Research article Special Issues

Exploring brain activity and transforming knowledge in visual and textual programming using neuroeducation approaches

  • Received: 05 May 2019 Accepted: 12 August 2019 Published: 02 September 2019
  • Eight (8) computer science students, novice programmers, who were in the first semester of their studies, participated in a field study in order to explore potential differences in their brain activity during programming with a visual programming language versus a textual programming language. The eight students were asked to develop two specific programs in both programming languages (a total of four tasks). The order of these programs was determined, while the order of languages in which they worked differed between the students. Measurement of cerebral activity was performed by the electroencephalography (EEG) imaging method. According to the analysis of the data it appears that the type of programming language did not affect the students' brain activity. Also, six students needed more time to successfully develop the programs they were asked with the first programming language versus the second one, regardless of the type of programming language that was first. In addition, it appears that six students did not show reducing or increasing brain activity as they spent their time on tasks and at the same time did not show a reduction or increase in the time they needed to develop the programs. Finally, the students showed higher average brain activity in the development of the fourth task than the third, and six of them showed higher average brain activity when developing the first versus the second program, regardless of the programming language. The results can contribute to: a) highlighting the need for a diverse educational approach for students when engaging in program development and b) identifying appropriate learning paths to enhance student education in programming.

    Citation: Spyridon Doukakis. Exploring brain activity and transforming knowledge in visual and textual programming using neuroeducation approaches[J]. AIMS Neuroscience, 2019, 6(3): 175-190. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2019.3.175

    Related Papers:

    [1] Martin Gugat, Falk M. Hante, Markus Hirsch-Dick, Günter Leugering . Stationary states in gas networks. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2015, 10(2): 295-320. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2015.10.295
    [2] Markus Dick, Martin Gugat, Günter Leugering . Classical solutions and feedback stabilization for the gas flow in a sequence of pipes. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2010, 5(4): 691-709. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2010.5.691
    [3] Mapundi K. Banda, Michael Herty, Axel Klar . Coupling conditions for gas networks governed by the isothermal Euler equations. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2006, 1(2): 295-314. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2006.1.295
    [4] Mapundi K. Banda, Michael Herty, Axel Klar . Gas flow in pipeline networks. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2006, 1(1): 41-56. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2006.1.41
    [5] Michael Herty . Modeling, simulation and optimization of gas networks with compressors. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2007, 2(1): 81-97. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2007.2.81
    [6] Michael Herty, Veronika Sachers . Adjoint calculus for optimization of gas networks. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2007, 2(4): 733-750. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2007.2.733
    [7] Martin Gugat, Rüdiger Schultz, Michael Schuster . Convexity and starshapedness of feasible sets in stationary flow networks. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2020, 15(2): 171-195. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2020008
    [8] Markus Musch, Ulrik Skre Fjordholm, Nils Henrik Risebro . Well-posedness theory for nonlinear scalar conservation laws on networks. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2022, 17(1): 101-128. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2021025
    [9] Magali Tournus, Aurélie Edwards, Nicolas Seguin, Benoît Perthame . Analysis of a simplified model of the urine concentration mechanism. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2012, 7(4): 989-1018. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2012.7.989
    [10] Klaus-Jochen Engel, Marjeta Kramar Fijavž, Rainer Nagel, Eszter Sikolya . Vertex control of flows in networks. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2008, 3(4): 709-722. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2008.3.709
  • Eight (8) computer science students, novice programmers, who were in the first semester of their studies, participated in a field study in order to explore potential differences in their brain activity during programming with a visual programming language versus a textual programming language. The eight students were asked to develop two specific programs in both programming languages (a total of four tasks). The order of these programs was determined, while the order of languages in which they worked differed between the students. Measurement of cerebral activity was performed by the electroencephalography (EEG) imaging method. According to the analysis of the data it appears that the type of programming language did not affect the students' brain activity. Also, six students needed more time to successfully develop the programs they were asked with the first programming language versus the second one, regardless of the type of programming language that was first. In addition, it appears that six students did not show reducing or increasing brain activity as they spent their time on tasks and at the same time did not show a reduction or increase in the time they needed to develop the programs. Finally, the students showed higher average brain activity in the development of the fourth task than the third, and six of them showed higher average brain activity when developing the first versus the second program, regardless of the programming language. The results can contribute to: a) highlighting the need for a diverse educational approach for students when engaging in program development and b) identifying appropriate learning paths to enhance student education in programming.



    Acknowledgments



    This research was partially supported by Fulbright Foundation–Greece, The American College of Greece, The Institute of Educational Policy, Greece, BiHeLab, Ionian University, Greece and Villanova University, USA. I would like to thank Dr Plerou for her support in EEG analysis, Professor Papalaskari and Mrs Giannopoulou for their comments.

    Conflict of interest



    The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

    [1] Giraffa LMM, Moraes MC, Uden L (2014) Teaching Object-Oriented Programming in First-Year Undergraduate Courses Supported by Virtual Classrooms. In Uden L. (Ed.), The 2nd International Workshop on Learning Technology for Education in Cloud (pp. 15–26). Springer Proceedings in Complexity.
    [2] Santos Á, Gomes A, Mendes AJ (2010) Integrating new technologies and existing tools to promote programming learning. Algorithms 3: 183–196. doi: 10.3390/a3020183
    [3] Price TW, Barnes T (2015) Comparing Textual and Block Interfaces in a Novice Programming Environment. In Proceedings of the eleventh annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research-ICER '15 (pp. 91–99). ACM.
    [4] Booth T, Stumpf S (2013) End-user experiences of visual and textual programming environments for Arduino. Lect Notes Comput Sc 7897L: 25–39.
    [5] Chao P (2016) Exploring students' computational practice, design and performance of problem-solving through a visual programming environment. Comput Educ 95: 202–215. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.010
    [6] Meltzoff AN, Kuhl PK, Movellan JR, et al. (2009) Foundations for a new science of learning. Science 325: 284–288. doi: 10.1126/science.1175626
    [7] Ansari D, Coch D, De Smedt B (2011) Connecting education and cognitive neuroscience: Where will the journey take us? Educ Philos Theory 43: 37–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00705.x
    [8] Sigman M, Peña M, Goldin AP, et al. (2014) Neuroscience and education: Prime time to build the bridge. Nat Neurosci 17: 497–502. doi: 10.1038/nn.3672
    [9] Nouri A (2016) The basic principles of research in neuroeducation studies. Int J Cogn Res Sci Eng Educ 4: 59–66.
    [10] Zebende GF, Oliveira Filho FM, Cruz JAL (2017) Auto-correlation in the motor/imaginary human EEG signals: A vision about the FDFA fluctuations. PloS one 12: e0183121. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183121
    [11] Grover S, Menlo RA, Menlo RA (2017) Measuring student learning in introductory block-based programming: Examining Misconceptions of Loops, Variables, and Boolean Logic. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 267–272.
    [12] Barnes DJ, Fincher S, Thompson S (1997) Introductory problem solving in computer science. In Daughton G, Magee P, (Eds.), 5th Annual Conference on the Teaching of Computing (pp. 36–39). Newtownabbey, UK: HE Academy for Information and Computer Sciences.
    [13] Bayman P, Mayer RE (1983) A diagnosis of beginning programmers' misconcep-tions of BASIC programming statements. Communications ACM 26: 677–679. doi: 10.1145/358172.358408
    [14] Lui AK, Kwan R, Poon M, et al. (2004) Saving weak programming students: Applying constructivism in a first programming course. SIGCSE Bulletin 36: 72–76.
    [15] Robins A, Rountree J, Rountree N (2003) Learning and teaching programming: a review and discussion. Comput Sci Educ 13: 137–172. doi: 10.1076/csed.13.2.137.14200
    [16] McGettrick A, Boyle R, Ibbett R, et al. (2005), Grand challenges in computing: Education-a summary. Comput J 48: 42–48.
    [17] Pears A, Seidman S, Malmi L, et al. (2007) A survey of literature on the teaching of introductory programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 39: 204–223. doi: 10.1145/1345375.1345441
    [18] Futschek G, Moschitz J (2011) Learning algorithmic thinking with tangible objects eases transition to computer programming. In International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (pp. 155–164). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
    [19] Georgouli K, Sgouropoulou C (2013) Collaborative Peer-Evaluation Learning Results in Higher Education Programming-based Courses. In ICBL2013 – International Conference on Interactive Computer aided Blended Learning (pp. 309–314).
    [20] Erwig M, Smeltzer K, Wang X (2016) What is a Visual Language? J Visual Lang Comput 38: 9–17.
    [21] Ainsworth SE (2006) DeFT: A conceptual framework for learning with multiple representations. Learn Instr 16: 183–198. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
    [22] Goldman SR (2003) Learning in complex domains: When and why do multiple representations help? Learn Instr 13: 239–244. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00023-3
    [23] Blackwell AF, Whitley KN, Good J, et al. (2001) Cognitive factors in programming with diagrams. Artif Intell Rev 15: 95–114. doi: 10.1023/A:1006689708296
    [24] Zohreh STM (2015) On the Influence of Representation Type and Gender on Recognition Tasks of Program Comprehension (Doctoral dissertation, École Polytechnique de Montréal).
    [25] Basu S, Biswas G, Kinnebrew JS (2016) Using Multiple Representations to Simultaneously Learn Computational Thinking and Middle School Science. In Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
    [26] Hoc JM, Green TRG, Samurçay R, et al. (1990) Psychology of Programming, London: Academic Press.
    [27] Howard-Jones PA (2011) From brain scan to lesson plan. Psychologist 24: 110–113.
    [28] Mayer RE (2017) How can brain research inform academic learning and instruction? Educ Psychol Rev 29: 835–846. doi: 10.1007/s10648-016-9391-1
    [29] Torresan P (2013) On educational neuroscience. An interview with Paul Howard-Jones. Formazione Insegnamento XI(1): 43–49.
    [30] Dresler M, Sandberg A, Ohla K, et al. (2013) Non-pharmacological cognitive enhancement. Neuropharmacology 64: 529–543. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2012.07.002
    [31] Floyd B, Santander T, Weimer W (2017) Decoding the Representation of Code in the Brain: An fMRI Study of Code Review and Expertise. In IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2017, 175–186.
    [32] Siegmund J, Kästner C, Apel S, et al. (2014) Understanding understanding source code with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Proceedings of the 36th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, 378–389.
    [33] Crk I, Kluthe T, Stefik A (2015) Understanding Programming Expertise: An Empirical Study of Phasic Brain Wave Changes. ACM T Comput-Hum Int 23: 2.
    [34] Radevski S, Hata H, Matsumoto K (2015) Real-time monitoring of neural state in assessing and improving software developers' productivity. Proceedings-8th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering, CHASE 2015, (May), 93–96.
    [35] Müller SC, Fritz T (2016) Using (bio)metrics to predict code quality online. Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering-ICSE'16, (December), 452–463.
    [36] Nakagawa T, Kamei Y, Uwano H, et al. (2014) Quantifying programmers' mental workload during program comprehension based on cerebral blood flow measurement: a controlled experiment. Companion Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering-ICSE Companion 2014, 448–451.
    [37] Parnin C (2011) Subvocalization-Toward Hearing the Inner Thoughts of Developers. In Proc. Int'l Conf. Program Comprehension (ICPC), 197–200.
    [38] Hansen ME, Lumsdaine A, Goldstone RL (2012) Cognitive Architectures: A Way Forward for the Psychology of Programming. Proceedings of the ACM International Symposium on New Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on Programming and Software-Onward!'12, 27.
    [39] Yusuf S, Kagdi H, Maletic JI, et al. (2007), Assessing the Comprehension of UML Class Diagrams via Eye Tracking. In 15th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC'07) (pp. 113–122).
    [40] Oliveira Filho FM, Cruz JL, Zebende GF (2019) Analysis of the EEG bio-signals during the reading task by DFA method. Physica A 525: 664–671. doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2019.04.035
    [41] Read GL, Innis IJ (2017) Electroencephalography (Eeg). The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1–18.
    [42] Larsen-Freeman D (1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Appl Linguist 18: 141–165. doi: 10.1093/applin/18.2.141
    [43] Tomlinson CA (1999) The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
    [44] Henz D, John A, Merz C, et al. (2018) Post-task effects on EEG brain activity differ for various differential learning and contextual interference protocols. Front Hum Neurosci 12: 19.
    [45] Lee S, Hooshyar D, Ji H, et al. (2018) Mining biometric data to predict programmer expertise and task difficulty. Cluster Comput 21: 1097–1107. doi: 10.1007/s10586-017-0746-2
    [46] Human Research and Engineering Directorate (2018) Predicting human behavior, Aberdeen Proving Ground. Available from: https://www.orau.org.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Falk M. Hante, Günter Leugering, Alexander Martin, Lars Schewe, Martin Schmidt, 2017, Chapter 5, 978-981-10-3757-3, 77, 10.1007/978-981-10-3758-0_5
    2. Tatsien Li, Lei Yu, Local Exact One-Sided Boundary Null Controllability of Entropy Solutions to a Class of Hyperbolic Systems of Balance Laws, 2019, 57, 0363-0129, 610, 10.1137/18M1187052
    3. Zlatinka Dimitrova, Flows of Substances in Networks and Network Channels: Selected Results and Applications, 2022, 24, 1099-4300, 1485, 10.3390/e24101485
    4. Martin Gugat, Alexander Keimer, Günter Leugering, Zhiqiang Wang, Analysis of a system of nonlocal conservation laws for multi-commodity flow on networks, 2015, 10, 1556-181X, 749, 10.3934/nhm.2015.10.749
    5. Martin Gugat, Michael Herty, 2022, 23, 9780323850599, 59, 10.1016/bs.hna.2021.12.002
    6. Martin Gugat, Rüdiger Schultz, David Wintergerst, Networks of pipelines for gas with nonconstant compressibility factor: stationary states, 2018, 37, 0101-8205, 1066, 10.1007/s40314-016-0383-z
    7. Michael Hintermüller, Nikolai Strogies, Identification of the friction function in a semilinear system for gas transport through a network, 2020, 35, 1055-6788, 576, 10.1080/10556788.2019.1692206
    8. Martin Gugat, Michael Herty, 2020, Chapter 6, 978-981-15-0927-8, 147, 10.1007/978-981-15-0928-5_6
    9. Martin Gugat, Richard Krug, Alexander Martin, Transient gas pipeline flow: analytical examples, numerical simulation and a comparison to the quasi-static approach, 2021, 1389-4420, 10.1007/s11081-021-09690-4
    10. Martin Gugat, Günter Leugering, Alexander Martin, Martin Schmidt, Mathias Sirvent, David Wintergerst, Towards simulation based mixed-integer optimization with differential equations, 2018, 72, 00283045, 60, 10.1002/net.21812
    11. Martin Gugat, Günter Leugering, Ke Wang, Neumann boundary feedback stabilization for a nonlinear wave equation: A strict $H^2$-lyapunov function, 2017, 7, 2156-8499, 419, 10.3934/mcrf.2017015
    12. Michael Schuster, Elisa Strauch, Martin Gugat, Jens Lang, Probabilistic constrained optimization on flow networks, 2022, 23, 1389-4420, 1, 10.1007/s11081-021-09619-x
    13. Andrea Corli, Magdalena Figiel, Anna Futa, Massimiliano D. Rosini, Coupling conditions for isothermal gas flow and applications to valves, 2018, 40, 14681218, 403, 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2017.09.005
    14. Martin Gugat, Günter Leugering, Alexander Martin, Martin Schmidt, Mathias Sirvent, David Wintergerst, MIP-based instantaneous control of mixed-integer PDE-constrained gas transport problems, 2018, 70, 0926-6003, 267, 10.1007/s10589-017-9970-1
    15. Martin Gugat, Michael Herty, Hui Yu, 2018, Chapter 50, 978-3-319-91544-9, 651, 10.1007/978-3-319-91545-6_50
    16. Martin Schmidt, Mathias Sirvent, Winnifried Wollner, A decomposition method for MINLPs with Lipschitz continuous nonlinearities, 2019, 178, 0025-5610, 449, 10.1007/s10107-018-1309-x
    17. Amaury Hayat, Peipei Shang, Exponential stability of density-velocity systems with boundary conditions and source term for the H2 norm, 2021, 153, 00217824, 187, 10.1016/j.matpur.2021.07.001
    18. Günter Leugering, 2020, Chapter 4, 978-981-15-0927-8, 77, 10.1007/978-981-15-0928-5_4
    19. Martin Gugat, Jens Habermann, Michael Hintermüller, Olivier Huber, Constrained exact boundary controllability of a semilinear model for pipeline gas flow, 2023, 0956-7925, 1, 10.1017/S0956792522000389
    20. Martin Gugat, Rüdiger Schultz, Boundary Feedback Stabilization of the Isothermal Euler Equations with Uncertain Boundary Data, 2018, 56, 0363-0129, 1491, 10.1137/16M1090156
    21. Georges Bastin, Jean-Michel Coron, 2016, Chapter 1, 978-3-319-32060-1, 1, 10.1007/978-3-319-32062-5_1
    22. Martin Gugat, Falk M. Hante, Li Jin, Closed loop control of gas flow in a pipe: stability for a transient model, 2020, 68, 2196-677X, 1001, 10.1515/auto-2020-0071
    23. Martin Gugat, David Wintergerst, Transient Flow in Gas Networks: Traveling waves, 2018, 28, 2083-8492, 341, 10.2478/amcs-2018-0025
    24. Daniel Rose, Martin Schmidt, Marc C. Steinbach, Bernhard M. Willert, Computational optimization of gas compressor stations: MINLP models versus continuous reformulations, 2016, 83, 1432-2994, 409, 10.1007/s00186-016-0533-5
    25. Lars Schewe, Martin Schmidt, 2019, Chapter 13, 978-3-662-58538-2, 173, 10.1007/978-3-662-58539-9_13
    26. Martin Gugat, Michael Schuster, Stationary Gas Networks with Compressor Control and Random Loads: Optimization with Probabilistic Constraints, 2018, 2018, 1024-123X, 1, 10.1155/2018/7984079
    27. Michael Herty, Hui Yu, Feedback boundary control of linear hyperbolic equations with stiff source term, 2018, 91, 0020-7179, 230, 10.1080/00207179.2016.1276635
    28. Martin Gugat, Stefan Ulbrich, The isothermal Euler equations for ideal gas with source term: Product solutions, flow reversal and no blow up, 2017, 454, 0022247X, 439, 10.1016/j.jmaa.2017.04.064
    29. Volker Mehrmann, Martin Schmidt, Jeroen J. Stolwijk, Model and Discretization Error Adaptivity Within Stationary Gas Transport Optimization, 2018, 46, 2305-221X, 779, 10.1007/s10013-018-0303-1
    30. Martin Schmidt, Falk M. Hante, 2023, Chapter 872-1, 978-3-030-54621-2, 1, 10.1007/978-3-030-54621-2_872-1
    31. Martin Gugat, Jan Giesselmann, An Observer for Pipeline Flow with Hydrogen Blending in Gas Networks: Exponential Synchronization, 2024, 62, 0363-0129, 2273, 10.1137/23M1563840
    32. Martin Gugat, Michael Schuster, Jan Sokołowski, The location problem for compressor stations in pipeline networks, 2024, 12, 2325-3444, 507, 10.2140/memocs.2024.12.507
    33. Ariane Fazeny, Martin Burger, Jan-F. Pietschmann, Optimal transport on gas networks, 2025, 0956-7925, 1, 10.1017/S0956792525000051
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(5391) PDF downloads(958) Cited by(8)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(2)  /  Tables(6)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog