Exploring Two Worked Example Designs for Learning Introductory Programming from Students’ Perspectives


  • Mariam Nainan Faculty of Art, Computing & Creative Industry, Sultan Idris Education University, Tanjong Malim, Perak, MALAYSIA
  • Balamuralithara Balakrishnan Faculty of Art, Computing & Creative Industry, Sultan Idris Education University, Tanjong Malim, Perak, MALAYSIA
  • Ahmad Zamzuri Mohamad Ali Faculty of Art, Computing and Creative Industries, Sultan Idris Education University, Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia




Worked examples, signalling, programming education


Worked examples are effective for learning problem solving but, only if students engage with the content. An approach to promote engagement is through signalling. This study compared worked example designs for learning introductory programming using two approaches for signaling: labelled and visualised. It explored students’ preferences and perceptions of the designs through a crossover design where students were exposed to both worked example designs. Data was collected through a questionnaire. Quantitative analysis showed that more students favoured visualised design. Qualitative analysis showed that students found both designs helped to understand the solution. Additionally, visualised worked examples also helped in understanding the problem, the relationship between problem and solution, as well as the programming process. Other differences were also identified.


Download data is not yet available.


Atkinson, R. K., Catrambone, R., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Aiding transfer in statistics: Examining the use of conceptually oriented equations and elaborations during subgoal learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 762-773. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.762

Catrambone, R. (1998). The subgoal learning model: Creating better examples so that students can solve novel problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(4), 355-376. http://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.127.4.355

Denny, P., Becker, B. A., Craig, M., Wilson, G., & Banaszkiewicz, P. (2019, July). Research this! Questions that computing educators most want computing education researchers to answer. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 259-267). https://doi.org/10.1145/3291279.3339402

Hanks, B., & Brandt, M. (2009). Successful and unsuccessful problem solving approaches of novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 24-28. http://doi.org/10.1145/1508865.1508876

Johnson, B. and Christensen, L. (2014) Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches, 5th ed., SAGE Publications.

Lemarié, J., Lorch Jr, R. F., Eyrolle, H., & Virbel, J. (2008). SARA: A text-based and reader-based theory of signaling. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 27-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701756321

Liaw, S. S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2), 864-873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.005

Loksa, D., & Ko, A. J. (2016, August). The role of self-regulation in programming problem solving process and success. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 83-91). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2960310.2960334

Lorch, R., Lemarié, J., & Grant, R. (2011). Signaling hierarchical and sequential organization in expository text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(3), 267–284. http://doi.org/10.1080/10888431003747535

Margulieux, L. E., & Catrambone, R. (2016). Improving problem solving with subgoal labels in expository text and worked examples. Learning and Instruction, 42, 58–71. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.12.002

Margulieux, L. E., Catrambone, R., & Guzdial, M. (2016). Employing subgoals in computer programming education. Computer Science Education, 26(1), 44-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2016.1144429

Mathieson, K. (2012). Exploring student perceptions of audiovisual feedback via screencasting in online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 26(3), 143-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2012.689166

Medeiros, R. P., Ramalho, G. L., & Falcão, T. P. (2019). A systematic literature review on teaching and learning introductory programming in higher education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 62(2), 77-90. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2018.2864133

Moreno, R. (2006). When worked examples don’t work: Is cognitive load theory at an Impasse? Learning and Instruction, 16(2 SPEC. ISS.), 170–181. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.006

Morrison, B. B., Margulieux, L. E., & Guzdial, M. (2015). Subgoals, context, and worked examples in learning computing problem solving. International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER), 21–29. http://doi.org/10.1145/2787622.278773

Morrison, B. B., Margulieux, L. E., Ericson, B., & Guzdial, M. (2016, February). Subgoals help students solve Parsons problems. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (pp. 42-47). https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844617

Nugroho, M. A., Setyorini, D., & Novitasari, B. T. (2019). The role of satisfaction on perceived value and e-learning usage continuity relationship. Procedia Computer Science, 161, 82-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.102

Ozcelik, E., Arslan-Ari, I., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 110–117. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.001

Peart, D. J., Rumbold, P. L., Keane, K. M., & Allin, L. (2017). Student use and perception of technology enhanced learning in a mass lecture knowledge-rich domain first year undergraduate module. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0078-6

Prunuske, A. J., Henn, L., Brearley, A. M., & Prunuske, J. (2016). A randomized crossover design to assess learning impact and student preference for active and passive online learning modules. Medical Science Educator, 26(1), 135- 141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-015-0224-5

Renkl, A. (2014). Toward an instructionally oriented theory of example‐based learning. Cognitive Science, 38(1), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12086

Schneider, S., Beege, M., Nebel, S., & Rey, G. D. (2018). A meta-analysis of how signaling affects learning with media. Educational Research Review, 23, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.11.001

Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. SAGE Publications.

Selby, C. C. (2015, November). Relationships: computational thinking, pedagogy of programming, and Bloom's Taxonomy. In Proceedings of the workshop in primary and secondary computing education (pp. 80-87). https://doi.org/10.1145/2818314.2818315

Skudder, B., & Luxton-Reilly, A. (2014, January). Worked examples in computer science. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference-Volume 148 (pp. 59-64). Australian Computer Society, Inc..

Smith, A. R., Cavanaugh, C., & Moore, W. A. (2011). Instructional multimedia: An investigation of student and instructor attitudes and student study behavior. BMC Medical Education, 11(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920- 11-38

Yuriev, E., Naidu, S., Schembri, L. S., & Short, J. L. (2017). Scaffolding the development of problem-solving skills in chemistry: guiding novice students out of dead ends and false starts. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(3), 486-504. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00009J




How to Cite

Nainan, M., Balakrishnan, B., & Mohamad Ali, A. Z. (2020). Exploring Two Worked Example Designs for Learning Introductory Programming from Students’ Perspectives. Journal of Technology and Humanities, 1(2), 20-29. https://doi.org/10.53797/jthkkss.v1i2.3.2020