The Effects of Learning a Computer Programming Language on the Logical Reasoning of School Children
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RtsumE ED 205 206 'IR 009 510 AUTHOR: Seidman; Robert H. The Effects of Learnita a COMpItet Programming 'Language on the Logical reasoning of SchObl Children. PnB.DATE 1U Apt 81 NOTE _63p.: Paper _presented St the Annual Meeting-of the_. American Educational Research Association (LOS Angeles; CA April 14 19911. 'EDPS PRICE NE01/PC03 Plus'Postaae. DESCRIPTOPS Achievement WAS: AntlytiS of Covariance: Analysis of Variande:Cnanitive Processes: Computer Science Educatint: Elementary Education: Grade 5: Learning Processes: *Logical Thinkina: *Microcomputers: *Programing Languages TDESTIFTEPS *LOGO System ABSTPAC" The research reported in this paper explores the . syntactical and semantic 1!_tik_betWeen Computer programmingstatements and logical principles, and addresses the effects of learninga programming language on logical reasoning ability; Fifthgrade_ students !r. a pubIc school in SyracuseNew York; were randomly selected as subiectsi and then randomly placed in eitherthe experimental or:the control group. The'experimertalITOdp was taught LOGO, a programming language developed for-use with young childreni while the control croup received no-Spetial_inttudtion. At the end of the tr period,both aroupsWere adiin tered apitmentseries of tests measuring_their conditional reasoning abi fsities.Tests were scored in two_distinct waysi and the.twogroups were statistically compared Within both scoring schemes by split-plot,two-factor repeated measures and one-way analysis of variance. Itwasfound that 'students in the experimental group who interpretedconditional -logic statements biconditionallv performed significantly better on the irveision_fallacv'prinCiple than the controlgroup: no tignifidtht 'difference was found whet test items were scored in thetraditional manner. Comparison of_pre-! and post-experiment achievement test scores shored a signifidtnt improvement in reading only for the control group. Some areas for-further researchare suggested and a 5a -item bibT4-ographv is attached._ (MEP **********************************************************************, * Peproductions supplied by FORS are the best thatcan be made from the original document. **********************************************************************, .174. a lEALTPI, OF THIS -00CUMEA Vows _REeito. DUCED 14_4,11rREcet D FROM . THE PERU:Non RIGIN STATED P041i141-ONS SENT OFFICI REPRE- EDUCATION 7LoTElpf THE EFFECTS OF LEARNING A CRAMMING LANGUAGE ON THE -LOGICAL REASON QUOHILDREN 't Robert H. SeidmaniCI: Department-of Technology & So- State University of New York at 1 American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting Los Angeles, California Apkil ,14, 1981 = "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY Robert H. Seidman TO. THE EDUCATIONAL RESO INFORMATADN CENTER (ERIC)." C) 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS. I. Introduction . II. ;. Conditional Logic Principles and Computer Programming A. Conditiona'. LogicFrincipIes B:Standard Cohditional'Brafich/Statement and Logical Principles 7 C. Explicit ELSE Conditional .,Branch Statement and Logical Principles 12 D., Implicit ELSE 'Interpretation and Logical Principles . 17 III.. The Experiment and Results 1 . A. The Design , 19 B. Subjects. and Their Environment .., . ... 20 C. Educational Treatment . .;-; . .. ; . 23. D. Measures and-Asults _- ' 27 E. Hypdtheses and Inferential ExperiMental Results 38 -F. Summary . : , 4. IV. Conclusions and Discussion 46 A. Conclusions 46 B. Discussiop 47 Notes 52 Bibliography _55 , UI. INTR6DUCTION central quest/ion addressed -in the research reported here is: what areithe_eflects--,-AE-any, of learning a computer programminganguage uponrhe learner's. ability to reason logically? Logical reasoning is an important cognitive attribute of central _ _ __ importance la many aspectsof life; There is.fairlytddespreAd agreedentamong educators and the general public '.that th6. deVelOpment of problem solvingand critical thinking abilities in students axe two major goals of the educational system.' It.has been argued;quite persuasively; that logical reasoning i.e.; the drawing of valid inferences and correctly judging whetheror not a _ statement follows from others necessarily) it -centralto both problem solving and critical rhiekieg.2 Indeed; it is difficuit to imagine an-approachto _ . :Ott:bled solving that does not include some aspect of deductive\or inductive reasoning. Can learning a computer programming language influehde the Iearneris ordinary7latigeage Logi-6AI reasoning ability?3 Ati empirical test of this question is vital since the_ratesat which itrocom or ome and- school use is Increasing andL-isnot-likely---to-aliat:e7for at least a decade4. Inaddition, the teaching of,computer programming has moved downward in the school curriculum from college to elementary school and shows signs. Of becoming widetpread45 If research shquld show that logical reasoning.abilityis enhanced by . learning4a computer programming. then there.wquId exist acompelling practical incentivelor incorporationg computer programming into school curricula at all /evels. In addition, this method of (indirect)instruction in logic could prove to be a viable alternative,to the kind ,of directlogic instruction which hs been largely ineffectual in the schools.6 - ) However, should empirical studies show that learninga computer programming' language- results in learning "incorrect': logical principles,then . a warding:cad b -,Sounded: learning computer programming can confound'aetempts tO teach logicar4 easoning and. thus. the learner's problem sOIving and critical thinking abilities; Re-Stitttuth AS these might lead td, a. collaborative effort-between edudatOrS and computer scientiststo redesign certain aspects of computer programming Iang es. .ConditionaI logic statements play a significant:role in ditcourse' 'associated with such things as explanation and arguMantation. Alsoilawsi _ _ ._ causal relationshipi, possibilities, as wellas evidencesreIationships are frequently expressed in terms of logical statements (particularlyiconditional . "logic). In addition, the. :development of logicil structuresis 'a key notion in Piaget's theory of cognitive develOpti6t and it is thought that the ontoganesis.b& logital necessity reflectS the development of these '* structures.7 a The us 81141111Orl..11 number and scopej haSgrown '.-____L-----tremendonsly since the:advent of microcomputers in 1975 'Inexpensive h _ P microcomputers ( "personal computers") now cost as ttle as WO and are appearidiNinhomes and schools in increasing'nt;rber. Between 1975 ane1979-, over 500,000 personal computers-were sold in the Un ted States With an equal- . number produced in .1980 aleine..'Ohe technologyassessment predicts that 3. Million units will be sold to first-time'b 'ersin 1985 and that by 1990 a cumulative sales total of 9 million will reached.8 i ._-- While some computer use is undoubtedly for entertainmentpurposes, much °ft is' explicitly for educational purposes and is marketedas sOch.9 The low cost of these machines is making computer programming possible fora large numberOf persons and the aducational system is responding by.p*rcha&ing great many machines and by offering an increasing number ofcourses in computer ProgramMing at all levels of the system. .Some educators and policy planners suggest that proficiency in computer programming should rank with reading, writing and arithmetic literacy. One implication is that computer programming should be, a requisite for grade. advancement-beginning as early as Kindergarten. Thus; the kind ofj-eserch_ reported here is both timely and vital.10 Section .1I. shows how certain computer programming language statementsare Syntactically and semantically (dis)similar to ordiaqiy-language conditional statements. Depending upon the user's interpretation of these ordinary-'. language conditional statem4nts, the computer statements constitute "correct"'",, or "incorrect" indirect instruction in the validity add. fallacy principles of Section III presents an experiment that attempts to answer the central question and ^whick demonstrates the importance of- carefully assessj.ngtigC = logical standards againSt which logical test items are scoredas "correct" and "incorrect." Section IV consistsof conclusions drawn from this study and a discussion of the results. I know of no previously published research that demonstrates the syntactical and semantic li:tik between computer programming statements-and logical principles. Nor do I know of research that addresses the effects of learning.a 'computer programming language on: logical reasoning ability- . II CONDITION4LIOGIC 'PRINCIPLES AND COMPUTER PROGRAMMING .7. _ _ _ _ Conditional Logic Principles ____Bp7reason correctly14italprintiples: Conditional Ibgic is atype of propositional logic that-Utes the logical . connectives; "if;" "if- then," "only if," and "if'afid tal.if- to connect a a4tecedent and consequent ordinarY=language propositions (represented here by 5 AP' p"_and "4i" respectively). I focus - 4 upon the! "if-then" connective since "if 0'; then q" (called the logical conditIonal_statement) isa fairly -Commonly used locution in ordinary discourses In additipn, it is often usedto reflect deductivenecessityf a conclusion folio necessarily from a premiseor set of premises by virtue of the formal structure of the premise(s) and conclusion without appear to empirical evidence. It is logical convention that the binary truth fuattioh teprOenting.the conditional. statement renders-the statement true for all troth-,vaIue r=Matti ons_ of_i