Otto Seppälä
ABSTRACT
Visual algorithm simulation exercises test student knowledge of different algorithms by making them trace the steps of how a given algorithm would have manipulated a set of input data. When assessing such exercises the main difference between a human assessor and an automated assessment procedure is the human ability to adapt to the possible errors made by the student. A human assessor can continue past the point where the model solution and the student solution deviate and make a hypothesis on the source of the error based on the student's answer. Our goal is to bring some of that ability to automated assessment. We anticipate that providing better feedback on student errors might help reduce persistent misconceptions.
The method described tries to automatically recreate erroneous student behavior by introducing a set of code mutations on the original algorithm code. The available mutations correspond to different careless errors and misconceptions held by the student.
The results show that such automatically generated "misconceived" algorithms can explain much of the student behavior found in erroneous solutions to the exercise. Non-systematic mutations can also be used to simulate slips which greatly reduces the number of erroneous solutions without explanations.
- J. R. Anderson, A. T. Corbett, K. R. Koedinger, and R. Pelletier. Cognitive Tutors: Lessons Learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2):167--207, 1995, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- J. S. Brown and R. B. Burton. Diagnostic models for procedural bugs in mathematical skills. Cognitive Science, 2:155--192, 1978.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. A. Budd, R. A. DeMillo, R. J. Lipton, and F. G. Sayward. Theoretical and empirical studies on using program mutation to test the functional correctness of programs. In POPL '80: Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, pages 220--233, New York, NY, USA, 1980. ACM Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. B. Burton. Debuggy: Diagnosis of errors in basic mathematical skills. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Academic Press, 1981.Google Scholar
- R. A. Demillo, R. J. Lipton, and F. G. Sayward. Hints on test data selection: help for the practicing programmer. Computer, 11:34--41, 1978. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Korhonen. Visual Algorithm Simulation. Doctoral dissertation (tech rep. no. tko-a40/03), Helsinki University of Technology, 2003.Google Scholar
- L. Malmi, V. Karavirta, A. Korhonen, J. Nikander, O. Seppälä, and P. Silvasti. Visual algorithm simulation exercise system with automatic assessment: TRAKLA2. Informatics in Education, 3(2):267--288, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- O. Seppälä, L. Malmi, and A. Korhonen. Observations on Student Misconceptions - A Case Study of the Build-Heap algorithm. Computer Science Education. 16(3):241--255, September 2006, Routledge.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. H. Untch. Mutation-based software testing using program schemata. In ACM-SE 30: Proceedings of the 30th annual Southeast regional conference, pages 285--291, New York, NY, USA, 1992. ACM Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Modelling student behavior in algorithm simulation exercises with code mutation
Recommendations
A differential evolution algorithm with dual preferred learning mutation
Differential evolution (DE) algorithm is widely used for solving real-parameter optimization problems due to its simplicity and efficiency. However the canonical DE is easy to suffer from the premature convergence. To further improve the performance of ...
Comments