Judul PI:
PEMBUATAN APLIKASI PENGOLAH DATA PASIEN KLINIK Dr. LINDA HALIM MENGGUNAKAN VISUAL BASIC 6.0 DAN MICROSOFT ACCESS
PEMBUATAN APLIKASI PENGOLAH DATA PASIEN KLINIK Dr. LINDA HALIM MENGGUNAKAN VISUAL BASIC 6.0 DAN MICROSOFT ACCESS
Visual Basic Programming Impact on Cognitive Style of College
Students: Need for Prerequisites
Garry L.
White
Gw06@txstate.edu
Department
of CIS & QM
Texas State
University – San Marcos San Marcos, TX
78666, U.S.A.
Abstract
This
research investigated the impact learning a visual programming language, Visual
Basic, has on hemispheric cognitive style, as measured by the Hemispheric Mode
Indicator (HMI). The question to be answered is: will a computer programming
course help students improve their cognitive abilities in order to perform
well?
The
cognitive styles for the right hemisphere involve concrete experiences and
creativity while the left hemisphere involves abstract and logic thinking.
Prior research has shown procedural programming involved a left brain
hemispheric style thinking. Object-oriented programming has been found to
require neither left nor right hemispheric cognitive style. Even though Visual
Basic contains objectoriented components, left brain thinking was found to be
required for success in Visual Basic. Prior researches were relational studies,
and no cause/effect was established. This study found hemispheric cognitive
style remained the same after a semester course in Visual Basic. College age
students’ cognitive style was not impacted. This may be due to maturation of
the brain.
Since
left hemispheric cognitive style is required to be successful in Visual Basic
and Visual Basic does not create such cognitive style, this research, as well
as other research, supports the need for prerequisites for Visual Basic to
ensure students’ success.
Keywords: cognitive style, cognitive skills,
prerequisites, visual programming, curriculum, Visual
Basic 6.0
1.
INTRODUCTION
Overview
In
1984, computer programming was being taught because the belief was that
learning skills would be impacted (Pea & Kurland, 1984). What are the
cognitive consequences of learning computer programming? Will learning a programming language impact
cognitive style? Or has maturation occurred? A prior study by van Merrienboer
(1990) was unable to force a change in thinking style to improve learning
outcomes. The approach frustrated the subjects.
Must
one have the cognitive style before taking programming? There is a need to
understand how people learn as well as the impact of learning. Such
understanding may influence productivity in computer programming languages
(Myers, J. P. & Brita, M., 1996).
Research
has shown cognitive styles (how one learns) based on hemispheric brain
dominance are factors in the learning of procedural and object oriented
programming languages (Losh,
1984;
Monfort et al, 1990; Ott, 1989; White, 2002; White & Ploeger, 2004; White
& Sivitanides, 2005). However, most
studies focused on relationships between learning style and learning outcomes
(Ford & Chen, 2001; Lau & Yuen, 2009; Petty & Holtzman, 1991)
instead of cause and effect.
Learning
style consists of several related elements, of which, hemispheric brain
dominance (cognitive style) is one. Dunn
(2000) developed a Learning-Style Model of
related elements. These elements composed of 1) Environmental; i.e.
lighting, temperature, 2) Emotional; i.e. motivation, persistence, 3)
Sociological; i.e. prefer alone or group, authoritative or collegial, 4)
Physiological; i.e. auditory, visual, time-of-day, and 5) Psychological; i.e.
hemispheric, analytic. Learning style is broader and encompasses both the
person and the environment.
Because
learning style encompasses the environment, it is easy to see why learning
styles are related to geographic locations and cultural values (McPherson &
Willis, 2010; Holbrugge & Mohr, 2010). Such elements of learning style can
be impacted by the environment. However, cognitive style (hemispheric sides of
the brain) is restricted to the physical characteristics of the brain.
Cognitive style is defined as how people perceive and process information and
experiences (Witkin et al., 1977; Tennant, 1988). Chen (2010) found different
cognitive styles had differed in processing the learning. The question is
whether computer programming can change cognitive style (how one learns).
As
compared to cognitive style (how one learns), cognitive development is what can
be learned. Cognitive development is fixed in adulthood (Schwebel, 1972), and
not all adults reach the highest level of cognitive development (Bastain, et
al. 1973; Griffiths, 1973; Schwebel, 1975). Research has shown visual and
procedural programming courses do not improve/change cognitive development
(Ignatuk, 1986; Mains, 1997; Owens & Seiler, 1996; Priebe, 1997; White,
2007). Maturation may have occurred. This suggests that cognitive style may
also be fixed in adulthood. One college programming course may be too late to
alter cognitive style. The belief that curriculum can impact cognitive
characteristics maybe misleading.
There
has been no research dealing with the impact on the cognitive style (how one
learns) of new languages, such as Visual Basic. Visual Basic requires a left
brain thinking style (White & Ploeger, 2004). This research investigated
the impact learning a visual programming language, such as Visual Basic, has on
cognitive hemispheric thinking style, as measured by the Hemispheric Mode
Indicator (HMI).
Scope
and Importance of Study
How
do people learn? "There is a need to understand how people learn, not just
aptitude. Such understanding may influence productivity in various programming
languages" (Myers & Brita,
1996). Understanding the impact of cognitive style leads to better cause/effect
research, teaching treatment research, curriculum adjustment, teaching methods,
and advising of students. Research is needed to improve such understanding of
the learning process and identify students' difficulties with programming
methods (Myers & Brita, 1996; White, 2002).
Corman,
Guynes, and Vanecek (1994-1995) stated that a better understanding of cognitive
style and cerebral dominance provide for greater productive information
systems. Hudak and Anderson (1990) study
regarding computer science courses, emphasized "the need to examine
students' cognitive maturity and learning style -- factors often ignored in
research aimed at ascertaining the reasons for academic success at the college
level." The study "highlighted the need to examine both cognitive
maturity and learning style in the studies of academic success at the college
level" (Hudak & Anderson, 1990). Such research enhances industry
training and academic teaching (Rosson et al, 1990; Scholtz et al., 1993;
Sheetz et al., 1997).
Prior
cognitive research has been with procedural and object-oriented languages, such
as Basic, Pascal, C++, and Java. This research will focus on the cognitive
style that is involved with the programming aspects of Visual Basic. The
findings and conclusions from this study establish a foundation in the research
of programming languages influences on cognitive style.
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Visual
Basic Programming
Visual
Basic (VB) is an enhancement of BASIC, a regular procedural language (Pietromonaco,
2002; Shelly, et al, 2003). VB has the added features of visual object-oriented
components and the code for the procedural structures of sequence, iteration,
and selection. An example of a visual object is a button. It has encapsulated
properties and event procedures (Nelson, 1993; Schneider, 1999). VB has
“public” and “private” procedures like objectoriented programming languages’
public and private methods. Procedural languages lack such characteristics. The
literature supports the idea that VB is different from procedural programming.
(Buchner, 1999; Grehan, 1996a; Grehan, 1996b; Llewellyn et al, 2002; Spain,
1996). O’Brian (2004) describes VB as an
object-oriented programming language, rather than a language like BASIC, C, or
COBOL. Kai & McKim (1998) described
how object-oriented programming can be performed in VB. Because of its
object-oriented methods and procedures, VB requires a different mindset from
other programming languages (Shirer, 2000).
Although
VB contains object-oriented components, it is not hemispheric independent like
other object-oriented languages, like Java and C++ (White, 2001, 2002). Left brain thinking is required for success
in VB (White & Ploeger, 2004). Like other studies addressing cognitive
development (what can be learned) and programming languages, a semester course
of VB does nothing to cognitive development (White, 2007). Is this also true
for cognitive style (how one learns)?
Hemispheric
Cognitive Style Component
There
is a relationship between cognitive style and brain hemisphere dominance
(Diehl, 1986; Petty & Holzman, 1991). The right brain functions differently
from the left brain (Bryden, 1990; Herrmann, 1982; McCluskey, 1997; Saleh &
Iran-Nejad, 1995; Supprian & Hofmann, 1997). This is known as hemisphericity
(Andrew, 1999; Losh, 1984).
The
right side of the brain seems to handle concrete experiences and the left side
of the brain seems to process abstract conceptions (Diehl, 1986). Another study
showed the left brain is the logical cognitive side and the right brain is the
creative cognitive side (Herrmann, 1981). Other studies have shown that the
left side of the brain also deals with logical cognition (Dumas & Morgan,
1975; Lawson & Wollman, 1975), and logical cognition has been found to be
related to procedural programming (Folk, 1973; Galton, 1992; Sperschneider
& Antoniou, 1991; Myers, 1990; Gibbs & Tucker, 1986).
As
expected, procedural programming students are left hemispheric brain dominant
(Losh, 1984). A study by Monfort, Martin, & Frederisckson (1990) found
music, art, oral communication and journalism students to be right brain
dominant while computer science and mathematics students were found to be left
brain dominant. Armstrong and Hird (2009) found entrepreneurs tended to be
right brain (intuitive and less analytic).
Ott
(1988) supports the above findings: left brain dominance in high school
students correlated with the procedural programming grades. However, math
scores of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT-M) correlated much higher with
procedural programming grades. Math is a left brain characteristic (Rotenberg
& Arshavsky, 1997).
It
is easy to see why left hemispheric brain thinkers make good computer
programmers. As the above research findings indicated, procedural programming
involves logical thinking and logical thinking is a function of the left
hemispheric brain. There is a relationship between hemispheric styles and
computer programming.
However,
unlike procedural programming and VB, object-oriented languages are hemispheric
independent (White, 2001, 2002). There is no relation between object-oriented
languages and cognitive style based on hemisphericity.
3.
METHODOLOGY
Null
Hypotheses
Based
on the literature review and prior research, the following hypotheses were
established.
H1:
A Visual Basic programming course does not change cognitive style, as measured
by Pre- and Post-HMI scores. This is the main focus of this study.
H2:
Those that did not take the postHemispheric Mode Indicator (HMI) had Pre- HMI
scores equal to the Pre-HMI scores of those that took the post-HMI. This was to
resolve the question that those who dropped out did so independent of cognitive
style.
Instruments
The
Hemispheric Mode Indicator (HMI) deals with the cognitive aspects of
hemispheric dominance. The HMI has been used to study academic performance and
learning styles in business and accounting courses (Carthey, 1993).
The
1999 HMI from EXCEL, Inc. defines left hemispheric dominate as tending to be
analytic readers, preferring multiple choice tests, seeing cause and effect.
Such thinking style tends to organize information. Right hemispheric dominant
cognitive style tends to synthesize, prefer open-ended questions, are
analogical, and draw on unbounded qualitative patterns. Characteristics for
Left/Right Hemispheric cognitive styles include: rational vs. intuitive,
logical vs. hunches, differences vs. similarities, and objective vs. subjective
judgments (Lieberman, 1986; Learning, Inc. 2000; White, 2002).
The
time to administer the HMI is 15 minutes. The subject is able to evaluate
his/her responses to determine hemispheric characteristics and cognitive style
(Learning, Inc. 2000; White, 2002) through 32 self-reporting questions in the
HMI. A score, between +60 to -60, is calculated. This determines if the subject
is right (> +8), left (< -8), or whole brain (between +8 and -8) dominant
(Lieberman, 1986). Carthey (1993) cited Lieberman's (1986) study that showed
the HMI has validity (Carthey, 1993). The content validity from Lieberman
(1986) was based on a review of the literature themes in the area of brain
hemisphere dominance (Lieberman, 1986).
A
Cronbach's Alpha, which measures the internal consistency reliability, is 0.90,
and a test-retest reliability had a Pearson Product Moment Correlation
coefficient of 0.904 (Lieberman, 1986). Content validity was based on
correlations with the Torrance measure, "Your Style of Learning and
Thinking," Form C. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was
0.819. The Pearson Product-moment
correlation was 0.659 (Lieberman, 1986).
Hartman
and Hylton (1997) showed HMI’s validity and reliability. Correlations for two
groups of subjects (r = .61 and r= .69) were found with the Human Information
Processing Survey (Hartman & Hyton, 1997). Acceptable concurrent validity
was established. A reliability coefficient correlation of r = .74 came from
testretests methods. All correlations were statistically significant. Subjects
HMI
forms and release/survey forms were provided to 87 college students in two
sections of a first programming course in Visual Basic v6 at a central Texas
university. The course covered visual objects, controls, events, data types,
and procedures. Procedures included logical operations, repetition, and arrays.
Six programming assignments were required. The prerequisite for this Visual
Basic v6 course was a computer literacy course dealing with word processing,
spreadsheets, and web browsers. Participation was voluntary and anonymous.
Course content, instructor, and test were kept constant in an effort to reduce
statistical error variance. The data collected were Pre and Post HMI scores
ranging from -60 to +60.
Data
collection and recording
Release
and HMI forms were distributed at the beginning of the semester to two course
sections of Visual Basic. Data was obtained only from those in class who signed
the release. At the end of the semester, post-treatment scores were obtained.
Of the 87 subjects who signed the release forms, 51 completed both the Pre-HMI
forms and the Post-HMI forms.
4.
DATA ANALYSIS
The
SPSS package was used for data analysis. Means, standard deviations, a t-Test,
and a paired samples correlations were performed on the Pre- and Post-HMI
scores.
Because
of the possibility that the 36 students, who took the Pre-HMI and not the Post-HMI,
may have had different Pre-HMI scores with those who did both Pre- &
Post-HMI, a t-test on the Pre-HMI scores was performed. The purpose was to
determine if the 36 were significantly different in cognitive style.
5.
RESULTS
Table
1 indicates no significant difference between the 51 pairs of Pre and Post-HMI
scores. Table 2 shows the responses were consistent between the administrations
of the HMI. The first null hypothesis (H1) is tenable. A one semester VB
programming course does not change cognitive style, as measured by Pre- and
Post-HMI scores. Since there was no effect, a control group is unnecessary to
confirm an effect.
Students,
who did not complete the treatment, may have dropped because the course did not
fit their cognitive style. When van Merrienboer (1990) tried to change thinking
style to improve learning outcomes, subjects were frustrated. Table 3 shows the
group statistics of those who completed HMI forms and those who did not. There
was a wide range of scores for each group, as indicated by the standard
deviation. To see if there was a difference between groups, a variance assumed
t-Test on the Pre-HMI inventory was performed. It showed no significant
difference between the two groups (t= 1.009, df = 85, p< .366 two-tail). The
second null hypothesis (H2) is tenable. Those that did not take the
post-Hemispheric Mode Indicator (HMI) had Pre- HMI scores equal to the Pre-HMI
scores of those that took the post-HMI.
6.
DISCUSSION
Matching
cognitive styles affects learning outcomes (Ford & Chen, 2001). Students
placed in classes that best fit their cognitive characteristics (style and
level) have a higher probability of success (White, 2002). Research has shown
cognitive development/abilities (what can be learned), cognitive styles (how
one learns) based on hemispheric brain dominance, and prior experiences are
factors in the learning of procedural programming languages (Cafolla, 1987;
Evans & Simkin, 1989; Fletcher, 1984; Gibbons, 1995; Ignatuk, 1986; Little,
1984; Losh, 1984; Monfort et al, 1990; Ott, 1989; Wu, 1993). White (2002)
showed VB as left hemispheric thinking style even though the language contains
object-oriented components. Left hemispheric dominance style is an important
indicator of success for VB (White & Ploeger, 2004). However, can learning
impact students’ cognitive style?
Like
cognitive development (what can be learned), cognitive style (how one learns)
is also most likely fixed in adulthood. van Merrienboer (1990) study was unable
to force a change in thinking style to improve learning outcomes. Like
cognitive development, cognitive style in adulthood may have reached maturation
or such non-impact was possibility due to a short treatment period.
Limitations:
A
presumption is that if the course did have a positive impact on cognitive
style, the students would most likely complete the Post-HMI forms. However, 31
subjects did not complete the PostHMI forms. The reasons could have dropping
out as a result to frustration due to thinking style conflict, poor time
management, poor study habits, absent on the day Post-HMI was given, and/or a
lack of motivation. Since there was no statistical significance difference
between PreHMI scores of those that completed the postHMI forms and those that
did not, the presumption of frustration due to thinking style conflict is not
supported. The second null hypothesis (H2) addressing this issue was found to
be tenable.
The
length of treatment was only a one semester course. Improvement may occur after
years of constant treatment. Such a possibility could be hidden from the
results due to sample size. A larger sample size may indicate such an effect,
although small. However, if full maturation occurred, there will be no improvement
or change. Most students, who were over the age of 18, in this study may have
reached maturation while a few may not have.
7.
CONCLUSION
This
study indicates students need to have the correct cognitive style in order to
succeed in a VB programming course. Such a course does not change cognition to
the correct thinking style. To argue that allowing any student into
programming, because they will develop the cognitive style needed, is a
mistake. Students must already have the needed cognitive style to succeed in
programming. Students placed in classes that best fit their cognitive style
have a higher probability of success (White, 2002). As stated in White (2007),
“the implication is that programming courses need prerequisites.”
8.
FUTURE RESEARCH
Based
on prior research over the decades and this research, it is clear that certain
cognitive abilities are needed to learn programming. Future research needs to
look at what prerequisites are needed to ensure success in computer
programming.
9.
REFERENCES
Andrew,
A. W. (1999). The differential roles of right and left sides of the brain in
memory formation. Behavoiural Brain Research, 98(2), 289-295.
Armstrong,
S. J. & Hird, A. (2009). Cognitive Style and Entrepreneurial Drive of New
and Mature Business Owner-Managers. Journal of Business Psychology, 24,
419-430.
Bastian,
S., Frees, J., Gruber, L., Johnson, J., Landes, B., Morton, L., Rozgony, S.,
& Stewart, J. (1973). Are I.S.U. Freshman Students Operating at a Formal
level of thought Processes? Contemporary
Education,
44, 358-362.
Bryden,
M. P. (1990). Choosing sides: the left and right of the normal brain. Canadian
Psychology, 31(4), 297-309.
Buchner,
M. (1999). Visual tools: Pros and cons.
Midrange
Systems, 12(6), 18.
Cafolla,
R. (1987). The Relationship of Piagetian formal Operations and other cognitive
factors to computer programming ability
(Development).
Dissertations Abstracts, A47(7), 2506.
Carthey,
J. H. (1993). Relationship between Learning Styles and Academic Achievement and
Brain Hemispheric Dominance and Academic Performance in Business and Accounting
Courses. ERIC, ED374412.
Chen,
L. (2010). Web Based Learning Programs: Used by learners with various cognitive
style. Computer & Education, 54(4), 10281035.
Corman,
L. and Guynes, C. and Vanecek, M. (1994-1995). A Study of Laterality and
Cognitive Style in Information Systems and Liberal Arts Students. Journal of Computer Information Systems,
35(2), 26-34.
Diehl,
H. L. (1986 Nov). Learning Style and
Brain Hemisphere Dominance:
Interrelationships
and Influences on Organizational Role Selection. Dissertation Abstracts, 50(5),
1363.
Dumas,
R., & Morgan, A. (1975). EEG Asymmetry as a Function of Occupation, Task
and Task Difficulty. Neuropsychologia, 13, 219-228.
Dunn,
R. (2000). Teaching students through their individual learning styles: A
practical approach. St. John’s University, Jamaica,
NY.
Evans,
G. E., & Simkin, M. G. (Nov 1989). What best predicts computer proficiency?
Communications of the ACM, 32(11), 13221327.
Fletcher,
S. H. (1984). Cognitive Abilities and
Computer
Programming. EDRS(ED259700).
Folk,
M. J. (1973). Influences of Developmental Level on a Child's Ability to Learn
Concepts of Computer Programming. Dissertation Abstracts International, 34(3),
1125a.
Ford,
N. & Chen, S. Y. (2001). Matching/mismatching revisited: an empirical study
of learning and teaching styles. British Journal of Educational Technology,
32(1), 5-22.
Galton,
A. (1992). Logic as a Formal Method. The Computer Journal, 35(5), 431-440.
Gibbons,
P. (1995). A cognitive processing account of individual differences in novice
Logo programmers' conceptualisation and use of recursion. Journal of
Educatinoal Computing Research, 13(3), 211-226.
Gibbs,
H., & Tucker, A. B. (1986). A Model Curriculum for a Liberal Arts degree in
Computer Science. C ommunications of the ACM, 29(3), 202-210.
Grehan,
R. (1996a). A Complete Trilogy of Visual Basic tools: Code Complete from
MicroHelp. Byte, 21, 32.
Grehan,
R. (1996b). Visual programming for Science: Visual Science from acroScience.
Byte,
21, 208.
Griffiths,
D. H. (1973). the Study of the Cognitive Development of Science Students in
Introductory Level Courses,.
ERIC(ED096108).
Hartman,
S. & Hyton, J. (1997). Estimates of Validity and Reliability for the
Hemispheric Mode Indicator. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85(3, part 2),
1355-1364.
Herrmann,
N. (1981 Oct). The Creative Brain. Training & Development Journal, 35(10),
1016.
Herrmann,
N. (1982). The Creative Brain. NASSP Bulletin, 66(455), 31-46.
Holbrugge,
D. & Mohr, A. T. (2010). Cultural Determinants of Learning Style
Preferences.
Academy of Management Learning &
Education,
9(4), 622.
Hudak,
M. A. & Anderson, D. E. (1990) Formal Operations and Learning Style Predict
Success in Statistics and Computer Science Courses. Teaching of Psychology.
17(4) 231234.
Ignatuk,
N. (1986). An Analysis of the Effects of Computer Programming on Analytical and
Mathematical skills of high school students. Dissertation Abstracts, A47(3),
854.
Kai,
J. and McKim, J. (1998). Object-oriented capabilities of Visual Basic. Journal
of Object-Oriented Programming 11(6), 46-57.
Lau,
W. W. F. & Yuen, A. H. K. (2009). Promoting conceptual change of learning
sorting algorithm through the diagnosis of mental models: The effects of gender
and learning styles. Computers & Education, 54, 275-288.
Lawson,
A. E., & Wollman, W. T. (1975a). Hemispheric Dominance, Conservation
Reasoning and the Dominant Eye. EDRS, ED130778.
Learning
Inc. (2000). Hemispheric Mode Indicator (HMI): Right and Left Brain Approaches
to Learning. Learning, Inc, Wauconda, Il.
Lieberman,
M. G. (1986). The Hemnispheric Mode Indicator Technical Notes. EXCEL, Inc,
Barrington, Il.
Little,
L. F. (1984). The Influence of Structured
Programming,
Gender, Cognitive Development and Engagement on the Computer Programming
Achievement and Logical Thinking Skills of Secondary Students. Dissertation
Abstracts, A45(6), 1708.
Llewellyn,
E. and Stanton, M. and Roberts, G. (2002). Nine-step approach to designing
successful visual programming applications.
Computing
& Control Engineering Journal, 13(2), 82-86.
Losh,
C. L. (1984) the relationship of student hemisphericity to performance in
computer programming courses. Dissertation Abstracts
A44(7),
2127.
Nelson,
R. (1993). Running Visual Basic for Windows. Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA.
Mains,
M. G. (1997) The Effects of Learning a Programming Language on Logical Thinking
Skills. Unpublished Thesis, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada.
McCluskey,
J. J. (1997). An exploratory study of the possible impact of cerebral
hemisphericity on the performance of select linear, non-linear, and spatial
computer tasks. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 16(3), 269-279.
McPherson,
B. & Willis, L. (2010). Learning Styles among International and American
Business Students. Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies, 2,
1-14.
Monfort,
M., Martin, S. A., & Frederickson, W. (1990). Information-processing
differences and laterality of students from different colleges and disciplines.
Perceptual & Motor Skills, 70(1), 163-172.
Myers,
J., J. P. (1990). The central role of mathematical logic in computer science.
SIGCSE
Bulletin, 22(1), 22-26.
Myers,
J. P. & Brita , M. (1996). "Cognitive Style and Achievement in
Imperative and Functional Programming Language Courses." ERIC ED398892
(1996).
O’Brian,
J. (2004). Management Information
Systems:
Managing Information Technology in the Business Enterprise, 6th Ed. McGraw
Hill, Boston.
Ott,
C. F. P. (1989). Predicting achievement in computer science through selected
academic, cognitive and deographic variables. Dissertation Abstracts, A49(10),
2988.
Owens,
B. and Seiler, J. (1996). A study of the relationship between performance in
propositional logic and computer science. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual
south Central Small College Computing Conference, The Journal of Computing in
Small Colleges, 11(7), pp.90-93.
Pea,
R. D. & Kurland, D. M., (1984). On the cognitive
effects of learning computer programming: a critical look. Technical Report No.
9, Bank Street College of Education, New York.
Petty, G. C. & Holtzman, F.(1991).
Learning styles and brain hemisphericity of
Technical Institute Students. Journal of Studies in Technical Careers,
13(1), 79-91.
Pietromonaco,
P. (2002). The Versatile Visual Basic. Poptronics, 3(7), 16-18.
Priebe,
Roger L. (1997). The Effects of
Cooperative Learning on Content
Comprehension
and Logical Reasoning in a Second-Semester University Computer Science Course.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, Texas.
Rosson,
M.B.; Carrol, J.M.; and Bellamy, R.K.E.(1990). "A case study in minimalist
instruction." Human Factos in Compuing Systems, CHI '90 Converence, p.
423-429.
Rotenberg,
V. S., & Arshavsky, V. V. (1997). Right and left brain hemispheres
activation in the representatives of two different cultures. Homeostasis in
Health & Disease, 38(2), 49-57.
Saleh,
A., & Iran-Nejad, A. (1995). Wholetheme constructivism and Whole Brain
Education: Educatinoal Implications of the Research on Left and Right Brain Hemispheres.
ERIC, ED393896.
 |
Scholtz,
J. Chidamber, S.; Glass, R.; Goemer,
A.;
Rosson, M.B.; Stark, M.; and Vessey, I.(1993). "Object-oriented
programming: the promise and the reality." Journal of Systems Software,
23, p.199-204.
Schneider,
D. (1999). An Introduction to Programming using Visual Basic 6.0, 4th Ed.
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Schwebel,
M. (1972). Logical Thinking in College Freshman: Final Report. ERIC(ED 110896).
Schwebel,
M. (1975). Formal operations in first year college students. Journal of
Psychology, 91, 133-141.
Sheetz,
S. & Irwin, G. & Tegarden, D. & Nelson, H. J. & Monarchhi, D.
E. (1997). "Exploring the difficulties of learning object-oriented
technique." Journal of management
Information
Systems. 14(2) 103-131.
Shelly,
G. and Cashman, T. and Quasney, J. (2003). Microsoft Visual Basic.NET Complete
Concepts and Techniques. Thomson Course Technology, Boston, Mass.
Shirer,
D. (2000). Basic: The Little Language that wouldn’t Die. Computing in Science
&
Engineering,
2(2), 6-10.
Spain,
W. (1996). Visual Basic. Computerworld 30(44), 102.
Sperschneider,
V., & Antoniou, G. (1991). Logic: A foundation for Computer Science.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
SPSS
Base 10.0 Application Guide. SPSS, Inc.
Chicago,
Il; p. 28 (1999).
Supprian,
T., & Hofmann, E. (1997). The fornix of the human brain: Evidence of
left/right asymmetry on axial MRI scans. Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy, 19(2),
105.
Tennant,
M. (1988). Psychology and adult learning. Routledge, London.
van
Merrienboer, J. (1990). Instructional strategies for teaching computer
programming: Interactions with the cognitive style reflection and impulsivity. Journal
of Research on Computing in
Education,
23(1), 45-52.
White,
G. (2001). Cognitive Characteristics for Learning Java, an Object Oriented
Programming Language. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin,
Texas.
White,
G. (2002). Cognitive Characteristics for Learning C++. Journal of Computer
Information
Systems, 42(3), p51-55.
White,
G. (2007). Visual Basic programming impact on cognitive development of college
students. Journal of Information Systems Education, 17(4), p421-428.
White,
G. & Ploeger, F. (2004). Cognitive Characteristics for Learning Visual
Basic.
Journal
of Computer Information Systems, 44(3), p58-66.
White,
G. and Sivitanides M. (2002). A Theory of the Relationships between Cognitive
Requirements of Computer Programming Languages and Programmers’ Cognitive
Characteristics.
Journal of Information Systems Education, 13(1), p59-66.
Witkin,
H. A., Moore, C. A., Oltman, P.K., Goodeenought, D. R., Friedman, F., Owen, D.
R., et al. (1977). Role of the field dependent and filed independent cognitive
styles in academic evolution: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 69(3), 197-211.
Wu,
C.-C. (1993). Conceptual Models and Individual Cognitive learning Styles in
Teaching
Recursion to Novices. Unpublished
Dissertation,
University of Texas, Austin
