The purpose of the present study was to assess one cognitive style dimension, hemispheric lateralization, and its relationship to programming performance. A total of sixty subjects from four different undergraduate classes in COBOL programming participated in the study. The results indicated that laterality preference did not appear to be significantly related to performance on programming tasks. Varying the mode of instruction also did not have a differential effect on programming performance. Exploration of other measures of hemispheric lateralization and assessment of other cognitive models of programming ability are recommended.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MayerR. E., The Psychology of Learning BASIC, Communications of the ACM, 22, pp. 589–593, 1979.
2.
MayerR. E., The Psychology of Learning Computer Programming by Novices, Computing Surveys, 13, pp. 121–141, 1981.
3.
PerkinsD. N.HancockC.HobbsR.MartinF.SimmonsR., Conditions of Learning in Novice Programmers, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2, pp. 37–56, 1986.
4.
LarsonJ. A. (ed.), Tutorial: End User Facilities in the 1980s, IEEE Computer Society Press (EHO 198–2), New York, 1982.
5.
ShneidermanB., Software Psychology: Human Factors in Computer and Information Systems, Little Brown and Company, Boston, 1980.
6.
WeidenbeckS., Novice/Expert Differences in Programming Skills, International Journal of Man-Machine Systems, 6, pp. 361–376, 1985.
7.
BrooksR. E., Towards a Theory of Cognitive Process in Computer Programming, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 9, pp. 737–751, 1977.
8.
DalbeyJ.LinnM. C., The Demands and Requirements of Computer Programming: A Literature Review, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1:3, pp. 253–274, 1985.
9.
GreenT. R. G.PayneS. J., Organization and Learnability in Computer Languages, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 21, pp. 7–18, 1984.
10.
MayerR. E.DyckJ. L.VilbergW., Learning to Program and Learning to Think: What's the Connection?Communications of the ACM, 29:1, pp. 605–610, 1986.
11.
SheilB. A., The Psychological Study of Programming, Computing Surveys, 13, pp. 101–120, 1981.
12.
WeinbergG. M., The Psychology of Computer Programming, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1971.
13.
CronbachL. C.SnowR. E., Aptitudes and Instructional Methods: A Handbook for Research on Interactions, Irvington Publishers, Inc., New York, 1977.
14.
LeithG. O. M.TrownE. A., The Influence of Personality and Task Conditions on Learning and Transfer, Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 7, pp. 181–188, 1970.
15.
PorterA. C.ChibucosT. R., Selecting Analysis Strategy, in Evaluating Educational Programs and Products, BorichG. (ed.), Educational Technology Press, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1974.
16.
SearlmanA., Language Capabilities of the Right Hemisphere, in Functions of the Right Cerebral Hemisphere, YoundA. (ed.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 87–111, 1983.
17.
KettlehutM. C., An Investigation of the Effects of Cognitive Style and Graphic or Numeric Data Presentation Formats on Decision-Making Performance, Dissertation Abstracts International, 47:8, Sec. A, p. 2778, 1986.
18.
SwansonC. T., The Impact of Color-Enhanced Information with Cognitive Style on Information Perception and Information Utilization, Dissertation Abstracts International, 47:8, Sec. A, p. 2778, 1985.
19.
ShneidermanB., Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts, 1987.
20.
BrydenM. P., Laterality: Functional Asymmetry in the Intact Brain, Academic Press, New York, 1982.
21.
CorballisM. C., Human Laterality, Academic Press, New York, 1983.
22.
HelligJ. B. (ed.), Cerebral Hemisphere Asymmetry: Method, Theory and Application, Praeger, New York, 1983.
23.
McGeeM. G., Human Spatial Abilities, Praeger, New York, 1979.
24.
SegalowitzS. J., Two Sides of the Brain: Brain Lateralization Explored, Prentice-Hall, New York, 1983.
25.
HinesT., Left Brain/Right Brain Mythology and Implications for Management and Training, Academy of Management Review, 12:4, pp. 600–606, 1987.
26.
NottebohmF., Origins and Mechanisms in the Establishment of Cerebral Dominance, in Handbook of Behavioral Neurobiology, Vol. 2, Neuropsychology, GassanigeM. (ed.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 295–344, 1979.
27.
CorballisM. C., Laterality and Myth, American Psychologist, 35, pp. 284–295, 1980.
28.
SergentJ., The Cerebral Balance of Power: Confrontation or Cooperation?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, pp. 253–272, 1982.
29.
SergentJ.BindraD., Differential Hemispheric Processing of Faces: Methodological Considerations and Reinterpretation, Psychological Bulletin, 89, pp. 541–554, 1981.
30.
ShneidermanB., Seven Plus or Minus Two Central Issues in Human-Computer Interaction, Proceedings of SIGCHI '86, pp. 343–349, 1986.
31.
DeanR. S., Cerebral Laterality and Verbal-Performance Discrepancies in Intelligence, Journal of School Psychology, 17, pp. 145–150, 1979.
32.
DeanR. S., Assessing Patterns of Laterality Preference, Clinical Neuropsychology, 3:4, pp. 22–28, 1981.
33.
HarrisonP., Review: Dean's Laterality Preference Schedule, in Ninth Mental Measurements Yearbook, MitchellJ. V. (ed.), Buros Institute of Mental Measurement, Lincoln, Nebraska, p. 817, 1985.
34.
ShneidermanB.MayerR.McKayD.HellerP., Experimental Investigations of the Utility of Detailed Flowcharts in Programming, Communications of the ACM, 20, pp. 373–381, 1977.
