Introductory Programming: A Systematic Literature Review
- Submitting institution
-
Falmouth University
- Unit of assessment
- 32 - Art and Design: History, Practice and Theory
- Output identifier
- 27
- Type
- N - Research report for external body
- DOI
-
10.1145/3293881.3295779
- Commissioning body
- ITICSE (Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education)
- Month
- November
- Year
- 2018
- URL
-
-
- Supplementary information
-
-
- Request cross-referral to
- 11 - Computer Science and Informatics
- Output has been delayed by COVID-19
- No
- COVID-19 affected output statement
- -
- Forensic science
- No
- Criminology
- No
- Interdisciplinary
- No
- Number of additional authors
-
10
- Research group(s)
-
J - Pedagogy Futures
- Proposed double-weighted
- No
- Reserve for an output with double weighting
- No
- Additional information
- This is a Working Group Report commissioned by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) to conduct a systematic literature review on methods of teaching introductory programming. It examines literature published in the ACM Full Text Collection, IEEE Explore, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and Scopus between 2003 and 2017. The report builds upon Robins et al (2003), examining more recent developments in the field and following Kitchenham's (2004) approach to systematic literature reviews.
The work represents a considerable international research collaboration, spread across four stages: pre-conference; at-conference, where the working group met in person and presented preliminary findings; post-conference, pre-review; and post-conference, post-review. An earlier version of this report was presented at the 2018 ACM International Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE) and published as an extended abstract. This version of the report was published in the Companion Proceedings to the ITiCSE conference following peer-review.
Authors were selected via competitive process by the ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE). This assessed relevant experience, subject-matter expertise, and eminence in the field. The representation of several nations was also ensured.
Except for the lead authors (Luxton-Reilly and Simon), authorship order is alphabetical. All authors made an equal contribution to the research and the report. Michael Scott assumed ownership of 'The Student' and 'Tools using Games' sections. Scott was also consulted where games and educational psychology appeared in other sections.
The report has been recognized by other researchers as an example of good practice (e.g. http://husseinbakri.org/how-to-create-a-literature-review-without-the-fluff-and-nonsense/). Other researchers and practitioners have independently synthesized the key findings of the report for presentation to other audiences such as teachers (e.g. https://acbart.github.io/2019/01/01/cs1-lit-review-review/). It has also influenced the priorities for other researchers in the field (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1145/3291279.3339402).
- Author contribution statement
- -
- Non-English
- No
- English abstract
- -