Document Open Access Logo

An Experience with Adaptive Formative Assessment for Motivating Novices in Introductory Programming Learning

Authors Jagadeeswaran Thangaraj , Monica Ward , Fiona O’Riordan

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

OASIcs.ICPEC.2024.6.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.62 MB
  • 12 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Jagadeeswaran Thangaraj
  • School of Computing, Dublin City University, Ireland
Monica Ward
  • School of Computing, Dublin City University, Ireland
Fiona O’Riordan
  • CCT College, Dublin, Ireland

Funding

I want to thank the research committee of School of Computing at Dublin City University (DCU) for funding this research project.

Cite AsGet BibTex

Jagadeeswaran Thangaraj, Monica Ward, and Fiona O’Riordan. An Experience with Adaptive Formative Assessment for Motivating Novices in Introductory Programming Learning. In 5th International Computer Programming Education Conference (ICPEC 2024). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 122, pp. 6:1-6:12, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2024)
https://doi.org/10.4230/OASIcs.ICPEC.2024.6

Abstract

This study presents empirical research that uses adaptive formative assessment framework in addition to traditional lectures to motivate novice students in an introductory programming course. The primary goal of this work is to provide guidance for the creation of adaptive formative assessments in Python programming language to inspire novice students. The experiment is based on lessons learned from the literature and pedagogical theories that support learning through assessment and scaffolding. This study investigates how the experiment helped the novices, whether it increased their confidence, whether it assisted in identifying and correcting common errors, and whether it covered the material on learning modular programming components. It report on extensive survey results of over 265 attempts of 90 students taking CS1 (introductory programming) that included five quizzes covering fundamental concepts. The students responded favorably to the experiment, and results are also included.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Applied computing → Education
  • Social and professional topics → Computing education
  • Social and professional topics → Student assessment
Keywords
  • Assessment and feedback
  • Computer programming
  • CS1
  • Formative assessment
  • Introductory programming
  • Novice students

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

References

  1. Pedro Henriques Abreu, Daniel Castro Silva, and Anabela Gomes. Multiple-choice questions in programming courses: Can we use them and are students motivated by them? ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 19(1):1-16, 2018. Google Scholar
  2. Alireza Ahadi, Raymond Lister, Shahil Lal, and Arto Hellas. Learning programming, syntax errors and institution-specific factors. In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Computing Education Conference, ACE '18, pages 90-96, New York, NY, USA, 2018. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3160489.3160490.
  3. Nabeel Alzahrani and Frank Vahid. Common logic errors for programming learners: A three-decade literature survey. In 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual Conference, July 2021. ASEE Conferences. URL: https://peer.asee.org/36814.
  4. Zahra Atiq and Michael Loui. A qualitative study of emotions experienced by first-year engineering students during programming tasks. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 22, March 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3507696.
  5. Brett Becker, Graham Glanville, Ricardo Iwashima, Claire Mcdonnell, Kyle Goslin, and Catherine Mooney. Effective compiler error message enhancement for novice programming students. Computer Science Education, pages 1-28, September 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2016.1225464.
  6. Anat Ben-Yaacov and Arnon Hershkovitz. Types of errors in block programming: Driven by learner, learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(1):178-207, 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221102312.
  7. Neil C. C. Brown and Greg Wilson. Ten quick tips for teaching programming. PLOS Computational Biology, 14(4):1-8, April 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006023.
  8. Tessa Charles and Carl Gwilliam. The effect of automated error message feedback on undergraduate physics students learning python: Reducing anxiety and building confidence. Journal for STEM Education Research, 6(2):326-357, August 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-022-00084-4.
  9. Dimitra Chatzopoulou and Anastasios Economides. Adaptive assessment of student’s knowledge in programming courses. J. Comp. Assisted Learning, 26:258-269, August 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00363.x.
  10. Paul Denny, James Prather, Brett A. Becker, Catherine Mooney, John Homer, Zachary C Albrecht, and Garrett B. Powell. On designing programming error messages for novices: Readability and its constituent factors. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '21, New York, NY, USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445696.
  11. Mireille Djenno, Glenda M. Insua, and Annie Pho. From paper to pixels: using google forms for collaboration and assessment. Library Hi Tech News, 32(4):9-13, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-12-2014-0105.
  12. Andrew Ettles, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Paul Denny. Common logic errors made by novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Computing Education Conference, ACE '18, pages 83-89, New York, NY, USA, 2018. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3160489.3160493.
  13. Takayuki Goto, Kei Kano, and Takayuki Shiose. Students’ acceptance on computer-adaptive testing for achievement assessment in japanese elementary and secondary school. Frontiers in Education, 8, 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1107341.
  14. Heather J. Hoffman and Angelo F. Elmi. Do students learn more from erroneous code? exploring student performance and satisfaction in an error-free versus an error-full sas® programming environment. Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education, 29(3):228-240, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/26939169.2021.1967229.
  15. Seyed M. Ismail, D. R. Rahul, Indrajit Patra, and Ehsan Rezvani. Formative vs. summative assessment: impacts on academic motivation, attitude toward learning, test anxiety, and self-regulation skill. Language Testing in Asia, 12(1):40, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00191-4.
  16. Fionnuala Johnson, Stephen McQuistin, and John O'Donnell. Analysis of student misconceptions using python as an introductory programming language. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Computing Education Practice, CEP '20, New York, NY, USA, 2020. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3372356.3372360.
  17. Fatima Ezzahraa Louhab, Ayoub Bahnasse, and Mohamed Talea. Towards an adaptive formative assessment in context-aware mobile learning. Procedia Computer Science, 135:441-448, 2018. The 3rd International Conference on Computer Science and Computational Intelligence (ICCSCI 2018) : Empowering Smart Technology in Digital Era for a Better Life. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.195.
  18. Davin Mccall and Michael Kölling. Meaningful categorisation of novice programmer errors. In Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, volume 2015, October 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2014.7044420.
  19. Donna Mertens. Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods 5th edition. SAGE Publications, Inc, June 2019. Google Scholar
  20. Anastasia Misirli and Vassilis Komis. Computational thinking in early childhood education: The impact of programming a tangible robot on developing debugging knowledge. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 65:139-158, 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2023.05.014.
  21. Gunilla Näsström, Catarina Andersson, Carina Granberg, Torulf Palm, and Björn Palmberg. Changes in student motivation and teacher decision making when implementing a formative assessment practice. Frontiers in Education, 6, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.616216.
  22. Elena Papanastasiou. Adaptive Assessment, pages 1-2. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6165-0_3-4.
  23. Yizhou Qian and James Lehman. Students’ misconceptions and other difficulties in introductory programming: A literature review. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ., 18(1), October 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3077618.
  24. Sjaak Smetsers Renske Weeda and Erik Barendsen. Unraveling novices’ code composition difficulties. Computer Science Education, 0(0):1-28, 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2023.2169067.
  25. Anders Schlichtkrull. An experience with and reflections on live coding with active learning. In International Computer Programming Education Conference, 2023. URL: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:260777639.
  26. Nicole Shanley, Florence Martin, Nicole Collins, Manuel Perez-Quinones, Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell, David Pugalee, and Ellen Hart. Teaching programming online: Design, facilitation and assessment strategies and recommendations for high school teachers. TechTrends, 66, April 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00724-x.
  27. Valerie J. Shute. Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1):153-189, 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795.
  28. E’loria Simon-Campbell and Julia Phelan. Effectiveness of an adaptive quizzing system as a self-regulated study tool to improve nursing students' learning. International Journal of Nursing & Clinical Practices, 5, August 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.15344/2394-4978/2018/290.
  29. Sonia Sobral. Bloom’s taxonomy to improve teaching-learning in introduction to programming. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 11:148-153, March 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2021.11.3.1504.
  30. Sonia Sobral. Strategies on Teaching Introducing to Programming in Higher Education, pages 133-150. Springer, Cham, March 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72660-7_14.
  31. Qing Sun, Ji Wu, Wenge Rong, and Wenbo Liu. Formative assessment of programming language learning based on peer code review: Implementation and experience report. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 24:423-434, August 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.26599/TST.2018.9010109.
  32. Jagadeeswaran Thangaraj, Monica Ward, and Fiona O'Riordan. The impact of using formative assessment in introductory programming on teaching and learning. 10th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd'24), Valencia, June 2024. Google Scholar
  33. Fabienne S. Van der Kleij and Lenore Adie. Formative assessment and feedback using information technology. Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary, pages 601-615, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71054-9.
  34. Jill-Jênn Vie, Fabrice Popineau, Éric Bruillard, and Yolaine Bourda. A Review of Recent Advances in Adaptive Assessment, volume 94, pages 113-142. Springer International Publishing, February 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52977-6_4.
  35. Albert C.M. Yang, Brendan Flanagan, and Hiroaki Ogata. Adaptive formative assessment system based on computerized adaptive testing and the learning memory cycle for personalized learning. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3:100104, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100104.
  36. Zihe Zhou, Shijuan Wang, and Yizhou Qian. Learning from errors: Exploring the effectiveness of enhanced error messages in learning to program. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.768962.
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact