=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2387/20190420
|storemode=property
|title=None
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2387/20190420.pdf
|volume=Vol-2387
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/icteri/ProkopTSB19
}}
==None==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2387/20190420.pdf
An Analysis of Criteria for Choosing a First
Programming Language in Universities
Yuliia Prokop1[0000-0002-6608-3668], Elena Trofimenko2[0000-0001-7626-0886]
Nikolay Severin1[0000-0002-2706-5205] and Liudmila Bukata1[0000-0003-1707-1633]
1 O.S. Popov Odessa National Academy of Telecommunications, Odessa, Ukraine
2 National University "Odessa Academy of Law", Odessa, Ukraine
yulia13.prokop@gmail.com, egt@ukr.net,
n_severin@ukr.net, ygrikluda@gmail.com
Abstract. The choice of the optimal programming language for teaching students
of IT specialties the basics of programming at the universities has been the subject
of heated debate over the past decades. It is important to focus on modern and
significant criteria while choosing a programming language for the introductory
course. After analyzing the arguments put forward by teachers in favor of the use
of a particular language, as well as the criteria for choosing a language proposed
by researchers, a list of the nineteen most frequently called criteria was compiled.
Some regional differences in the approaches to the choice of programming lan-
guages and the significance of the criteria have been identified. Considering the
specifics of the IT sector in Ukraine, based on the study of literature and authors'
experience in teaching the basics of programming, a rating of the criteria for
choosing the first language was formed. The rating makes it possible to select an
optimal programming language, based on the significance of various criteria, tak-
ing into account the specific conditions of a particular university.
Keywords: Introductory Programming, First Programming Language, Lan-
guage Selection Criteria.
1 Introduction
The problem of choosing the first programming language for teaching IT students in
universities is very acute nowadays and has caused heated debates over the past dec-
ades. Teachers are constantly forced to find a compromise between the motivation of
students, their desire to acquire knowledge and skills sufficient to begin practical
work as soon as possible, and the need to learn the basic concepts of programming in
the form, most accessible for students. The successfully acquired introductory pro-
gramming course forms the foundation for the effective study of subsequent courses
and the mastery of their specialty, similar to the fact that the timeliness of perception
of the material and success in studying other subjects depend on mastering the native
language in the elementary school. Conversely, the excessive complexity of learning
an introductory course can lead to a drop in motivation and low learning outcomes in
general.
2 A Variety of Criteria for Choosing a Programming
Language for an Introductory Course in Universities
Along with a large number of works in which the authors discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of using specific programming languages in the introductory course,
great attention is paid in publications to the analysis of the criteria for choosing the
first language for instruction.
During this project, we considered the works of authors from different countries,
published over the past 15 years. The analysis of works [1-21] revealed significant
differences in the choice of criteria of the first studied programming language, and we
associate this choice largely with regional features. Different nations have various
approaches to building IT education. It is possible that these approaches have a differ-
ent impact on the choice of the first programming language for introductory courses
in universities, justifying their choice by the importance of specific criteria.
The revealed variety of approaches in the initial teaching of programming with the
use of a particular language necessitated a comprehensive analysis of the criteria,
taking into account their importance in the final choice in a particular university. In
addition, in recent years, we can state a change in emphasis in assessing the signifi-
cance of the criteria for choosing the first language. Thus, since the analyzed re-
searches mainly considered the regional characteristics of various countries and con-
tinents, the criteria proposed in them need to be adapted to the situation in Ukraine, in
particular.
The purpose of the work is to analyze and rank criteria of the first programming
languages for students of IT specialties that can help to identify the optimal program-
ming language for teaching in universities of Ukraine.
3 Formation of the List of Criteria and Their Rating
To accomplish the task, first, we collected and systematized all the criteria identified
in publications [1-21] and used by teachers when choosing a language for an introduc-
tory programming course. In various papers, the authors formulated and considered a
different number of criteria: from one to tens. We took as a basis the criteria proposed
and described in the article [16] with the addition of criteria and arguments in favor of
the choice of the first educational language encountered in the works of other re-
searchers. We decided to include in the formed list the criteria mentioned in the pa-
pers of various researchers more than once. As a result, 19 criteria were identified.
Further, we formed a rating of the criteria for choosing the first programming lan-
guage depending on the frequency of references in publications. We combined this
rating with the rating which we had compiled based on many years of experience
teaching the basics of programming in Ukrainian universities, taking into account the
traditions of IT education in Ukraine. The most important differences between these
two ratings are, in our opinion, the higher value of the criteria for ease of transition to
other programming languages and the presence of all the basic programming con-
structions in the selected language. We adjusted both ratings to a common scale and
the average value for each criterion was determined. The result is presented in the
form of a diagram in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Rating of the criteria for choosing the first programming language.
Various criteria in the obtained rating have a different degree of objectivity of their
values. For example, one can objectively assess the demand in the labor market by
analyzing the regional labor market. At the same time, the ease of learning basic con-
cepts depends on the personal perception of teachers, and on the initial preparation of
students, which is very difficult to predict.
4 Analysis of the Criteria for Choosing the First
Programming Language
Let us consider the criteria for choosing a programming language. The ease of learn-
ing the basic concepts is the key to successful mastery of course material and there-
fore is one of the most significant criteria for choosing a language. Most researchers
emphasize the importance of this criterion in their publications.
The most important difference between our rating and one compiled from the liter-
ature is the higher value of the ease of transition to other programming languages and
the presence of all the basic programming constructions in the language. In our opin-
ion, the latter is an essential criterion. Traditionally, the introductory course deals
with: input-output; branching; loops; one-dimensional and two-dimensional arrays;
pointers; strings; structures; file streams. Not all nowadays-common programming
languages have basic constructs in their arsenal. For example, C# has no pointers;
Java has no pointers and structures [22].
The recent proliferation of dual education puts forward its demands. From the very
beginning of their studies, students should learn what they could use in their future
activities. This affects the high importance indicators of the demand in the labor mar-
ket and the ease of transition to other programming languages. The latter is also rele-
vant for the successful mastering of subsequent courses.
The criterion of the cost of a compiler for a programming language for students is
significant because Ukrainian students usually use free compilers. A variety of educa-
tional materials widely represent all currently popular programming languages on the
Internet, thus the criterion of availability of textbooks is largely fulfilled. One can say
the same about the ease of use of an integrated development environment and good
debugging tools since developers of popular programming languages present many
possibilities for their users.
Support for object-oriented programming is not the primary criterion for learning
the basics of programming. However, it is of great importance for the further course
"Object-oriented programming", since it allows using the same language in both
courses. Criterion the structure of degree demands the consistency of the use of a
given language in the framework of the specialty curriculum. The material taught in
subsequent courses should be a logical continuation of what people learned at the
beginning.
Criterion the reasonable financial costs of creating a learning environment means
the costs of retraining lecturers for teaching a new language; expenses for the devel-
opment of an educational and methodical complex; availability of technical capabili-
ties to install and maintain the necessary software.
A somewhat ambiguous criterion is the existence of online communities in which
novice programmers can ask for assistance. Sometimes, students receive a ready-made
solution and rewrite it, without delving into its essence. In addition, this solution can use
constructions not covered by the task, and they confuse the novice even more.
Analysis of the criteria identified in the publications showed that the importance of
some of the criteria in them was exaggerated. For example, the presence or absence of
extensions and libraries, as a rule, cannot have a significant impact on the choice of
language. The supporting web development capabilities also have a low level of sig-
nificance, since the basics of programming are usually not related to web develop-
ment. Due to the availability of online compilers, platform independence cannot be
the determining factor for choosing a language. Our experience shows that visual
programming does not affect the effectiveness of the course, but on the contrary, at
the initial stage, can make it difficult to understand the educational material and even
confuse the novice student.
5 Conclusions
The paper analyzes the criteria and arguments used when choosing a programming
language for an introductory programming course at universities for students of IT
specialties. We compiled a rating of the nineteen most popular criteria based on the
works of different researchers and on our experience of teaching the basics of pro-
gramming, taking into account Ukrainian IT education specifics.
The composed rating helps to make a choice of a programming language, based on
the importance of various criteria inherent in one or another programming language
under the prevailing conditions of the course taught. For its practical use, the values
obtained can be taken as coefficients for comparative evaluation of various languages.
It can be argued that the illustrated approach and the formed rating can be used not
only for the introductory programming course but also for other training courses taking
into account the specifics of each of them when teaching IT students in universities.
References
1. Aleksić, V., Ivanović, M.: Introductory Programming Subject in European Higher Educa-
tion. Informatics in Education, vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 163–82 (2016).
2. Busschots, B.: Teaching Programming – Why the Choice of First Language is Irrelevant,
2008, http://www.bartbusschots.ie/blog/?p=634P, last accessed 2019/1/31.
3. Damyanov, I., Borisova, N.: Programming languages in undergraduate courses and in
software industry in Bulgaria. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol.
117, No. 2, 271–278 (2017). DOI: 10.12732/ijpam.v117i2.3.
4. Decker, R., Hirshfield, S.: The top 10 reasons why object-oriented programming can't be
taught in CS1. In: Proceeding SIGCSE'94 symposium on Computer science education,
pp. 51–55, Phoenix, Arizona, USA (1994).
5. Duffany, J.L.: Choice of Language for an Introduction to Programming Course. In: Excel-
lence in Engineering To Enhance a Country’s Productivity, Twelfth LACCEI Latin Amer-
ican and Caribbean Conference for Engineering and Technology (LACCEI’2014), pp. 1–9.
Guayaquil, Ecuador (2014).
6. Goosen, L.: Criteria and guidelines for the selection and implementation of a first pro-
gramming language in high schools. In: Ph.D. thesis, North-West University
(Potchefstroom. Campus) (2004).
7. Ivanoviü, M., Budimac, Z., Radovanoviü, M., Saviü M.: Does the choice of the first pro-
gramming language influence students’ grades? In: International Conference on Computer
Systems and Technologies, CompSysTech’15, pp. 305–312, Dublin, Ireland (2015).
8. Jenkins, T.: The First Language – A Case for Python? Innovation in Teaching and Learn-
ing in Information and Computer Sciences, vol. 3, issue 2, 1–9 (2004). DOI:
10.11120/ital.2004.03020004/
9. Kruglyk, V., Lvov, M.: Choosing the First Educational Programming Language. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 8th International Conference on ICT in Education, Research and Industrial
Applications: Integration, Harmonization and Knowledge Transfer, ICTERI-2012, vol.
848, pp. 188–198, Kherson, Ukraine (2012).
10. Leping, V., Lepp, M., Niitsoo, M., Tõnisson, E., Vene, V., Villems, A.: Python prevails.
In: Conference Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Computer Systems
and Technologies and Workshop for PhD Students in Computing, CompSysTech 2009,
Rousse, Bulgaria (2009). DOI: 10.1145/1731740.1731833.
11. Lvov, M., Kruglyk, V.: Teaching algorithmization and programming using python lan-
guage. Journal of Information Technologies in Education (ITE), vol. 20, 13–23 (2014).
DOI: 10.14308/ite000493.
12. Mason, R., Cooper, G.: Introductory programming courses in Australia and New Zealand
in 2013 – trends and reasons. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth Australasian Computing
Education Conference, ACE'14, vol. 148, pp. 139–147, Auckland, New Zealand (2014).
13. Mason, R., Cooper, G., Raadt, M.: Trends in Introductory Programming Courses in Aus-
tralian Universities – Languages, Environments and Pedagogy. In: Proceedings of the
Fourteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE2012), vol. 123, pp. 33–
42, Melbourne, Australia (2012).
14. Merzlikin, P.: Dosvid vikoristannya Python yak pershoyi movi programuvannya dlya stu-
dentiv napryamu pidgotovki “Informatika”. Naukovi zapiski. Seriya: problemi metodiki
fiziko-matematichnoyi i tehnologichnoyi osviti, vol. 2, No 7, 66–69 (2015).
15. Murphy, E., Crick, T., Davenport, J.: An Analysis of Introductory Programming Courses
at UK Universities. The Art, Science, and Engineering of Programming, vol. 1, No. 2, arti-
cle 18, 23 p. (2017). DOI: 10.22152/programming-journal.org/2017/1/18.
16. Parker, K., Ottaway, T., Chao, J.: Criteria for the selection of a programming language for
introductory courses. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, vol. 2, No 1/2,
119–139 (2006). DOI: 10.1504/IJKL.2006.009683.
17. Prokofyeva, N., Uhanova, M., Katalnikova, S., Synytsya, K., Jurenoks, A.: Introductory
Programming Training of First Year Students. Procedia Computer Science, vol. 104, pp.
286–293 (2017). DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2017.01.137.
18. Raadt, M., Watson, R., Toleman, M.: Introductory programming: what's happening today
and will there be any students to teach tomorrow? In: Proceedings of the Sixth Australa-
sian Conference on Computing Education, vol. 30, pp. 277–282, Dunedin, New Zealand
(2004).
19. Siegfried, R., Chays, D., Herbert, K.: Will there ever be consensus on cs1. In: Proceedings
of the 2008 International Conference on Frontiers in Education: Computer Science and
Computer Engineering – FECS, vol. 8, pp. 18–23 (2008).
20. Simon, Mason, R., Crick, T., Davenport, J., Murphy, E.: Language Choice in Introductory
Programming Courses at Australasian and UK Universities. In: Proceedings of the 49th
ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE'18, pp. 852–857,
Baltimore, Maryland, USA (2018).
21. Zelle, J.M.: Python as a First Language. In: 13th Annual Midwest Computer Conference
(MMC 1999). Lisl, IL (1999).
22. Prokop, Y., Trofymenko, O., Kapustin, M.: A study of software development tools that are
required in the job market in Ukraine and the world. Proceedings of the O.S. Popov
ОNAT, vol. 2, 101–108 (2018).