Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Empirical studies of functional programming learners evaluating recursive functions

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we report some empirical studies of students evaluating recursive functions defined according to the rules of the functional programming language Miranda, and describe the misconceptions and processing strategies observed. We then discuss the implications of these observations as regards teaching content.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson J., Farrell R. & Sauers R. (1984). Learning to program in LISP.Cognitive Science 8: 87–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson J. R., Pirolli P. & Farrell R. (1988). Learning to program recursive functions, in CM, Glaser, Fair, eds,The Nature of Expertise. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Bhuiyan S., Greer J. & McCalla G. (1991). Characterizing, rationalizing and reifying mental models of recursion.13th Cognitive Science Conference. Chicago: Illinois, pp. 120–125.

  • Bird R. & Wadler P. (1988).Introduction to Functional Programming. Prentice Hall.

  • Booth S. (1992). The experience of learning to program. Example: Recursion.Fifth Annual Psychology of Programming Interest Group workshop. Paris: INRIA, pp. 122–145.

  • du Boulay B., O'Shea T. & Monk J. (1981). The black box inside the glass box: presenting computing concepts to novices.International journal of Man-Machine Studies 14: 237–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung P., Brayshaw M., du Boulay B. & Elsom-Cook M. (1990). Towards a taxonomy of novices' misconceptions of the PROLOG interpreter.Instructional Science 19: 311–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green T. R. G., Bellamy R. K. E. & Parker J. (1987). Parsing-gnisrap: a model of device use, in G. Oison, S. Sheppard & E. Soloway, eds,Empirical Studies of Programmers, Vol. 2. Ablex.

  • Holyer I. (1991).Functional Programming with Miranda. Pitman.

  • Kahney H. (1989). What do novice programmers know about recursion?, in E. Soloway & J. Spohrer, eds,Studying the Novice Programmer, Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

  • Kessler C. M. & Anderson J. R. (1989). Learning flow of control: recursive and iterative procedures, in E. Soloway & J. Spohrer, eds,Studying the Novice Programmer. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

  • Kurland D. M. & Pea R. D. (1983). Children's mental models of recursive logo programs.Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Rochester N.Y.: University of Rochester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer R. (1979). A psychology of learning BASIC.Communications of the ACM 22(11): 589–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirolli P. & Anderson J. (1985). The role of learning from examples in the acquisition of recursive programming skills.Canadian Journal of Psychology 39(2): 240–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirolli P. (1986). A cognitive model and computer tutor for programming recursion.Human-Computer Interaction 2: 319–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirolli P. (1991). Effects of examples and their explanations in a lesson on recursion: a production system analysis.Cognition and Instruction 8(3): 207–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherz Z., Goldberg D. & Fund Z. (1990). Cognitive Implications of Learning PROLOG-Mistakes and Misconceptions.Journal of Educational Computing Research 6: 89–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal J. (1992). Empirical studies of functional programming learners evaluating recursive functions.Technical Report CS-92-19, Department of Mathematical and Computing Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 5XH, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal J. & Schuman S. (1992). Empirical studies of learners of functional programming.Proceedings of the Fifth Annual PPIG workshop, France: INRIA, Dec. 1992, pp. 197–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soloway E. (1985). From problems to programs via plans: The content and structure of knowledge for introductory LISP programming.Journal Educational Computing Research 1(2): 157–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor J. (1990). Analysing novices analysing PROLOG: what stories do novices tell them-selves about PROLOG?.Instructional Science 19: 283–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Someren M. W. (1990). What's wrong? Understanding beginner's problems with PROLOG.Instructional Science 19: 257–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • White R. (1988). Effects of Pascal knowledge on Novice PROLOG Programmers.DAI Research paper no. 399. University of Edinburgh.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematical and Computing Sciences, University of Surrey, GU2 5XH, Guildford, England

    Judith Segal

Authors
  1. Judith Segal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Segal, J. Empirical studies of functional programming learners evaluating recursive functions. Instr Sci 22, 385–411 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00891962

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00891962

Keywords

Search

Navigation