skip to main content
10.1145/3351287.3351288acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesukicerConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Experimenting with Model Solutions as a Support Mechanism

Published: 05 September 2019 Publication History

Abstract

We describe an experiment from an introductory programming course where we provided students an opportunity to access model solutions of programming assignments they have not yet completed. Access to model solutions was controlled with coins, which students collected by completing programming assignments. The quantity of coins was limited so that students could buy solutions to at most one tenth of the course assignments. When compared to the traditional approach where access to model solutions is limited to only after the assignment is completed or the assignment deadline has passed, students seemed to enjoy the opportunity more and collecting coins motivated some students to complete more assignments. Collected coins were mostly used close to deadlines and on more difficult assignments. Overall, the use of coins and model solutions may be a viable option to providing students additional support. Data from the use of coins and model solutions could also be used to identify students who could benefit from additional guidance.

References

[1]
Adrian A. de Freitas and Michelle M. de Freitas. 2013. Classroom Live: A software-assisted gamification tool. Computer Science Education 23 (06 2013), 186--206.
[2]
Gabriel Barata, Sandra Gama, Joaquim Jorge, and Daniel Gonçalves. 2013. Engaging Engineering Students with Gamification. 2013 5th International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications, VS-GAMES 2013, 24--31.
[3]
Jens Bennedsen and Michael E. Caspersen. 2007. Failure Rates in Introductory Programming. SIGCSE Bull. 39, 2 (June 2007), 32--36.
[4]
Allan Collins, John Seely Brown, and Ann Holum. 1991. Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American educator 15, 3 (1991), 6--11.
[5]
Allan Collins, John Seely Brown, and Susan E Newman. 1989. Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser 18 (1989), 32--42.
[6]
Sebastian Deterding, Miguel Sicart, Lennart Nacke, Kenton O'Hara, and Dan Dixon. 2011. Gamification. Using Game-design Elements in Non-gaming Contexts. In CHI '11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2425--2428.
[7]
Walter Doyle. 1983. Academic work. Review of educational research 53, 2 (1983), 159--199.
[8]
Carol S. Dweck. 1986. Motivational Processes Affecting Learning. American Psychologist (1986), 1040--1048.
[9]
C. A. Eleftheria, P. Charikleia, C. G. Iason, T. Athanasios, and T. Dimitrios. 2013. An innovative augmented reality educational platform using Gamification to enhance lifelong learning and cultural education. In IISA 2013. 1--5.
[10]
Katherine Fu, Jonathan Cagan, and Kenneth Kotovsky. 2010. Design team convergence: the influence of example solution quality. Journal of Mechanical Design 132, 11 (2010), 111005.
[11]
David Gibson, Nathaniel Ostashewski, Kim Flintoff, Sheryl Grant, and Erin Knight. 2015. Digital Badges in Education. Education and Information Technologies 20, 2 (2015), 403--410.
[12]
Geoff Goehle. 2013. Gamification and Web-based Homework. PRIMUS 23 (03 2013).
[13]
Lassi Haaranen, Petri Ihantola, Lasse Hakulinen, and Ari Korhonen. 2014. How (Not) to Introduce Badges to Online Exercises. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 33--38.
[14]
Judith Harackiewicz, Kenneth Barron, and Andrew J. Elliot. 1998. Rethinking achievement goals: When are they adaptive for college students and why? Educational Psychologist 33 (12 1998), 1--21.
[15]
Arto Hellas, Petri Ihantola, Andrew Petersen, Vangel V Ajanovski, Mirela Gutica, Timo Hynninen, Antti Knutas, Juho Leinonen, Chris Messom, and Soohyun Nam Liao. 2018. Predicting academic performance: a systematic literature review. In Proceedings Companion of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, 175--199.
[16]
Chris Hulleman, Sheree M Schrager, Shawn M Bodmann, and Judith Harackiewicz. 2010. A Meta-Analytic Review of Achievement Goal Measures: Different Labels for the Same Constructs or Different Constructs With Similar Labels? Psychological bulletin 136 (05 2010), 422--49.
[17]
Petri Ihantola, Juha Sorva, and Arto Vihavainen. 2014. Automatically detectable indicators of programming assignment difficulty. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Information technology education. ACM, 33--38.
[18]
Slava Kalyuga. 2009. The expertise reversal effect. In Managing Cognitive Load in Adaptive Multimedia Learning. IGI Global, 58--80.
[19]
Ravinder Koul, Roy Clariana, Kalayanee Jitgarun, and Alisa Songsriwittaya. 2009. The influence of achievement goal orientation on plagiarism. Learning and Individual Differences 19 (12 2009), 506--512.
[20]
Balraj Kumar and Parul Khurana. 2012. Gamification in Education - Learn Computer Programming with Fun. International Journal of Computers and Distributed Systems 2 (12 2012).
[21]
Juho Leinonen, Leo Leppänen, Petri Ihantola, and Arto Hellas. 2017. Comparison of time metrics in programming. In Proceedings of the 2017 acm conference on international computing education research. ACM, 200--208.
[22]
Leo Leppänen, Lassi Vapaakallio, and Arto Vihavainen. 2016. Illusion of Progress is Moar Addictive Than Cat Pictures. In Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 133--136.
[23]
Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Simon, Ibrahim Albluwi, Brett A. Becker, Michail Giannakos, Amruth N. Kumar, Linda Ott, James Paterson, Michael James Scott, Judy Sheard, and Claudia Szabo. 2018. Introductory Programming: A Systematic Literature Review. In Proceedings Companion of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2018 Companion). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 55--106.
[24]
Behrooz Mostafavi, Guojing Zhou, Collin Lynch, Min Chi, and Tiffany Barnes. 2015. Data-driven worked examples improve retention and completion in a logic tutor. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer, 726--729.
[25]
Fiona Nah, Qing Zeng, Venkata Rajasekhar Telaprolu, Abhishek Padmanabhuni Ayyappa, and Brenda Eschenbrenner. 2014. Gamification of Education: A Review of Literature. 401--409.
[26]
Henrik Nygren, Juho Leinonen, and Arto Hellas. 2019. Non-restricted Access to Model Solutions: A Good Idea?. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, 44--50.
[27]
Siobhan O'Donovan, James Gain, and Patrick Marais. 2013. A Case Study in the Gamification of a University-level Games Development Course. In Proceedings of the South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists Conference (SAICSIT '13). ACM, 242--251.
[28]
Eleanor O'Rourke, Christy Ballweber, and Zoran Popovií. 2014. Hint systems may negatively impact performance in educational games. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference. ACM, 51--60.
[29]
Corwin Senko, Chris S. Hulleman, and Judith M. Harackiewicz. 2011. Achievement Goal Theory at the Crossroads: Old Controversies, Current Challenges, and New Directions. Educational Psychologist 46, 1 (2011), 26--47.
[30]
Corwin Senko and Katie L. Tropiano. 2016. Comparing Three Models of Achievement Goals: Goal Orientations, Goal Standards, and Goal Complexes. Journal of Educational Psychology 108 (02 2016).
[31]
Jaime Spacco, William Pugh, Nat Ayewah, and David Hovemeyer. 2006. The Marmoset project: an automated snapshot, submission, and testing system. In Companion to the 21st ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications. Citeseer, 669--670.
[32]
Kristin Stephens-Martinez and Armando Fox. 2018. Giving hints is complicated: understanding the challenges of an automated hint system based on frequent wrong answers. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, 45--50.
[33]
John Sweller and Graham A Cooper. 1985. The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and instruction 2, 1 (1985), 59--89.
[34]
J Gregory Trafton and Brian J Reiser. 1993. Studying examples and solving problems: Contributions to skill acquisition. In Proceedings of the 15th conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Citeseer, 1017--1022.
[35]
Kurt VanLehn. 1998. Analogy events: How examples are used during problem solving. Cognitive Science 22, 3 (1998), 347--388.
[36]
Arto Vihavainen, Jonne Airaksinen, and Christopher Watson. 2014. A Systematic Review of Approaches for Teaching Introductory Programming and Their Influence on Success. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 19--26.
[37]
Arto Vihavainen, Matti Paksula, and Matti Luukkainen. 2011. Extreme Apprenticeship Method in Teaching Programming for Beginners. In Proceedings of the 42Nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 93--98.
[38]
Arto Vihavainen, Thomas Vikberg, Matti Luukkainen, and Jaakko Kurhila. 2013. Massive Increase in Eager TAs: Experiences from Extreme Apprenticeship-based CS1. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 123--128.
[39]
Christopher Watson and Frederick W.B. Li. 2014. Failure Rates in Introductory Programming Revisited. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 39--44.
[40]
H Wood and D Wood. 1999. Help seeking, learning and contingent tutoring. Computers & Education 33, 2-3 (1999), 153--169.
[41]
Daniel Zingaro. 2015. Examining Interest and Grades in Computer Science 1: A Study of Pedagogy and Achievement Goals. Trans. Comput. Educ. 15, 3 (2015), 14:1--14:18.
[42]
Daniel Zingaro, Michelle Craig, Leo Porter, Brett A Becker, Yingjun Cao, Phill Conrad, Diana Cukierman, Arto Hellas, Dastyni Loksa, and Neena Thota. 2018. Achievement Goals in CS1: Replication and Extension. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 687--692.
[43]
Daniel Zingaro and Leo Porter. 2016. Impact of student achievement goals on CS1 outcomes. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM technical symposium on Computing Science Education. ACM, 279--296.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Exploring the Responses of Large Language Models to Beginner Programmers’ Help RequestsProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3568813.3600139(93-105)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2023
  • (2022)Automatic Generation of Programming Exercises and Code Explanations Using Large Language ModelsProceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3501385.3543957(27-43)Online publication date: 3-Aug-2022

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
UKICER '19: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on United Kingdom & Ireland Computing Education Research
September 2019
81 pages
ISBN:9781450372572
DOI:10.1145/3351287
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 the author(s) 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].

In-Cooperation

  • Univ of Kent at Canterbury: University of Kent at Canterbury

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 05 September 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. course performance
  2. gamification
  3. introductory programming
  4. model solutions
  5. worked examples

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

UKICER
UKICER: UK & Ireland Computing Education Research Conference
September 5 - 6, 2019
Canterbury, United Kingdom

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)13
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 19 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Exploring the Responses of Large Language Models to Beginner Programmers’ Help RequestsProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3568813.3600139(93-105)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2023
  • (2022)Automatic Generation of Programming Exercises and Code Explanations Using Large Language ModelsProceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3501385.3543957(27-43)Online publication date: 3-Aug-2022

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media