Enabling Independent Learning of Programming Concepts through - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
enabling independent learning of programming concepts
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Enabling Independent Learning of Programming Concepts through - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 14, 2024 320 likes •926 views

Enabling Independent Learning of Programming Concepts through Programming Completion Puzzles Kyle J. Harms , Noah Rowlett, Caitlin Kelleher Novices Learning Programming - Classroom 2 ACM Computer Science Teachers Association. Running On

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Enabling Independent Learning of Programming Concepts through Programming Completion Puzzles

Kyle J. Harms, Noah Rowlett, Caitlin Kelleher

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

Novices Learning Programming - Classroom

ACM Computer Science Teachers Association. “Running On Empty: The Failure to Teach K-12 Computer Science in the Digital Age.” http://runningonempty.acm.org/

  • Microsoft. “A National Talent Strategy” http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/download/presskits/citizenship/MSNTS.pdf
slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

Learning Programming Independently - Tutorials

Scratch

“Scratch,” Scratch. [Online]. Available: https://scratch.mit.edu/.

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

Learning Programming Independently - Puzzle-Like Systems

code.org – Hour of Code Gidget

“Hour of Code,” CSEd Week. [Online]. Available: http://csedweek.org/. [Accessed: 18-Mar-2014].

  • M. J. Lee, F. Bahmani, I. Kwan, J. LaFerte, P. Charters, A. Horvath, F. Luor, J. Cao, C. Law, M. Beswetherick, S. Long, M. Burnett, and A. J. Ko, “Principles of a debugging-first

puzzle game for computing education,” in 2014 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), 2014, pp. 57–64.

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

More Puzzles...

  • D. Parsons and P. Haden, “Parson’s Programming Puzzles: A Fun and Effective Learning Tool for First Programming Courses,” in Proceedings of the 8th Australasian

Conference on Computing Education - Volume 52, Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 2006, pp. 157–163.

Parson's Programming Puzzles

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

Learning Programming Independently

  • Completion Problems
  • Generation

– Write programs from scratch

  • Completion

– Complete partially written

programs

  • J. J. G. Van Merrienboer and M. B. M. De Croock, “Strategies for Computer-Based Programming Instruction: Program Completion Vs. Program Generation,” Journal of

Educational Computing Research, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 365–394, Jan. 1992.

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

Learning Programming Independently Picture

Completion Problems Tutorials Puzzle-like

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

How do we effectively use puzzles to support novices learning programming independently?

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

Cognitive Load Theory

  • J. Sweller and P. Chandler, “Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn,” Cognition and Instruction, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 185–233, 1994.

Working Memory

  • Completion Problems
  • Extraneous Cognitive Load
slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

Extraneous Cognitive Load

Sweller, P. Ayres, and S. Kalyuga, Cognitive Load Theory. Springer, 2011.

What is angle ACB? What is angle ACB?

High Extraneous Cognitive Load Low Extraneous Cognitive Load

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

Example: CS1 First Program

High Extraneous Cognitive Load Low Extraneous Cognitive Load

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

Example: Drag 'n Drop

High Extraneous Cognitive Load Low Extraneous Cognitive Load

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

Completion Problems

  • Generation (write from scratch)

– High extraneous cognitive load

  • Completion (complete partial

program)

– More working memory

resources available for learning

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

Can we use completion problems and also leverage the strengths of puzzle-like systems to provide an effective way to help novices learn programming independently?

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

Completion Problems → Programming Completion Puzzles

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

Puzzle Curriculum

  • 1. Sequential
  • 2. Repeated
  • 3. Parallel
  • 4. Repeated &

Parallel

  • 5. Parallel {

Repeated }

  • 6. Repeated {

Parallel } Easy Challenging

slide-17
SLIDE 17
slide-18
SLIDE 18

18

  • Lessons Learned
  • Programming Completion

Puzzle Effectiveness

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

  • Lessons Learned
  • Programming Completion

Puzzle Effectiveness

slide-20
SLIDE 20

20

Formative Evaluations

  • Completion Problem

Puzzle Format & Interface →

– 10 iterations – 23 participants - St. Louis Science Center – 30 minutes

  • Puzzle Curriculum

– 8 iterations – 21 participants - St. Louis Academy of Science – 90 minutes

slide-21
SLIDE 21

21

Lessons Learned:

1) Limit the editable dimensions of the puzzle. 2) When executing the program, limit distractions and focus the user's attention on the program's output. 3) Author puzzle programs with memorable segments. 4) Provide a challenge without being tricky. …

slide-22
SLIDE 22

22

1) Limit the editable dimensions of the puzzle.

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23

Editable Dimensions

Insertions Deletions Moves Change Values

slide-24
SLIDE 24

24

Limit the Possibilities

Statement Bin

slide-25
SLIDE 25

25

2) When executing the program, limit distractions and focus the user's attention on the program's

  • utput.
slide-26
SLIDE 26

26

Play Window

slide-27
SLIDE 27

27

Play Overlay

slide-28
SLIDE 28

28

3) Author puzzle programs with memorable segments.

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Hard to Remember Output

slide-30
SLIDE 30

30

Memorable Segments

Segment I – The alien repairs the flying saucer. Segment II – The flying saucer starts up. Segment III - Alien drives flying saucer.

slide-31
SLIDE 31

31

Memorable Segments

Segment I Segment II Segment III

slide-32
SLIDE 32

32

4) Provide a challenge without being tricky.

slide-33
SLIDE 33

33

Tricky & Challenging

“It was tricky, but not harder.” “I thought this one was a little challenging, but I liked it!”

slide-34
SLIDE 34

34

Tricky

Nearly Identical Statements

slide-35
SLIDE 35

35

Challenging

slide-36
SLIDE 36

36

  • Lessons Learned
  • Programming Completion

Puzzle Effectiveness

slide-37
SLIDE 37

37

Summative Evaluation

  • 27 participants

– 12 Female, 15 Male – Average Age: 11.59 – Minimal Programming

Experience (< 3 hours)

  • 2 hours
slide-38
SLIDE 38

38

Independent Learning: Tutorials

slide-39
SLIDE 39

39

Study Design

slide-40
SLIDE 40

40

Study Design

slide-41
SLIDE 41

41

Training Phase

  • 1. Sequential
  • 2. Repeated
  • 3. Parallel
  • 4. Repeated &

Parallel

  • 5. Parallel {

Repeated }

  • 6. Repeated {

Parallel }

slide-42
SLIDE 42

42

Training Task

Tutorial Puzzle

slide-43
SLIDE 43

43

Study Design

slide-44
SLIDE 44

44

Transfer Phase

Repeated Parallel Parallel { Repeated } Repeated { Parallel }

slide-45
SLIDE 45

45

Transfer Task

slide-46
SLIDE 46

46

Completed Transfer Task

Initial Completed

slide-47
SLIDE 47

47

Research Questions:

1) Do puzzles require a different time and mental investment compared to tutorials? 2) Do puzzle users show more evidence of learning compared to tutorial users? 3) Are puzzles more motivating than tutorials?

slide-48
SLIDE 48

48

1) Do puzzles require a different time and mental investment compared to tutorials?

slide-49
SLIDE 49

49

Study Design

slide-50
SLIDE 50

50

Percent of Users Exposed to Programming Concept

slide-51
SLIDE 51

51

Average Training Task Time

p < .001

  • 1. Sequential
  • 3. Parallel
  • 4. Repeated & Parallel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tutorial Puzzle

Training Task Average Training Task Time (min)

slide-52
SLIDE 52

52

Average Training Task Mental Effort

p < .05

  • 2. Repeated
  • 3. Parallel
  • 5. Parallel{Repeated}
  • 6. Repeated{Parallel}

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Tutorial Puzzle

Training Task Average Mental Effort (low - high)

slide-53
SLIDE 53

53

2) Do puzzle users show more evidence of learning compared to tutorial users?

slide-54
SLIDE 54

54

Study Design

slide-55
SLIDE 55

55

Average Transfer Task Time

p = .06

Repeated Repeated{Parallel} 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tutorial Puzzle

Transfer Task Average Task Time (min)

slide-56
SLIDE 56

56

Average Transfer Task Performance

p < .05

Repeated Parallel{Repeated} 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Tutorial Puzzle

Transfer Task Average Task Performance

slide-57
SLIDE 57

57

Summary

Puzzle users performed 26% better on transfer tasks while requiring 23% less training time.

slide-58
SLIDE 58

58

Future Work

  • Completion Problems

– Paired with worked examples

  • Distractors

– Common in puzzle-like systems – Impact on completion problem

effect

slide-59
SLIDE 59

59

Questions

Kyle J. Harms Washington University in St. Louis kyle.harms@wustl.edu

https://lookingglass.wustl.edu