ABSTRACT Title of Document: HOW ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS DESIGN COMPUTER PROGRAMS Brian Adam Danielak, Doctor of Philosophy, 2014 Directed By: Associate Professor Andrew Elby, Department of Teaching, Learning, Policy, and Leadership When professional programmers begin designing programs, we know they often spend time away from a computer, using tools such as pens, paper, and whiteboards as they discuss and plan their designs (Petre, van der Hoek, & Baker, 2010). But, we’re only beginning to analyze and understand the complexity of what happens during such early-stage design work. And, our accounts are almost exclusively about what professionals do. For all we’ve begun to understand about what happens in early-stage software design, we rarely apply the same research questions and methods to students’ early-stage design work. This dissertation tries to redress that imbalance. I present two case studies — derived from my 10 study participants — of electrical engineering (EE) students designing computer programs in a second-semester computer programming course. In study 1, I show how analyzing a student’s code snapshot history and conducting clinical interviews tells us far more about her design trajectory than either method could alone. From that combined data I argue students’ overall software designs can be consequentially shaped by factors — such as students’ stances toward trusting their code or believing a current problem is a new instance of an old one — that existing code snapshot research is poorly equipped to explain. Rather, explanations that add non-conceptual constructs including affective state and epistemological stance can offer a more complete and satisfactory account of students’ design activities. In study 2, I argue computer science and engineering education should move beyond conceptual-knowledge and concept deficit explanations of students’ difficulties (and capabilities) in programming. I show that in doing design students do, say, write, and gesture things that: • Are outside the phenomenological scope of most (mis)conceptions accounts of programming • Would be explained differently under frameworks that emphasize manifold epistemological resources. Some student difficulties can be recast as epistemological blocks in activity rather than conceptual knowledge deficits. Similarly, some students’ productive capacities can be understood as epistemologically-related stances toward an activity, rather than evidencing particular knowledge of specific computational concepts. • Would suggest different instructional interventions if teachers attended to the stabilizing aspects — such as epistemological dynamics — that help these episodes of activity cohere for students. HOW ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS DESIGN COMPUTER PROGRAMS By Brian Adam Danielak Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2014 Advisory Committee: Associate Professor Andrew Elby, Chair Ayush Gupta Edward F. Redish James G. Greeno William E. J. Doane Benjamin B. Bederson © Copyright by Brian Adam Danielak 2014 Dedication To my grandparents. Anna and Josef Danielak endured and survived so that I could be here. Sabina Schwab loved me and made funny faces at me when no one else was looking. Henry Schwab continues to teach me. I also dedicate this to my brother, Jason. My name may be on the cover of this thing, but without his support it wouldn’t exist. I love you all. ii Acknowledgements Once, in my high school Economics class, my teacher Mr. Mooney1 told us to take out a sheet of paper. We were to spend 5 minutes writing down a list of all the people who were responsible for getting us to school that day. I started off slowly. Mom, for waking me up when my alarm clock didn’t. Me, for remembering to put gas in the car.2 Then I thought about all the people who had maintained the car over the years. I thought about the people who had designed the car, when it was just modeling clay and blueprints, before a single piece of metal was bent into a fender.3 Soon I was writing down the people who made the antifreeze that kept the engine cool, Charles Goodyear for developing vulcanization techniques that make modern tires work, and the guy at Jiffy Lube who told me—and I think I’m quoting here— ”normal transmission fluid should be red, like fruit punch; your transmission fluid is brown, like Thanksgiving gravy with metal shavings in it.” I was surprised—having filled the front of the sheet and most of the back— when Mr. Mooney told us to stop. He said the point of the exercise was to show that as a society we are interdependent. That interdependence is key to understanding the very basics of economic theory: scarcity, pricing, trade, comparative advantage. But, I was still stuck on how many people were on my list. Most of them were people I’d 1 That’s not a pseudonym. 22 YYeess,, II ccoouunntteedd mmyysseellff.. 3 Or, for that matter, re-bent when mom hit a lightpost in a parking lot. iii never even met. It wasn’t that I didn’t care about economics; it was that for the first time I realized in a big way how many people were responsible for where I was. I can’t exhaustively thank everyone who helped me make this. Moreover, some people, having read its contents, might wish to dissociate themselves entirely from it. To those who made this dissertation possible, I hope my thanks below will suffice. To those I leave out, please don’t let my imperfections reflect on the job you did. Lastly, to those who wanted no public record of having been associated with this, I’m sorry. I would first like to thank my advisors, Andy Elby and Ayush Gupta. Nearly six years ago I made the decision to leave my Ph.D. program, my school, and my city behind to join Andy’s program. It wasn’t long until I was working with, joking with, writing with, and being advised by Andy and Ayush. From Andy, I learned to be clever, argue well, and always try to find the good, redeeming features of things. From Ayush, I learned the importance of bringing empathy and compassion to my work and my life. Any graduate student would be lucky to have just one of them as an advisor. I struck gold with both. My thanks go also to my committee. Ben Bederson graciously welcomed me into Maryland’s human-computer interaction lab, all the while offering grounded and focused feedback on my work. Joe Redish has been an upbeat supporter of—and at times loyal opposition to—my research. My thoughts and insights have only grown stronger with his contributions. Jim Greeno has seen my intellectual development from the beginning. It is not an exaggeration to say parts of this dissertation were forged in the crucible of DC rush hour as I tried to navigate traffic and answer his iv questions about my research. I thank him for entrusting me with his vehicular safety. I thank him as well because at a dinner in June of 2011 he restored my faith that some people get into academia to try and do good. Finally, Wil Doane helped get me into this crazy mess in the first place. In addition to being a mentor in computer science, Wil has been an unflinching champion of my ideas for as long as we’ve known each other. He first showed me what passion and innovation can look like in a computer science classroom; I hope this dissertation is a natural extension of those ideals.4 I’d like to thank my compatriots in the Physics Education Research Group (PERG) at Maryland. Jessica Watkins, Chandra Turpen, Vashti Sawtelle, and Julia (Svoboda) Gouvea were model post-docs and amazing listeners. I look up to all of them, which at least Julia has confirmed makes her uncomfortable. Tiffany Sikorski has always been impressed with my work, which means so much to me because I think she’s a very hard person to impress. Lama Jaber was a constant source of warmth, compassion, and joy. I was very sad to see her leave for Boston, but I’m so honored to have her as a friend. Ben Dreyfus offered a sympathetic ear and ongoing encouragement when I got stuck thinking about students thinking about programming. Luke Conlin was my stalwart conference roommate, intellectual companion, cheerleader from afar, and fellow pillow fort architect. Gina Quan taught me how to hug; her non-hug-related work teaching girls to program Arduino robots has me endlessly excited. And, thanks to PERG’s impressive alumni network, 4 And if it’s not, I hope you’ll forgive me. v Rosemary Russ helped me think through some tough data analysis once I got to Madison. Eric Kuo and Mike Hull were my teammates in making sense of engineering students making sense of mathematics. Without Eric and Mike taping, analyzing, and dissecting classroom video my work couldn’t exist. Eric in particular endured a roundtrip car ride from Boston to Bar Harbor in which I panicked about everything I didn’t understand about our research.5 Jen Richards, Colleen Gillespie, and Jason Yip have been with me in Science Ed since the beginning. It was a painful change when we stopped taking the same courses, changed advisors, and changed geographies. But, we gave writing feedback to each other, supplied references to each other, and kept each other in good humor when things got hard. I’d like to single out Colleen for being the first one of us to prove this whole dissertation thing was possible. And, I’d like to single out Jen for watching over me and watching out for me. When Jen noticed I was struggling, she talked to me about it — a simple act that got me into engineering education research and led to all of this. In so many ways, I wouldn’t be here without her. It may buck tradition, but I’d also like to thank my undergraduate mentors who have been with me for almost a decade. Robert Daly first convinced me to come to the University at Buffalo. He later, to my delight, became my mentor in English and agreed to supervise my undergraduate thesis. It turned out the ideas in that thesis—while poorly argued and barely cogent—would form the basis of my 5 I still panic about it. I’m just older now. vi intellectual life for the past six years.6 Josephine Capuana backed me from the beginning. As my advisor she supported me no matter what I wanted to do and how many majors I cycled through to do it. She is also the reason I met my second undergraduate mentor, Kenneth Takeuchi. Dr. Takeuchi has backed me, time and time again, since I was a freshman in college. He and Amy Marschilok taught me about mentoring, inspired me to become an academic, and continue to serve as models for what it means to care about students. I’d like to thank the friends who have been there to prop me up and help me think. The first group is so big it gets its own paragraph. Robert Davis and Anne Davis welcomed me into their home and their family where everyone seemed to me to be strangely excited by what I was working on. Will Davis and Jamie Davis gave C help when I needed it. Russ Davis inspires me with his dedication to serving the country. Nora Deram and Mat Deram, in addition to being improbably lovely people, are both helping to build the future of mathematics. Travis Pond took me to the hallowed ground of the Apollo 1 launchpad so I could witness the engineering marvel of putting a rocket into space. And Nan Pond has been my friend, bandmate, fellow drum major, R convert, transatlantic pen pal, and support system for nearly 15 years. Here’s to uncountably infinitely many more. Al Stein took me to lunch and reminded me that I’ve been boldly taking chances with my writing since I was in tenth grade. Vanessa Svihla has been my colleague, co-author, and co-conspirator in embracing the importance of design in our 6 I know. I was surprised too. vii