{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02010968921389397, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.11731843575419, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
To Project or Not to Project: In Search of the Pathway to Object Orientation

We study two different ways to learn object-oriented programming in higher secondary education: The first way is to structure the lessons around an overarching project. First, a smaller object-oriented program is introduced. During the learning process, this program and the associated tasks become more and more complex and difficult in structure and size. In the second way, the individual lessons are structured around various small modules, each introducing new aspects. We call this approach LULUM (Learning Using Little Useful Modules). We evaluated the approaches with two groups of students from a comprehensive school. In addition, we compared these results with those of another group from a grammar school. Our results are as follows: When comparing the two approaches, the LULUM approach has shown to be more successful. The question nevertheless arises as to whether it makes sense to lay a relatively solid foundation in imperative programming before introducing the fundamentals of object orientation.