skip to main content
10.1145/3548660.3561330acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Student misconceptions about finite state machines: identify them in order to create a concept inventory

Published:09 November 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

A concept inventory (CI) is a standardized assessment tool designed to evaluate a student's understanding of the fundamental concepts of a topic. To create a CI, it is necessary to accurately identify these concepts, but also to identify how poorly students understand them. The aim of this paper is to present an approach used to identify misconceptions related to the concept of Finite State Machine (FSM). In the learning process, identifying the students' misconceptions, i.e., when they appear and how to efficiently correct them, are important aspects of the best learning outcome. Rather than measuring understanding at a specific point in the learning timeline, the CI can be administered to students several times over the course of the learning period to measure how students' understanding of concepts changes. This preliminary study is composed of two main steps. In the first step, four misconceptions were identified about FSM based on multi-year observations and teacher experiences. From these misconceptions, seven statements about FSM are specified. In the second step, a Likert scale questionnaire (composed of seven statements) was administered five times to students according to a specific schedule, allowing to measure the evolution of FSM understanding. A pre-questionnaire is used to determine the students' misconceptions about the FSM concept, based on their learning (self-learning or from previous courses). This measure, which is the starting point of this preliminary study, makes it possible to highlight the changes in the students' positioning in relation to the statements provided and to link these changes to the teaching interventions. Thus, changes are clearly observable after the two theoretical classes, and stabilization is devoted after the delivery of the lab work.

References

  1. Wendy K Adams and Carl E Wieman. 2011. Development and Validation of Instruments to Measure Learning of Expert-like Thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 9 (2011), 1289–1312. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Vicki L Almstrum, Peter B Henderson, Valerie Harvey, Cinda Heeren, William Marion, Charles Riedesel, Leen-Kiat Soh, and Allison Elliott Tew. 2006. Concept inventories in computer science for the topic discrete mathematics. In Working group reports on ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education. 132–145. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Rajeev Alur. 2015. Principles of Cyber-Physical Systems. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Rajeev Alur. 2019. CIS 540: Principles of Embedded Computation. In Embedded Systems. https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~cis540/ Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Ada Barach, Connor Jenkins, Serendipity Gunawardena, and Krista Kecskemety. 2020. MCS1: A MATLAB Programming Concept Inventory for Assessing First-year Engineering Courses. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–34958 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Ricardo Caceffo, Guilherme Gama, Raysa Benatti, Tales Aparecida, Tania Caldas, and Rodolfo Azevedo. 2018. A Concept Inventory for CS1 Introductory Programming Courses in C. Institute of Computing, University of Campinas. Partly in English, partly in Portuguese, 107 pages. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Ricardo Caceffo, Steve Wolfman, Kellogg Booth, and Rodolfo Azevedo. 2016. Developing a Computer Science Concept Inventory for Introductory Programming. 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844559 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Ricardo Caceffo, Steve Wolfman, Kellogg S Booth, and Rodolfo Azevedo. 2016. Developing a computer science concept inventory for introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education. 364–369. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Ryan Cavalcante, Thomas Finley, and Susan H. Rodger. 2004. A Visual and Interactive Automata Theory Course with JFLAP 4.0. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 140–144. isbn:1581137982 https://doi.org/10.1145/971300.971349 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Gabriel Spadon de Souza, Celso Olivete, Ronaldo Celso Messias Correia, and Rogério Eduardo Garcia. 2015. Teaching-learning methodology for formal languages and automata theory. In 2015 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2015.7344185 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Robert E. Furrow and Jeremy L. Hsu. 2019. Concept inventories as a resource for teaching evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 12, 1 (2019), jan, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-018-0092-8 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. David Harel. 1987. Statecharts: A Visual Formalism for Complex Systems. Sci. Comput. Program., 8, 3 (1987), jun, 231–274. issn:0167-6423 https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6423(87)90035-9 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. David Harel and Amnon Naamad. 1996. The STATEMATE Semantics of Statecharts. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 5, 4 (1996), oct, 293–333. issn:1049-331X https://doi.org/10.1145/235321.235322 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Julie Henry and Bruno Dumas. 2020. Approach to Develop a Concept Inventory Informing Teachers of Novice Programmers’ Mental Models. In 2020 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE44824.2020.9274045 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Julie Henry, Bruno Dumas, Patrick Heymans, and Tony Leclercq. 2020. Object-Oriented Programming: Diagnosis Understanding by Identifying and Describing Novice Perceptions. In 2020 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE44824.2020.9273990 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Geoffrey L Herman, Craig Zilles, and Michael C Loui. 2009. Work in progress-students’ misconceptions about state in digital systems. In 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. 1–2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Geoffrey L. Herman, Craig Zilles, and Michael C. Loui. 2012. Flip-Flops in Students’ Conceptions of State. IEEE Transactions on Education, 55, 1 (2012), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2011.2140372 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Axel Jantsch. 2013. Digital Integarted Circuits. In Embedded Systems. https://jantsch.se/AxelJantsch/HomePage/teaching.html Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Edward A. Lee and Sanjit A. Seshia. 2017. Introduction to Embedded Systems. A Cyber-Physical Systems Approach. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Irene Lee, Safinah Ali, Helen Zhang, Daniella DiPaola, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2021. Developing Middle School Students’ AI Literacy. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 191–197. isbn:9781450380621 https://doi.org/10.1145/3408877.3432513 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. M.S. Naveed and Marwa Sarim. 2018. Didactic strategy for learning theory of automata and formal languages. 55–67. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Miranda C. Parker, Mark Guzdial, and Shelly Engleman. 2016. Replication, Validation, and Use of a Language Independent CS1 Knowledge Assessment. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 93–101. isbn:9781450344494 https://doi.org/10.1145/2960310.2960316 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Susan H. Rodger and Thomas W. Finley. 2006. JFLAP – An Interactive Formal Languages and Automata Package. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Susan H. Rodger, Jinghui Lim, and Stephen Reading. 2007. Increasing Interaction and Support in the Formal Languages and Automata Theory Course. SIGCSE Bull., 39, 3 (2007), jun, 58–62. issn:0097-8418 https://doi.org/10.1145/1269900.1268803 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Susan H. Rodger, Eric Wiebe, Kyung Min Lee, Chris Morgan, Kareem Omar, and Jonathan Su. 2009. Increasing Engagement in Automata Theory with JFLAP. SIGCSE Bull., 41, 1 (2009), mar, 403–407. issn:0097-8418 https://doi.org/10.1145/1539024.1509011 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Ian Sanders, Colin Pilkington, and Wynand Van Staden. 2015. Errors made by students when designing Finite Automata. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. David Sands, Mark Parker, Holly Hedgeland, Sally Jordan, and Ross Galloway. 2018. Using concept inventories to measure understanding. Higher Education Pedagogies, 3, 1 (2018), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2018.1433546 arxiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2018.1433546. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Alan T. Sherman, Linda Oliva, David DeLatte, Enis Golaszewski, Michael Neary, Konstantinos Patsourakos, Dhananjay Phatak, Travis Scheponik, Geoffrey L. Herman, and Julia Thompson. 2017. Creating a Cybersecurity Concept Inventory: A Status Report on the CATS Project. arxiv:1706.05092. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Cynthia Taylor, Daniel Zingaro, Leo Porter, Kevin C Webb, Cynthia Bailey Lee, and Michael Clancy. 2014. Computer science concept inventories: past and future. Computer Science Education, 24, 4 (2014), 253–276. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Allison Elliott Tew and Mark Guzdial. 2010. Developing a validated assessment of fundamental CS1 concepts. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. 97–101. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Kevin C. Webb and Cynthia Taylor. 2014. Developing a Pre- and Post-Course Concept Inventory to Gauge Operating Systems Learning. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 103–108. isbn:9781450326056 https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538886 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Lea Wittie, Anastasia Kurdia, and Meriel Huggard. 2017. Developing a concept inventory for computer science 2. In 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2017.8190459 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Lea Wittie, Anastasia Kurdia, and Meriel Huggard. 2017. Developing a concept inventory for computer science 2. In 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2017.8190459 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Lea Wittie, Anastasia Kurdia, and Meriel Huggard. 2017. Developing a concept inventory for computer science 2. In 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1–4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Student misconceptions about finite state machines: identify them in order to create a concept inventory

          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
            EASEAI 2022: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Education through Advanced Software Engineering and Artificial Intelligence
            November 2022
            44 pages
            ISBN:9781450394536
            DOI:10.1145/3548660

            Copyright © 2022 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 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].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 9 November 2022

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader