Interpersonal process recall: a novel approach to illuminating students’ software development processes

References

• Ahmadzadeh, M., Elliman, D., & Higgins, C. (2005, June). An analysis of patterns of debugging among novice computer science students. In Proceedings of the 10th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, Caparica, Portugal (pp. 84-88). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Barr, M., Holden, S., Phillips, D., & Greening, T. (1999). An exploration of novice programming errors in an object-oriented environment. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 31(4), 42–46.
   Google Scholar
• Bellamy, R. K. (1994). What does pseudo-code do? A psychological analysis of the use of pseudo-code by experienced programmers. Human-Computer Interaction, 9(2), 225–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennedsen, J., & Caspersen, M. E. (2005, February). Revealing the programming process. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, St. Louis, Missouri,USA (pp. 186-190). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Blinman, S., & Cockburn, A. (2005, January). Program comprehension: Investigating the effects of naming style and documentation. In Proceedings of the Sixth Australasian conference on User interface-Volume 40, Newcastle, Australia (pp. 73–78). Australian Computer Society, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Chao, P. Y. (2016). Exploring students’ computational practice, design and performance of problem-solving through a visual programming environment. Computers & Education, 95, 202–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6–11.
   Google Scholar
• Crosby, M. E., Scholtz, J., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2002, June). The roles beacons play in comprehension for novice and expert programmers. In 14th Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group (pp. 58–73).
   Google Scholar
• de Bruin, A. (2006). Fostering expert learning strategies in novices.
   Google Scholar
• DePasquale, P. J., Locasto, M. E., Kaczmarczyk, L., & Martinovic, M. (2012, October). TODO: Help students improve commenting practices. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2012, Seattle, Washington, USA (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, S. H. (2004, March). Using software testing to move students from trial-and-error to reflection-in-action. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, Norfolk, Virginia, USA (pp. 26-30). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Eteläpelto, A. (1993). Metacognition and the expertise of computer program comprehension. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), 243–254.
   Google Scholar
• Falkner, K., Szabo, C., Vivian, R., & Falkner, N. (2015, May). Evolution of software development strategies. In Software Engineering (ICSE), 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on, Florence, Italy (Vol. 2, pp. 243–252). IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Fekete, A., Kay, J., Kingston, J., & Wimalaratne, K. (2000, March). Supporting reflection in introductory computer science. In Proceedings of the 31st SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, Austin, Texas, USA (pp. 144-148). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Gaspar, A., & Langevin, S. (2007, May). Restoring coding with intention in introductory programming courses. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGITE conference on Information technology education, Destin, Florida, USA (pp. 91–98). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Gaspar, A., Langevin, S., & Boyer, N. (2009). Constructivist apprenticeship through antagonistic programming activities. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of information science and technology, second edition (pp. 708–714). IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• George, S. E. (2002). Learning and the reflective journal in computer science. Australian Computer Science Communications, 24(1), 77–86.
   Google Scholar
• Golding, C. (2018). Discerning student thinking: A practical theoretical framework for recognising or informally assessing different ways of thinking. Teaching In Higher Education, 1–15. doi:10.1080/13562517.2018.1491024
   Google Scholar
• Grandell, L., Peltomäki, M., & Salakoski, T. (2005, November). High school programming—A beyond-syntax analysis of novice programmers’ difficulties. In Proceedings of the Koli Calling 2005 Conference on Computer Science Education, Koli, Finland (pp. 17–24).
   Google Scholar
• Grossman, R. (2009). Structures for facilitating student reflection. College Teaching, 57(1), 15–22.
   Google Scholar
• Harland, T. (2005). Developing a portfolio to promote authentic enquiry in teacher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(3), 327–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kagan, N., & Kagan, H. (1990). IPR: A validated model for the 1990s and beyond. The Counseling Psychologist, 18(3), 436–440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kagan, N., Schauble, P., Resnikoff, A., Danish, S. J., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1969). Interpersonal process recall. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 148(4), 365–374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz, I. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1987). Debugging: An analysis of bug-location strategies. Human-Computer Interaction, 3(4), 351–399.
   Google Scholar
• Kölling, M., & Barnes, D. J. (2004, March). Enhancing apprentice-based learning of Java. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, Norfolk, Virginia, USA (pp. 286-290). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Koulouri, T., Lauria, S., & Macredie, R. D. (2015). Teaching introductory programming: A quantitative evaluation of different approaches. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(4), 26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyle, J. (2003). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 861–878.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Machanick, P. (2007). A social construction approach to computer science education. Computer Science Education, 17(1), 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Mäntylä, M. V., & Lassenius, C. (2009). What types of defects are really discovered in code reviews? IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 35(3), 430–448.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGill, T. J., & Volet, S. E. (1997). A conceptual framework for analyzing students’ knowledge of programming. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(3), 276–297.
   Google Scholar
• Moskal, A. C. M., Gasson, J., & Parsons, D. (2017, August). The 'Art' of Programming: Exploring Student Conceptions of Programming through the Use of Drawing Methodology. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 39–46). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Perkins, D. N., Hancock, C., Hobbs, R., Martin, F., & Simmons, R. (1986). Conditions of learning in novice programmers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1), 37–55.
   Google Scholar
• Prior, J., Ferguson, S., & Leaney, J. (2016, February). Reflection is hard: Teaching and learning reflective practice in a software studio. In Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference, Canberra, Australia (p. 7). ACM.
   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
• Rubin, M. J. (2013, March). The effectiveness of live-coding to teach introductory programming. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer science education, Denver, Colorado, USA (pp. 651–656). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, L., Ratcliffe, M., & Thomasson, B. (2004, March). Scaffolding with object diagrams in first year programming classes: Some unexpected results. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, Norfolk, Virginia, USA (pp. 250-254). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Vainio, V., & Sajaniemi, J. (2007, June). Factors in novice programmers’ poor tracing skills. In Proceedings of the 12th annual SIGCSE conference on Innocation and technology in computer science education, Dundee, Scotland (pp. 236-240). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• VanDeGrift, T., Caruso, T., Hill, N., & Simon, B. (2011, March). Experience report: Getting novice programmers to THINK about improving their software development process. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, Dallas, Texas, USA (pp. 493–498). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Wass, R., & Moskal, A. C. M. (2017). What can Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR) offer academic development?. International Journal for Academic Development, 22(4), 293–306.
   Google Scholar
• Whalley, J., & Kasto, N. (2014, June). A qualitative think-aloud study of novice programmers’ code writing strategies. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science education, Uppsala, Sweden (pp. 279–284). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Yenigalla, L., Sinha, V., Sharif, B., & Crosby, M. (2016, July). How novices read source code in introductory courses on programming: An eye-tracking experiment. In International Conference on Augmented Cognition, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (pp. 120–131). Springer, Cham.
   Google Scholar
• Zander, C., Boustedt, J., McCartney, R., Moström, J. E., Sanders, K., & Thomas, L. (2009, August). Student transformations: Are they computer scientists yet?. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computing education Research Workshop, Berkeley, California, USA (pp. 129–140). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Zick, A., Granieri, M., & Makoul, G. (2007). First-year medical students’ assessment of their own communication skills: A video-based, open-ended approach. Patient Education and Counseling, 68(2), 161–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar