Ejercicios por computador vs. Ejercicios en papel: un estudio comparativo

IF 0.5 Q4 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Omar Iván Trejos-Buriticá
{"title":"Ejercicios por computador vs. Ejercicios en papel: un estudio comparativo","authors":"Omar Iván Trejos-Buriticá","doi":"10.18359/RAVI.2927","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article presents the results of a research in the classroom in the subject Programming I, initial course of computer programming in Systems Engineering and Computing. The research pretend to approach the impact of two methodologies of problem solving based on programming logic and the use of programming languages for its implementation. We use a qualitative perspective, as far as the students' performance as programmers, and quantitative, in what corresponds to the qualification of the written evaluations. It has been used to structure two parallel courses, using different methodologies for solving programming problems. With the first group, a methodology was implemented based on the conceptual resolution of these problems using solutions on paper and with the other one we use resolution of problems based on the intensive use of the computer. The results show a very interesting trend that allows us to make some important inferences regarding the promotion of logic and the approach of solutions in the paper against the use of the computer and the deepening in the purely technological knowledge. Conclusions leave open doors of the discussion about the different and possible ways that the students of programming to appropriate, assimilate and apply the own knowledge of this area","PeriodicalId":55915,"journal":{"name":"Academia y Virtualidad","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academia y Virtualidad","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18359/RAVI.2927","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article presents the results of a research in the classroom in the subject Programming I, initial course of computer programming in Systems Engineering and Computing. The research pretend to approach the impact of two methodologies of problem solving based on programming logic and the use of programming languages for its implementation. We use a qualitative perspective, as far as the students' performance as programmers, and quantitative, in what corresponds to the qualification of the written evaluations. It has been used to structure two parallel courses, using different methodologies for solving programming problems. With the first group, a methodology was implemented based on the conceptual resolution of these problems using solutions on paper and with the other one we use resolution of problems based on the intensive use of the computer. The results show a very interesting trend that allows us to make some important inferences regarding the promotion of logic and the approach of solutions in the paper against the use of the computer and the deepening in the purely technological knowledge. Conclusions leave open doors of the discussion about the different and possible ways that the students of programming to appropriate, assimilate and apply the own knowledge of this area
电脑练习与纸上练习:比较研究
本文介绍了系统工程与计算专业计算机程序设计基础课“程序设计ⅰ”课堂研究的结果。该研究旨在探讨基于编程逻辑和使用编程语言实现的两种问题解决方法的影响。我们使用定性的观点,就学生作为程序员的表现而言,以及定量的观点,与书面评估的资格相对应。它被用来构建两个并行的课程,使用不同的方法来解决编程问题。在第一组中,我们采用了一种方法,该方法是基于使用纸上解决方案对这些问题进行概念性解决的方法,而在另一组中,我们使用基于大量使用计算机的方法来解决问题。结果显示了一个非常有趣的趋势,使我们能够对论文中逻辑的推广和解决方案的方法做出一些重要的推论,反对使用计算机和深化纯技术知识。结论为讨论编程学生适当、吸收和应用本领域知识的不同和可能的方法敞开了大门
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Academia y Virtualidad
Academia y Virtualidad EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
自引率
37.50%
发文量
12
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信