skip to main content
10.1145/3328778.3366869acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Mapping the SQL Learning Process in Introductory Database Courses

Authors Info & Claims
Published:26 February 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

The Structured Query Language (SQL) is powerful, prevalent across many problem domains, and challenging to master. Sophisticated information requests require programmers to set aside familiar procedural and functional modes of thought. Instead, programmers must learn how to apply unfamiliar set-based relational manipulation rules. This paper analyzes the student learning process in an introductory database course. We do this using detailed analysis of problem-solving attempts by 114 students related to 116 SQL lab exercises assigned over a five-week period. We measure student success rates in mastering these SQL concepts, as well as effort expended by students in solving information retrieval problems.

References

  1. Alireza Ahadi, Vahid Behbood, Arto Vihavainen, Julia Prior, and Raymond Lister. 2016. Students' Syntactic Mistakes in Writing Seven Different Types of SQL Queries and Its Application to Predicting Students' Success. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 401--406. https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844640Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Alireza Ahadi, Julia Prior, Vahid Behbood, and Raymond Lister. 2015. A Quantitative Study of the Relative Difficulty for Novices of Writing Seven Different Types of SQL Queries. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 201--206. https://doi.org/10.1145/2729094.2742620Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. L. Cagliero, L. De Russis, L. Farinetti, and T. Montanaro. 2018. Improving the Effectiveness of SQL Learning Practice: A Data-Driven Approach. In 2018 IEEE 42nd Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC) , Vol. 01. 980--989. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC.2018.00174Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Colin A. Higgins, Geoffrey Gray, Pavlos Symeonidis, and Athanasios Tsintsifas. 2005. Automated Assessment and Experiences of Teaching Programming. J. Educ. Resour. Comput. , Vol. 5, 3, Article 5 (Sept. 2005). https://doi.org/10.1145/1163405.1163410Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. L. I. McCann. 2003. On making relational division comprehensible. In 33rd Annual Frontiers in Education, 2003. FIE 2003., Vol. 2. F2C--6. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2003.1264699Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Antonija Mitrovic, Brent Martin, and Michael Mayo. 2002. Using Evaluation to Shape ITS Design: Results and Experiences with SQL-Tutor. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction , Vol. 12, 2--3 (March 2002), 243--279. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015022619307Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Andrew Pavlo and Matthew Aslett. 2016. What's Really New with NewSQL? SIGMOD Rec. , Vol. 45, 2 (Sept. 2016), 45--55. https://doi.org/10.1145/3003665.3003674Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Gang Qian. 2018. Teaching SQL: A Divide-and-conquer Method for Writing Queries. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. , Vol. 33, 4 (April 2018), 37--44. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3199572.3199577Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Karen Renaud and Judy Biljon. 2004. Teaching SQL - Which Pedagogical Horse for This Course? 244--256. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3--540--27811--5_22Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Shazia Sadiq, Maria Orlowska, Wasim Sadiq, and Joe Lin. 2004. SQLator: An Online SQL Learning Workbench. SIGCSE Bull. , Vol. 36, 3 (June 2004), 223--227. https://doi.org/10.1145/1026487.1008055Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Toni Taipalus and Piia Per"al"a. 2019. What to Expect and What to Focus on in SQL Query Teaching. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 198--203. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287359Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Toni Taipalus, Mikko Siponen, and Tero Vartiainen. 2018. Errors and Complications in SQL Query Formulation. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. , Vol. 18, 3, Article 15 (Aug. 2018), bibinfonumpages29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3231712Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Mapping the SQL Learning Process in Introductory Database Courses

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          SIGCSE '20: Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
          February 2020
          1502 pages
          ISBN:9781450367936
          DOI:10.1145/3328778

          Copyright © 2020 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 26 February 2020

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate1,595of4,542submissions,35%

          Upcoming Conference

          SIGCSE Virtual 2024
          SIGCSE Virtual 2024: ACM Virtual Global Computing Education Conference
          November 30 - December 1, 2024
          Virtual Event , USA

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader