This work-in-progress paper examines student preferences between text- and block-based assembly programming interfaces in a large-scale advanced programming course. While assembly programming tasks were only one component of the course, for this portion we offered students the option to complete the exercises using a block-based editor as an alternative to the default text-based tool that was already used in the previous semesters. Both environments were made available during the course, allowing students to freely choose which representation to use for completing assembly exercises. To investigate student preferences and perceptions, a post-course survey was administered, collecting responses on tool usage and attitudes toward the exercises. Out of approximately 700 enrolled students, 60 participated in the survey. Only three respondents reported using the block-based environment, while the vast majority reported a preference for the text-based alternative. Analysis suggests this pattern was driven primarily by default/status quo effects. We identify several design missteps that may have produced these default-driven outcomes: the historical text-based tool’s deep integration into course materials and workflows versus the prototype’s separate, web-hosted deployment; reliance on voluntary exploration without counterbalancing initial exposure; and a low survey response rate that constrains generalizability. As a lessons-learned contribution, we outline possible next steps so that future iterations can more credibly assess genuine student preferences rather than default adherence.

Top