & Paul, W. (2014). Developing and validating test items for first-year computer science courses. Computer Science Education, 24(4), 304–333.Google Scholar
von Sydow, M. (2006). Towards a Flexible Bayesian and Deontic Logic of Testing Descriptive and Prescriptive Rules: Explaining Content Effects in the Wason Selection Task (PhD dissertation). University of Göttingen.Google Scholar
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535–585.Google Scholar
Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(3), 273–281.Google Scholar
Wason, P. C., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1972). Psychology of Reasoning: Structure and Content. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Webb, K. C., & Taylor, C. (2014). Developing a pre- and post-course concept inventory to gauge operating systems learning. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2014) (pp. 103–108). New York: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 266–271.Google Scholar
Winslow, L. E. (1996). Programming pedagogy – A psychological overview. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 28(3), 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witzel, B. S., Riccomini, P. J., & Schneider, E. (2008). Implementing CRA with secondary students with learning disabilities in mathematics. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(5), 270–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wortham, S. (2006). Learning Identity: The Joint Emergence of Social Identification and Academic Learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Young, R. M., & O’Shea, T. (1981). Errors in children’s subtraction. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 153–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×