反思对自动评分的影响:对编程新手的实证研究

IF 3 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Computer Science Education Pub Date : 2023-09-27 DOI:10.1080/08993408.2023.2262877
Fatima Abu Deeb, Timothy Hickey
{"title":"反思对自动评分的影响:对编程新手的实证研究","authors":"Fatima Abu Deeb, Timothy Hickey","doi":"10.1080/08993408.2023.2262877","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTBackground and Context Auto-graders are praised by novice students learning to program, as they provide them with automatic feedback about their problem-solving process. However, some students often make random changes when they have errors in their code, without engaging in deliberate thinking about the cause of the error.Objective To investigate whether requiring students using an auto-grading system to reflect on the errors in their code would reduce trial and error behavior often seen in such systems.Method The paper analyzes the impact of reflection per student and per problem using paired t-tests.Findings Students took fewer steps to solve the problem in reflective sessions than in Usual Debugging Sessions (4.33 vs 8.04) and they made half as many syntax errors, logic errors, and runtime errors. However, they took more time between runs.Implications This paper provides evidence that requiring reflection in autograding systems can improve student debugging skills.KEYWORDS: Reflective debuggingintroductory programming classesonline IDEactionable learning analyticsauto gradersnovice programming Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Ethical approvalThis study was done in accordance with the university IRB with reference #15041.Data availability statementThe datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24188010","PeriodicalId":45844,"journal":{"name":"Computer Science Education","volume":"82 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of reflection in auto-graders: an empirical study of novice coders\",\"authors\":\"Fatima Abu Deeb, Timothy Hickey\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08993408.2023.2262877\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACTBackground and Context Auto-graders are praised by novice students learning to program, as they provide them with automatic feedback about their problem-solving process. However, some students often make random changes when they have errors in their code, without engaging in deliberate thinking about the cause of the error.Objective To investigate whether requiring students using an auto-grading system to reflect on the errors in their code would reduce trial and error behavior often seen in such systems.Method The paper analyzes the impact of reflection per student and per problem using paired t-tests.Findings Students took fewer steps to solve the problem in reflective sessions than in Usual Debugging Sessions (4.33 vs 8.04) and they made half as many syntax errors, logic errors, and runtime errors. However, they took more time between runs.Implications This paper provides evidence that requiring reflection in autograding systems can improve student debugging skills.KEYWORDS: Reflective debuggingintroductory programming classesonline IDEactionable learning analyticsauto gradersnovice programming Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Ethical approvalThis study was done in accordance with the university IRB with reference #15041.Data availability statementThe datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24188010\",\"PeriodicalId\":45844,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computer Science Education\",\"volume\":\"82 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computer Science Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2023.2262877\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computer Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2023.2262877","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自动评分器受到学习编程的新手的赞扬,因为它们为他们提供了关于他们解决问题过程的自动反馈。然而,一些学生经常在他们的代码中有错误时随意更改,而没有认真思考错误的原因。目的探讨要求使用自动评分系统的学生反思其代码中的错误是否会减少此类系统中经常出现的试错行为。方法采用配对t检验分析每个学生和每个问题反思的影响。学生在反思会话中解决问题的步骤比在常规调试会话中(4.33 vs 8.04)少,他们犯的语法错误,逻辑错误和运行时错误是一半。然而,他们的跑步间隔时间更长。本文提供的证据表明,在自动评分系统中要求反思可以提高学生的调试技能。关键词:反思性调试,编程入门课程,在线,可操作学习,分析,自动评分,编程新手披露声明,作者未报告潜在利益冲突。伦理批准本研究按照大学IRB进行,参考文献#15041。数据可用性声明在当前研究期间生成和/或分析的数据集https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24188010
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Impact of reflection in auto-graders: an empirical study of novice coders
ABSTRACTBackground and Context Auto-graders are praised by novice students learning to program, as they provide them with automatic feedback about their problem-solving process. However, some students often make random changes when they have errors in their code, without engaging in deliberate thinking about the cause of the error.Objective To investigate whether requiring students using an auto-grading system to reflect on the errors in their code would reduce trial and error behavior often seen in such systems.Method The paper analyzes the impact of reflection per student and per problem using paired t-tests.Findings Students took fewer steps to solve the problem in reflective sessions than in Usual Debugging Sessions (4.33 vs 8.04) and they made half as many syntax errors, logic errors, and runtime errors. However, they took more time between runs.Implications This paper provides evidence that requiring reflection in autograding systems can improve student debugging skills.KEYWORDS: Reflective debuggingintroductory programming classesonline IDEactionable learning analyticsauto gradersnovice programming Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Ethical approvalThis study was done in accordance with the university IRB with reference #15041.Data availability statementThe datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24188010
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Computer Science Education
Computer Science Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
3.70%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Computer Science Education publishes high-quality papers with a specific focus on teaching and learning within the computing discipline. The journal seeks novel contributions that are accessible and of interest to researchers and practitioners alike. We invite work with learners of all ages and across both classroom and out-of-classroom learning contexts.
期刊最新文献
“These two worlds are antithetical”: epistemic tensions in integrating computational thinking in K12 humanities and arts Exploring young people’s perceptions and discourses of technology occupations through descriptive drawings and a questionnaire A review of arts integration in K-12 CS education: gathering STEAM for inclusive learning Investigating the psychometric features of a locally designed computational thinking assessment for elementary students Integrating coding across the curriculum: a scoping review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1