research-article

Teaching Formal Languages through Programmed Instruction

Authors:

Mostafa Mohammed,

Clifford A. ShafferAuthors Info & Claims

SIGCSE 2024: Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1

Pages 867 - 873

https://doi.org/10.1145/3626252.3630940

Published: 07 March 2024 Publication History

Abstract

The content in Formal Languages courses is mathematical in nature, and requires students to engage with proofs and algorithms to grasp core concepts. Conventional textbooks on Formal Languages predominantly employ textual explanations, with assignments often entailing manual problem solving. Some educators incorporate tools like JFLAP, which helps students construct models and apply algorithms to enhance interaction with the subject matter. However, students must put considerable effort into reading and solving problems manually to reach comprehension. Drawing inspiration from the Programmed Instruction (PI) teaching methodology, we have developed an innovative eTextbook for Formal Languages that facilitates better understanding of these ideas. The PI approach requires students to read a bit, ideally a sentence or paragraph, and then answer a question or complete an exercise related to that information. Depending on their response, students can progress to subsequent information frames or re-attempt the exercise. Our objective is to present the entirety of a Formal Languages curriculum through the PI approach. To evaluate the pedagogical effectiveness of our new eTextbook, we conducted a survey to ask students for their feedback on their experience with the Programmed Instruction etextbook. We also conducted performance evaluations on two offerings of the Formal Languages course. Students' grades are compared to assess learning gains between visualizations with exercises, and with PI frames. The evaluation shows that the Programmed Instruction ebook improved students' grades in almost all topics covered by the ebook.

References

[1]

J. Barwise and J. Etchemendy. Turing'sWorld 3.0 for the Macintosh: An Introduction to Computability Theory/Book and Disk (Csli Lecture Notes). Stanford University Press, 1993.

[2]

Y. Benjamini and D. Yekutieli. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Annals of Statistics, pages 1165--1188, 2001.

[3]

J. B. Carroll. A Model of School Learning. Teachers College Record, 1963.

[4]

P. Chakraborty, P. C. Saxena, and C. P. Katti. Fifty years of automata simulation: A review. ACM Inroads, 2(4):59--70, 2011.

Digital Library

[5]

C. I. Chesñevar, M. L. Cobo, andW. Yurcik. Using theoretical computer simulators for formal languages and automata theory. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(2):33--37, 2003.

Digital Library

[6]

M. F. Farghally, K. H. Koh, H. Shahin, and C. A. Shaffer. Evaluating the effectiveness of algorithm analysis visualizations. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 201--206. ACM, 2017.

Digital Library

[7]

R. E. Ferdig. Assessing technologies for teaching and learning: Understanding the importance of technological pedagogical content knowledge. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5):749--760, 2006.

[8]

E. Fouh, V. Karavirta, D. A. Breakiron, S. Hamouda, S. Hall, T. L. Naps, and C. A. Shaffer. Design and architecture of an interactive etextbook--the OpenDSA system. Science of Computer Programming, 88:22--40, 2014.

[9]

E. Gramond and S. H. Rodger. Using JFLAP to interact with theorems in automata theory. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, volume 31, pages 336--340. ACM, 1999.

Digital Library

[10]

M. Hamada. Turing machine and automata simulators. Procedia Computer Science, 18:1466--1474, 2013.

[11]

A. f. C. M. A. Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula and I. C. Society. Computer Science Curricula 2013: Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Computer Science. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2013.

[12]

M. Knobelsdorf, C. Kreitz, and S. Böhne. Teaching theoretical computer science using a cognitive apprenticeship approach. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 67--72, 2014.

Digital Library

[13]

L. Korte, S. Anderson, H. Pain, and J. Good. Learning by game-building: A novel approach to theoretical computer science education. In Proceedings of the 12th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, pages 53--57, 2007.

Digital Library

[14]

B. Lockee, D. Moore, and J. Burton. Foundations of programmed instruction. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, pages 545--569, 2004.

[15]

H. B. Mann and D. R. Whitney. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, pages 50--60, 1947.

[16]

J. McDonald. Interactive pushdown automata animation. In Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 376--380, 2002.

Digital Library

[17]

M. Mohammed, P. Ge, S. Heo, and C. A. Shaffer. Support for programmed instruction in an etextbook. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 1344--1344, 2021.

Digital Library

[18]

M. Mohammed, C. A. Shaffer, and S. H. Rodger. Teaching formal languages with visualizations and auto-graded exercises. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 569--575, 2021.

Digital Library

[19]

T. L. Naps, G. Rößling, V. Almstrum, W. Dann, R. Fleischer, C. Hundhausen, A. Korhonen, L. Malmi, M. McNally, S. Rodger, et al. Exploring the role of visualization and engagement in computer science education. In Working group reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education, pages 131--152. ACM, 2002.

[20]

S. H. Rodger and E. Gramond. JFLAP: An aid to studying theorems in automata theory. Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education, 30(3):302, 1998.

[21]

S. H. Rodger, E. Wiebe, K. M. Lee, C. Morgan, K. Omar, and J. Su. Increasing engagement in automata theory with JFLAP. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, volume 41, pages 403--407. ACM, 2009.

Digital Library

[22]

V. Shekhar, A. Prabhu, K. Puranik, L. Antin, and V. Kumar. JFLAP extensions for instructors and students. In 2014 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Technology for Education, pages 140--143. IEEE, 2014.

Digital Library

[23]

V. S. Shekhar, A. Agarwalla, A. Agarwal, B. Nitish, and V. Kumar. Enhancing JFLAP with automata construction problems and automated feedback. In 2014 Seventh International Conference on Contemporary Computing (IC3), pages 19--23. IEEE, 2014.

[24]

B. Skinner. Programmed Instruction Revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(2):103--10, 1986.

[25]

B. F. Skinner. Teaching machines. Science, 128(3330):969--977, 1958.

[26]

C. A. Tecson and M. M. T. Rodrigo. Tutoring environment for automata and the users' achievement goal orientations. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), pages 526--533. IEEE, 2018.

[27]

M. Vijayalaskhmi and K. Karibasappa. Activity based teaching learning in formal languages and automata theory-an experience. In 2012 IEEE International Conference on Engineering Education: Innovative Practices and Future Trends (AICERA), pages 1--5. IEEE, 2012.

Cited By

Domino MShaffer C(2025)Using a wider digital ecosystem to improve self-regulated learningFrontiers in Education10.3389/feduc.2025.148734410Online publication date: 27-Feb-2025
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1487344
Schmellenkamp MStanglmair DMichaeli TZeume T(2024)Exploring Error Types in Formal Languages Among Students of Upper Secondary EducationProceedings of the 24th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3699538.3699540(1-8)Online publication date: 12-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3699538.3699540

Index Terms

Teaching Formal Languages through Programmed Instruction

Recommendations

Teaching Formal Languages with Visualizations and Auto-Graded Exercises
SIGCSE '21: Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

The material taught in a Formal Languages and Automata (FLA) course is mathematical in nature and requires students to practice proofs and algorithms to understand the content. Traditional FLA textbooks are heavy on prose, and homework typically ...
Teaching Formal Languages through Visualizations, Simulators, Auto-graded Exercises, and Programmed Instruction
SIGCSE '20: Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

The material taught in a Formal Languages course is mathematical and requires students to practice proofs and algorithms to understand the content. Traditional Formal Languages textbooks are heavy on prose, and homework typically consists of solving ...
Informal and Formal Requirements Specification Languages: Bridging the Gap

The differences between informal and formal requirements specification languages are noted, and the issue of bridging the gap between them is discussed. Using structured analysis (SA) and the Vienna development method (VDM) as surrogates for informal ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

SIGCSE 2024: Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1

March 2024

1583 pages

ISBN:9798400704239

DOI:10.1145/3626252

General Chairs:
Ben Stephenson
University of Calgary, Canada6000230660002306
,
Jeffrey A. Stone
Penn State University6000143960001439
,
Program Chairs:
Lina Battestilli
North Carolina State University, USA6000492360004923
,
Samuel A. Rebelsky
Grinnell College60028806
,
Libby Shoop
Macalester College60028787

Copyright © 2024 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].

Sponsors

SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 07 March 2024

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

National Science Foundation

Conference

SIGCSE 2024

Sponsor:

SIGCSE

SIGCSE 2024: The 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

March 20 - 23, 2024

OR, Portland, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,787 of 5,146 submissions, 35%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

2
Total Citations
View Citations
86
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)86
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)12

Reflects downloads up to 02 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Domino MShaffer C(2025)Using a wider digital ecosystem to improve self-regulated learningFrontiers in Education10.3389/feduc.2025.148734410Online publication date: 27-Feb-2025
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1487344
Schmellenkamp MStanglmair DMichaeli TZeume T(2024)Exploring Error Types in Formal Languages Among Students of Upper Secondary EducationProceedings of the 24th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3699538.3699540(1-8)Online publication date: 12-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3699538.3699540

View Options

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten