skip to main content
10.1145/3364510.3364524acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pageskoli-callingConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Investigating the Affect and Effect of Adaptive Parsons Problems

Published:21 November 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

In a Parsons problem the learner places mixed-up code blocks in the correct order to solve a problem. Parsons problems can be used for both practice and assessment in programming courses. While most students correctly solve Parsons problems, some do not. Unsuccessful practice is not conducive to learning, leads to frustration, and lowers self-efficacy. Ericson invented two types of adaptation for Parsons problems, intra-problem and inter-problem, in order to decrease frustration and maximize learning gains. In intra-problem adaptation, if the learner is struggling, the problem can dynamically be made easier. In inter-problem adaptation, the next problem's difficulty is modified based on the learner's performance on the last problem. This paper reports on the first observational studies of five undergraduate students and 11 secondary teachers solving both intra-problem adaptive and non-adaptive Parsons problems. It also reports on a log file analysis with data from over 8,000 users solving non-adaptive and adaptive Parsons problems. The paper reports on teachers' understanding of the intra-problem adaptation process, their preference for adaptive or non-adaptive Parsons problems, their perception of the usefulness of solving Parsons problems in helping them learn to fix and write similar code, and the effect of adaptation (both intra-problem and inter-problem) on problem correctness. Teachers understood most of the intra-problem adaptation process, but not all. Most teachers preferred adaptive Parsons problems and felt that solving Parsons problems helped them learn to fix and write similar code. Analysis of the log file data provided evidence that learners are nearly twice as likely to correctly solve adaptive Parsons problems than non-adaptive ones.

References

  1. John R Anderson, C Franklin Boyle, and Brian J Reiser. 1985. Intelligent tutoring systems. Science 228, 4698 (1985), 456--462.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. John R Anderson, Albert T Corbett, Kenneth R Koedinger, and Ray Pelletier. 1995. Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The journal of the learning sciences 4, 2 (1995), 167--207.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Ken Arnold, James Gosling, and David Holmes. 2005. The Java programming language. Addison Wesley Professional.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Ronald Baecker and Ian Small. 1990. Animation at the interface. The art of human-computer interface design (1990), 251--267.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Albert Bandura, WH Freeman, and Richard Lightsey. 1999. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Klara Benda, Amy Bruckman, and Mark Guzdial. 2012. When life and learning do not fit: Challenges of workload and communication in introductory computer science online. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 12, 4 (2012), 15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Jens Bennedsen and Michael E Caspersen. 2007. Failure rates in introductory programming. ACM SIGcSE Bulletin 39, 2 (2007), 32--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Laura E. Berk and Adam Winsler. 1995. Scaffolding Children's Learning: Vygotsky and Early Childhood Education. National Association for the Education of Young Children.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. John D Bransford, Ann L Brown, Rodney R Cocking, et al. 2000. How people learn. Vol. 11. Washington, DC: National academy press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Fanny Chevalier, Nathalie Henry Riche, Catherine Plaisant, Amira Chalbi, and Christophe Hurter. 2016. Animations 25 Years Later: New Roles and Opportunities. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces. ACM, 2909255, 280--287. https://doi.org/10.1145/2909132.2909255Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Gemma Corbalan, Liesbeth Kester, and Jeroen JG Van Merriënboer. 2008. Selecting learning tasks: Effects of adaptation and shared control on learning efficiency and task involvement. Contemporary Educational Psychology 33, 4 (2008), 733--756.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Albert T Corbett, Kenneth R Koedinger, and John R Anderson. 1997. Intelligent tutoring systems. In Handbook of human-computer interaction. Elsevier, 849--874.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. National Research Council et al. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. National Academies Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Wanda P Dann, Stephen Cooper, and Randy Pausch. 2008. Learning to program with Alice. Prentice Hall Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Paul Denny, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Beth Simon. 2008. Evaluating a new exam question: Parsons problems. In Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on computing education research. ACM, 113--124.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Carol S Dweck. 1986. Motivational processes affecting learning. American psychologist 41, 10 (1986), 1040.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Barbara Ericson, Mark Guzdial, Briana Morrison, Miranda Parker, Matthew Moldavan, and Lekha Surasani. 2015. An eBook for teachers learning CS principles. ACM Inroads 6, 4 (2015), 84--86.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Barbara Jane Ericson. 2018. Evaluating the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Parsons Problems and Dynamically Adaptive Parsons Problems as a Type of Low Cognitive Load Practice Problem. Ph.D. Dissertation. Georgia Institute of Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Barbara J. Ericson, James D. Foley, and Jochen Rick. 2018. Evaluating the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Adaptive Parsons Problems. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 60--68. https://doi.org/10.1145/3230977.3231000Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Barbara J Ericson, Mark J Guzdial, and Briana B Morrison. 2015. Analysis of interactive features designed to enhance learning in an ebook. In Proceedings of the eleventh annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM, 169--178.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Barbara J Ericson, Lauren E Margulieux, and Jochen Rick. 2017. Solving parsons problems versus fixing and writing code. In Proceedings of the 17th Koli Calling Conference on Computing Education Research. ACM, 20--29.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. David Flanagan. 2006. JavaScript: the definitive guide. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.".Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Stuart Garner. 2007. An Exploration of How a Technology-Facilitated Part-Complete Solution Method Supports the Learning of Computer Programming. Issues in Informing Science & Information Technology 4 (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Kyle James Harms, Jason Chen, and Caitlin L Kelleher. 2016. Distractors in Parsons Problems Decrease Learning Efficiency for Young Novice Programmers. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM, 241--250.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Brian Harvey, Daniel Garcia, Josh Paley, and Luke Segars. 2012. Snap!:(build your own blocks). In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 662--662.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Petri Ihantola and Ville Karavirta. 2011. Two-dimensional Parson's Puzzles: The Concept, Tools, and First Observations. Journal of Information Technology Education 10 (2011), 119--132.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Dan Ingalls, Ted Kaehler, John Maloney, Scott Wallace, and Alan Kay. 1997. Back to the future: the story of Squeak, a practical Smalltalk written in itself. In ACM SIGPLAN Notices, Vol. 32. ACM, 318--326.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Paivi Kinnunen and Beth Simon. 2010. Experiencing programming assignments in CS1: the emotional toll. In Proceedings of the Sixth international workshop on Computing education research. ACM, 77--86.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. John Maloney, Mitchel Resnick, Natalie Rusk, Brian Silverman, and Evelyn Eastmond. 2010. The scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 10, 4 (2010), 16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher. 2003. Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. MIT press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Dale Parsons and Patricia Haden. 2006. 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. Australian Computer Society, Inc., 157--163.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Michel F Sanner et al. 1999. Python: a programming language for software integration and development. J Mol Graph Model 17, 1 (1999), 57--61.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. John A Sloboda, Jane W Davidson, Michael JA Howe, and Derek G Moore. 1996. The role of practice in the development of performing musicians. British journal of psychology 87, 2 (1996), 287--309.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. John Sweller. 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive science 12, 2 (1988), 257--285.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. John Sweller. 1994. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and instruction 4, 4 (1994), 295--312.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Michael Tuffiash, Roy W Roring, and K Anders Ericsson. 2007. Expert performance in SCRABBLE: Implications for the study of the structure and acquisition of complex skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 13, 3 (2007), 124.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Jeroen JG Van Merriënboer. 1990. Strategies for programming instruction in high school: Program completion vs. program generation. Journal of educational computing research 6, 3 (1990), 265--285.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Kurt Vanlehn. 2006. The behavior of tutoring systems. International journal of artificial intelligence in education 16, 3 (2006), 227--265.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Lev Semenovich Vygotsky. 1980. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Christopher Watson and Frederick WB Li. 2014. Failure rates in introductory programming revisited. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science education. ACM, 39--44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. David Wolber, Hal Abelson, Ellen Spertus, and Liz Looney. 2011. App Inventor. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.".Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Investigating the Affect and Effect of Adaptive Parsons Problems

          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 Other conferences
            Koli Calling '19: Proceedings of the 19th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research
            November 2019
            247 pages
            ISBN:9781450377157
            DOI:10.1145/3364510

            Copyright © 2019 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: 21 November 2019

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate80of182submissions,44%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader