COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PSEUDOCODE AND FLOWCHARTS IN ALGORITHM DEVELOPMENT AMONG FIRST-YEAR COMPUTER SCIENCE STUDENTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24191/VoA.v22i1.11473Keywords:
Pseudocode, Flowcharts, Algorithm development, Programming Education, Computational ThinkingAbstract
Algorithm development is a fundamental skill in computer science education, yet students struggle to translate problem-solving into structured logic. Flowcharts and pseudocode support algorithmic thinking, but limited research has examined how students perceive and prefer these methods. This study explores first-year computer science students' perceptions and preferences about using flowcharts, pseudocode, or both in algorithm development, and examines how effective these tools are on students’ perceptions. 95 students learned both tools via instruction and exercises, then their perceptions were surveyed. Data analysis included descriptive stats, t-tests, ANOVA, and regression. Results showed no significant perception difference (p > 0.05), indicating equal value for both tools. Regression analysis further showed that the perceived effectiveness of both tools significantly contributed to the students’ perception in learning algorithms development (p-value < 0.05). The study concludes that either approach can effectively support diverse learning styles and enhance algorithmic thinking. It is recommended that future research explore the use of other tools for algorithm development, such as algorithm animation software, block-based programming environments, or interactive visualization platforms, and investigate their long-term impact on programming performance and retention.
References
Al-Fedaghi, S. (2025). Thinking Machines for Requirements Engineering: Superseding Flowchart-Based Modelling. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.16712
Andrzejewska, M., & Stolińska, A. (2022). Do structured flowcharts outperform pseudocode? Evidence from eye movements. IEEE Access, 10, 132965–132975. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3230981
Ben-Ari, M. (2001). Constructivism in computer science education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20(1), 45–73.
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32.
Chinofunga, M. D., Chigeza, P., & Taylor, S. (2024). How can procedural flowcharts support the development of mathematics problem-solving skills? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 37, 85–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-024-00483-3
Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320076
Gao, Z., Yan, H., Liu, J., Zhang, X., Lin, Y., Zhang, Y., ... & Feng, J. (2025). Tracing distinct learning trajectories in introductory programming course: a sequence analysis of score, engagement, and code metrics for novice computer science vs. math cohorts. International Journal of STEM Education, 12(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-025-00546-2
Grawemeyer, B., Halloran, J., England, M., & Croft, D. (2022). Feedback and engagement on an introductory programming module [Preprint]. Computing Education Practice 2022 (CEP 2022). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2201.01240
Karnalim, O., & Ayub, M. (2017). The effectiveness of a program visualization tool on introductory programming: A case study with PythonTutor. CommIT (Communication & Information Technology) Journal, 11(2), 67–76.
Keuning, H., Alpizar-Chacon, I., Lykourentzou, I., Beehler, L., Köppe, C., de Jong, I., & Sosnovsky, S. (2024). Students’ perceptions and use of generative AI tools for programming across different computing courses. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.06865
Kurniawan, O., Jégourel, C., Lee, N. T. S., De Mari, M., & Poskitt, C. M. (2021). Steps before syntax: Helping novice programmers solve problems using the PCDIT framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.08896. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2022.121
Liu, J., Poulsen, S., Goodwin, E., Chen, H., Williams, G., Gertner, Y., & Franklin, D. (2024). Teaching algorithm design: A literature review. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.00832
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Moidunny, K. (2009). The effectiveness of the national professional qualification for educational leaders (NPQEL). [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The National University of Malaysia], 1-789.
Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press.
Richter, G., Pister, A., Fekete, J.-D., Sedlmair, M., & Weiskopf, D. (2022). Scalability in visualization. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.06562
Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 137–172. https://doi.org/10.1076/csed.13.2.137.14200
Sagala, A. A. H., & Yahfizham, Y. (2024). Analisis Pengenalan Konsep Algoritma Pemrograman Matematika Pada Kehidupan Sehari Hari. Morfologi: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, Bahasa, Sastra dan Budaya, 2(1), 01-16.
Scanlan, D. A. (1987). Structured flowcharts outperform pseudocode: An experimental comparison. IEEE Software, 4(3), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1109/52.35587
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
Tarsini, I. and Anggraeni, R. (2024) Explore flowchart and pseudocode concepts in algorithms and programming, Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Science. https://doi.org/10.55324/ijoms.v3i5.807.
Threekunprapa, A., & Yasri, P. (2020). Patterns of computational thinking development while solving unplugged coding activities, coupled with the 3S approach for self-directed learning. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(3), 1025-1045. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.3.1025
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Xu, Z., Zhang, K., & Sheng, V. S. (2024). Logic error localization in student programming assignments using pseudocode and graph neural networks. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.21282
Yu, J., & Bozic, M. (2023, November 9). Investigating the role of pseudocode in learning programming language: A language transfer and typological similarity perspective [Poster]. Cambridge Language Sciences Annual Symposium. https://doi.org/10.33774/coe-2023-jdvw9
Zhou, R., Xie, C., He, X., Li, Y., Fan, Q., Yu, Y., & Yan, Z. (2024). Effect of different flow design approaches on undergraduates’ computational thinking during pair programming. Journal of Educational Computing Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241268474
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
