Patterns for the Advanced Design of Programming Exercises supported by Technology-Enhanced Assessment Systems
Article No.: 12, Pages 1 - 10
Abstract
Students typically must work on complex exercises if they are about to learn advanced concepts of programming. Technology-enhanced assessment systems can not only be used to grade submissions to such exercises, but also as a support tool for students. In particular, they can support them in the learning process with automated, formative feedback. However, they cannot automatically reduce the complexity of the problems and thus reduce the cognitive load for the students. Instead, that can be achieved by careful exercise design in conjunction with specific features of technology-enhanced assessment systems. This paper introduces five patterns on how to split complex exercises into several parts so that additional benefits can arise from a close interaction between students and a technology-enhanced assessment systems with appropriate additional features beyond direct feedback generation.
References
[1]
Kirsti M. Ala-Mutka. 2005. A Survey of Automated Assessment Approaches for Programming Assignments. Computer science education 15, 2 (2005), 83–102.
[2]
Douglas Blank, David Bourgin, Alexander Brown, Matthias Bussonnier, Jonathan Frederic, Brian Granger, Thomas L. Griffiths, Jessica Hamrick, Kyle Kelley, M. Pacer, Logan Page, Fernando Pérez, Benjamin Ragan-Kelley, Jordan W. Suchow, and Carol Willing. 2019. nbgrader: A tool for creating and grading assignments in the Jupyter Notebook. The Journal of Open Source Education 2, 11 (2019). https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00032
[3]
Antonio Bucchiarone, Tommaso Martorella, Diego Colombo, Antonio Cicchetti, and Annapaola Marconi. 2021. POLYGLOT for Gamified Education: Mixing Modelling and Programming Exercises. In 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems Companion (MODELS-C). 605–609. https://doi.org/10.1109/MODELS-C53483.2021.00092
[4]
Michael E. Caspersen and Jens Bennedsen. 2007. Instructional Design of a Programming Course: A Learning Theoretic Approach. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computing Education Research(ICER ’07). ACM, 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1145/1288580.1288595
[5]
Kuo-En Chang, Bea-Chu Chiao, Sei-Wang Chen, and Rong-Shue Hsiao. 2000. A programming learning system for beginners-a completion strategy approach. IEEE Transactions on Education 43, 2 (2000), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1109/13.848075
[6]
Markus Dahm, Frano Barnjak, and Moritz Heilemann. 2016. 5Code – An Integrated Programming Environment for Beginners. In i-com, Vol. 15. 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1515/icom-2016-0002
[7]
Christopher Douce, David Livingstone, and James Orwell. 2005. Automatic test-based assessment of programming: A review. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC) 5, 3 (Sept. 2005). https://doi.org/10.1145/1163405.1163409
[8]
Erich Gamma, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson, and John Vlissides. 1995. Design Patterns. Addison-Wesley.
[9]
John Hattie and Helen Timperley. 2007. The Power of Feedback. Review of educational research 77, 1 (2007), 81–112.
[10]
Marianus Ifland, Felix Herrmann, Julian Ott, and Frank Puppe. 2014. WARP - ein Trainingssystem für UML-Aktivitätsdiagramme mit mehrschichtigem Feedback. In DeLFI 2014 - Die 12. e-Learning Fachtagung Informatik, Stephan Trahasch, Rolf Plötzner, Gerhard Schneider, Daniel Sassiat, Claudia Gayer, and Nicole Wöhrle (Eds.). Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn, 193–204.
[11]
Teemu Lehtinen, André L. Santos, and Juha Sorva. 2021. Let’s Ask Students About Their Programs, Automatically. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 29th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC). 467–475. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPC52881.2021.00054
[12]
Raymond Lister. 2000. On Blooming First Year Programming, and Its Blooming Assessment. In Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Computing Education (Melbourne, Australia) (ACSE ’00). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 158–162. https://doi.org/10.1145/359369.359393
[13]
Hamza Manzoor, Amit Naik, Clifford A. Shaffer, Chris North, and Stephen H. Edwards. 2020. Auto-Grading Jupyter Notebooks. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Portland, OR, USA) (SIGCSE ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1139–1144. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366947
[14]
Elizabeth Odekirk-Hash and Joseph L. Zachary. 2001. Automated Feedback on Programs Means Students Need Less Help from Teachers. In Proceedings of the Thirty-second SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education(SIGCSE ’01). 55–59. https://doi.org/10.1145/364447.364537
[15]
Marko Poženel, Luka Fürst, and Viljan Mahnič. 2015. Introduction of the automated assessment of homework assignments in a university-level programming course. In 38th International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO). 761–766.
[16]
Nils Schwinning, Michael Striewe, Till Massing, Christoph Hanck, and Michael Goedicke. 2018. Towards digitalisation of summative and formative assessments in academic teaching of statistics. In Reprint from the Fifth International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE 2017). https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.02391
[17]
Simon, Donald Chinn, Michael de Raadt, Anne Philpott, Judy Sheard, Mikko-Jussi Laakso, Daryl D’Souza, James Skene, Angela Carbone, Tony Clear, Raymond Lister, and Geoff Warburton. 2012. Introductory programming: examining the exams. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference-Volume 123. 61–70.
[18]
Simon and Susan Snowdon. 2014. Multiple-choice vs Free-text Code-explaining Examination Questions. In Proceedings of the 14th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research(Koli Calling ’14). ACM, 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1145/2674683.2674701
[19]
Sven Strickroth and François Bry. 2022. The Future of Higher Education Is Social and Personalized! Experience Report and Perspectives. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU. 389–396. https://doi.org/10.5220/0011087700003182
[20]
Michael Striewe. 2016. An architecture for modular grading and feedback generation for complex exercises. Science of Computer Programming 129 (2016), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2016.02.009
[21]
Arto Vihavainen, Thomas Vikberg, Matti Luukkainen, and Martin Pärtel. 2013. Scaffolding Students’ Learning Using Test My Code. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Canterbury, England, UK) (ITiCSE ’13). 117––122. https://doi.org/10.1145/2462476.2462501
Index Terms
- Patterns for the Advanced Design of Programming Exercises supported by Technology-Enhanced Assessment Systems
Recommendations
Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice
With the expanding availability and capability of varied technologies, classroom-based problem solving has become an increasingly attainable, yet still elusive, goal. Evidence of technology-enhanced problem-solving teaching and learning in schools has ...
A Case Study of Pupils' Scaffolding Learning Experience Supported by Information Technology
ICDEL '19: Proceedings of the 2019 4th International Conference on Distance Education and LearningScaffolding teaching method is a learner-centered teaching method based on constructivism, aiming at cultivating students' problem-solving ability and autonomous learning ability. Lots of researches have studied scaffolding concerning subjects of ...
Support of expert and novice teachers within a technology enhanced problem-based learning unit: a case study
Problem-based learning requires teachers to assume non-traditional roles focused on guiding students in the active exploration of a complex learning environment. Scaffolds may represent one means for supporting teachers in this unfamiliar role. This ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
July 2022
338 pages
ISBN:9781450395946
DOI:10.1145/3551902
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 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: 07 February 2023
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
EuroPLop '22
EuroPLop '22: 27th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs
July 6 - 10, 2022
Irsee, Germany
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 216 of 354 submissions, 61%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 67Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)15
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format