Decoding the underlying cognitive processes and related support strategies utilised by expert instructors during source code comprehension

Abstract

Many novice programmers fail to comprehend source code and its related concepts in the same way that their instructors do. As emphasised in the Decoding the Disciplines (DtDs) framework, each discipline (including Computer Science) has its own unique set of mental operations. However, instructors often take certain important mental operations for granted and do not explain these 'hidden' steps explicitly when modelling problem solutions. A clear understanding of the underlying cognitive processes and related support strategies employed by experts during source code comprehension (SCC) could ultimately be utilised to help novice programmers to better execute the cognitive processes necessary to efficiently comprehend source code. Positioned within Step 2 of the DtDs framework, this study employed decoding interviews and observations, followed by narrative data analysis, to identify the underlying cognitive processes and related support (though often 'hidden') strategies utilised by a select group of experienced programming instructors during an SCC task. The insights gained were then used to formulate a set of important cognitive-related support strategies for efficient SCC. Programming instructors are encouraged to continuously emphasise strategies like these when modelling their expert ways of thinking regarding efficient SCC more explicitly to their novice students.

Evaluating the Decoding the Disciplines paradigm that is used for developing disciplinary habits of mind: A systematic literature review

“…This particular epistemological bottleneck is prevalent in 16 case studies (Grim et al 2004;Grim, Pace, and Shopkow 2004, 57 -65;Diaz 2008Diaz , 1211Diaz -1224Pace 2004, 13-21;Pace 2011, 107-119;Yeo 2017, 87-96;Sundt 2010, 267-284;Fischer 2018, 149-159;Miller-Young 2015, 32-57;Pettit 2017, 75-85;Kurz 2004, 85-94;Attas 2018, 1-23;Ardizzone 2004, 45-56;Zolan et al 2004, 23-32;Riegler 2019, 685-691;Durisen 2004, 33-43;Tingerthal 2013). The remaining articles expand on epistemological bottlenecks detailing students' difficulty to align abstract ideas or models to specific evidence in the discipline (Mohamed 2020;Cameron 2019); their inability to connect facts to a coherent whole instead of committing it to memory (Khomokhoana and Nel 2020;Schlegel 2004;Zolan et al 2004); and the challenge experienced when learners are asked to measure time and space (Zhu et al 2012).…”

“…This way of thinking is an area for development in courses such as Marketing, Geology and Service Learning (Rubin 2004;Zhu et al 2012;Miller-Young 2015). Remaining aspects of problem-solving is evident in studies where learners are expected to turn concrete, abstract questions into measurable ones as depicted in Introductory Psychology, Geology, Computer Source Coding, Service Learning and Criminal Justice (Pinnow 2016;Zhu et al 2012;Khomokhoana 2020;Miller-Young 2015;Sundt 2010).…”

Beyond Decoding the Disciplines 1.0

“…In addition, after the interviews they asked each instructor to complete a particular programming task in a think-aloud exercise that provided them with a second perspective on what instructors in their field needed to share with students. As a result of this three-part process, they were able to identify 17 steps that students needed to master to successfully replicate their teacher's methods of reading source code (Khomokhoana and Nel 2020). Their impressive work can provide a highly useful model for integrating the decoding process with other models for exploring what students need to learn.…”