Linda McIver did a PhD on 'Syntactic and Semantic Issue sin Introductory
Programming Education' Monash Uni.
Also Burton and Bruhn 'Teaching programming in the OOP Era' SIGCSE Bulletin
\Vol 35 Number 2 June 2003
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Olga Smyslova
Sent: Tue 08/03/2005 03:54
To: [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: RE: PPIG discuss: Object-oriented vs. procedural programming:
material for a study.
Thank you very much, Gerold!
Reading the paper by Lutz Prechelt :). Yes, you are correct with the
idea of not-polluted subjects (I am thinking of non-technical students) and
limitation of the other factors. I understand that languages like Java should
be out of the discussion: that's why I am asking for help - I have a real
problem with choosing a particular language for the study. If anybody have an
idea, I would very appreciate it!
With warmest wishes,
Olga.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PPIG discuss: Object-oriented vs. procedural programming:
material for a study.
hello olga,
lutz prechelt set up one of the few scientific programming
language comparison studies a few years back.
while there are a lot of limitations in that study i think
the general research set up was quite good. although the
goals were very different from yours you may want to have
a look at it:
http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/~prechelt/Biblio/jccpprtTR.pdf
in general i would choose languages that expose the respective
concept -OO or functional- in a most simple way, so languages
like C++, java or fortran should be out of discussion.
you should limit other factors that strongly influence the
thinking process like typed or untyped languages (either both
approaches types or both approaches untyped).
concerning the search for subjects: why not go to a local
school and offer them to teach two classes in programming?
i think that university students in technical areas could
be mentally too polluted.
best regards,
gerold ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------ You wrote: ------
> Dear PPIG members,
>
> I am new to the discussion, so let be briefly introduce myself. I
graduated from Moscow State University, Russia. Psychology of programming is
among my primary scientific interests; my dissertation research was about
computer hacking motivations. Now I live in US and work for a Lab in Moscow,
while looking for research opportunities in Bay Area, CA.
>
> I am planning a study of programming languages influence on
thinking. For that purpose I need to simulate a learning process of
Object-oriented programming, Functional programming, and Procedural
Programming, so novices could learn a few concepts from one of the programming
languages or environments, and then be tested (or asked to solve a task).
>
> The problem is how to find an opportunity to teach naive subjects
these concepts of OOP or procedural programming: some of the colleagues
suggested to try object-oriented Logo, some - try to find any environments
which make both approaches available. From my point of view, these environments
should have different levels of abstractions to represent. I also would love to
read more about the underlying differences between those approaches.
>
> If you have any suggestions or thoughts, or literature on the topic,
please, share! I appreciate your help very much!
>
> With warmest wishes,
>
> Olga Smyslova.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.6 - Release Date: 3/1/2005
>
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.6 - Release Date: 3/1/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.6 - Release Date: 3/1/2005
<Ã+ÂÃÅÃÅÃÂÃÅ
â8rÃiÃÅÂÃÅhâÃâÂÂÃâÂâÂâ+ÅwÃÃrÃyÂwiÃÅÂÃÅhâÃâÂÂÃâÂâÂâ+ÅwÃÂÂÃxÃ8rÃjÂÅÃÂÃÃ
âÂjÂÅÃÂoÅÃÂÃÂËÂÂ
