More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Public Access

Impact of Steps, Instruction, and Motivation on Learning Symbolic Reasoning Using an Online Tool

Authors:

Murali Sitaraman,

Jason O. Hallstrom,

Joseph E. HollingsworthAuthors Info & Claims

SIGCSE '19: Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

Pages 1039 - 1045

https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287401

Published: 22 February 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Several research studies have shown the benefits of code tracing to promote student understanding of program behavior. While code tracing on specific input values is a useful starting point, students ultimately need to be able to reason rigorously and logically about the correctness of their code on all (i.e., arbitrary) inputs. Otherwise, they may make false generalizations and may achieve only a shallow understanding. Results of a multi-semester experiment to answer the following research questions: (1) With or without steps, can students learn the basics of tracing code on symbolic input values using an online tool? And how important is classroom instruction? (2) What is the impact of motivation on student attitudes in learning to reason with such a tool? Data was obtained from 297 subjects who used the online reasoning tool in a second-year software development course for CS majors. Analysis indicates that students can do symbolic reasoning to trace code and that instruction and motivation have significant impact.

References

[1]

V. Aleven, B. M. McLaren, and J. Sewall. 2009. Scaling Up Programming by Demonstration for Intelligent Tutoring Systems Development: An Open-Access Web Site for Middle School Mathematics Learning. IEEE Trans. on Learning Technologies 2, 64--78.

Digital Library

[2]

J. R. Anderson, A. T. Corbett, K. R. Koedinger, and R. Pelletier. 1995. Cognitive Tutors: Lessons Learned, The Journal of the Learning Sciences 4, 167--207.

[3]

R. Azevedo and R. M. Bernard. 1995. A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Feedback in Computer-Based Instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research 13, 2, 111 -- 127.

[4]

P. Bhattacharya, L. Tao, B. W. Kai Qian, and E. K. Palmer. 2011. A Cloud-based Cyberlearning Environment for Introductory Computing Programming Education. In Procs. 11th ICALT, 12--13.

Digital Library

[5]

P. Bucci, T. Long, and B. Weidi. 2001. Do We Really Teach Abstraction?, In Proceedings of the 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM, 26--30.

Digital Library

[6]

K. J. Carbonneau, S. C. Marley, J. P. Selig. 2013. A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives, Journal of Educational Psychology 105, No. 2, 380--400.

[7]

C. Chen, S. Pedersen, and K. L. Murphy. 2011. Learners' perceived information overload in online learning via computer-mediated communication. Research in Learning Technology, 19, 1, 101--116.

[8]

M. P. Cook, "Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles," Science Education 90, 6, 2006, 1073--1091.

[9]

M. P. Cook, M. Fowler, J. O. Hallstrom, J. E. Hollingsworth, T. Schwab, Y. S. Sun, & M. Sitaraman, 2018. Where Exactly are the Difficulties in Reasoning Logically about Code? Experimentation with an Online System. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 39--44). ACM.

Digital Library

[10]

C. T. Cook, H. Harton, H., Smith, and M. Sitaraman, 2012. Specification Engineering and Modular Verification Using a Web-Integrated Verifying Compiler, In 2012 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 2012, 1379--1382.

Digital Library

[11]

C. T. Cook, S. Drachova-Strang, Y-S. Sun, M. Sitaraman, J. C. Carver, and J. E. Hollingsworth, 2013. Specification and Reasoning in SE Projects Using a Web IDE, In Proceedings Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training (CSSE&T), 2013

[12]

Cook, C. T., Drachova, S., Hallstrom, J. O., Hollingsworth, J. E., Jacobs, D. P., Krone, J., & Sitaraman, M. 2012. A Systematic Approach to Teaching Abstraction and Mathematical Modeling, In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE '12), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 357--362.

Digital Library

[13]

M. Csikszentmihalyi, and J. Nakamura. 1989. The dynamics of intrinsic motivation: A study of adolescents. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Goals and cognitions (pp. 45-71). New York: Academic Press.

[14]

D. De Bock, J. Deprej, W. van Duren, M. Roelens, and L. Verschaffel. 2011. Abstract or Concrete Examples in Learning Mathematics? A Replication an Elaboration of Kaminsky, Stoutsky, and Heckler's Study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 42, 2, 109--126.

[15]

S. Drachova-Strang, J. O. Hallstrom, J. E. Hollingsworth, J. Krone, R. Pak, and M. Sitaraman, "Teaching Mathematical Reasoning Principles for Software Correctness and Its Assessment," ACM Transactions on Computing Education 15, 3, Article 15 (August 2015), 22 pages.

Digital Library

[16]

J. S. Eccles, and A. Wigfield. 2002. Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109--132.

[17]

S. Fitzgerald, B. Simon, and L. Thomas. 2005. Strategies that students use to trace code: an analysis based in grounded theory. In Procs. ICER '05 ACM, NY, USA, 69--80.

Digital Library

[18]

P. Guo. 2018. http://www.pythontutor.com/java.html#mode=edit

[19]

J. O. Hallstrom, C. Hochrine, J. Sorber, & M. Sitaraman, 2014. An ACM 2013 exemplar course integrating fundamentals, languages, and software engineering. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 211--216). SIGCSE '14, ACM, New York, NY, USA.

Digital Library

[20]

P. B. Henderson. 2003. Mathematical Reasoning in Software Engineering Education. Communications of the ACM 46, 9, 45--50.

Digital Library

[21]

W. Heym, P. A. Sivilotti, P. Bucci, M. Sitaraman, K. Plis, J. E. Hollingsworth, & N. Sridhar, (2017, November). Integrating Components, Contracts, and Reasoning in CS Curricula with RESOLVE: Experiences at Multiple Institutions. In Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T), 2017 IEEE 30th Conference on (pp. 202--211). IEEE. 2017. CSEE&T, IEEE, NY, USA.

[22]

J. A. Kaminsky, V. M. Stoutsky, A. F. Heckler. 2008. The Advantage of Abstract Examples in Learning Math, Learning Theory, Science 320, 454--455.

[23]

R. Kumar, C. P. Rose, Y. Wang, M. Joshi, and A. Robinson. 2007. Tutorial Dialog as Adaptive Collaborative Learning Support. In Procs. Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: Building Technology Rich Contexts That Work, IOS Press, 383--390.

Digital Library

[24]

C. M. Lewis. 2014. Exploring variation in students' correct traces of linear recursion. In Procs. ICER '14. ACM, NY, USA, 67--74.

Digital Library

[25]

C. Li, Z. Dong, R. Untch, Chasteen, and N. Reale. 2011. PeerSpace-An Online Collaborative Learning Environment for Computer Science Students. In Procs. 11th ICALT, 409--411.

Digital Library

[26]

M. L. Maehr. 1984. Meaning and Motivation: Toward a Theory of Personal Investment. Research on Motivation in Education, 1, 115--144.

[27]

W. McCallum. 2008. Commentary on Kaminsky, et al, The Advantages of Abstract Examples in Learning Math, Science.

[28]

R. Moreno. 2004. Decreasing Cognitive Load for Novice Students: Effects of Explanatory versus Corrective Feedback in Discovery-Based Multimedia. Instructional Science 32, 99--113.

[29]

NASA, 1986. NASA Task Load Index (TLX) v. 1.0 Manual.

[30]

C. O'Brien, M. Goldman, and R. C. Miller. 2014. Java tutor: bootstrapping with python to learn Java. Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning. ACM, New York, NY, USA. 185--186.

Digital Library

[31]

J. E. Ormond. 2014. Educational Psychology: Developing Learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

[32]

F. Paas, T. van Gog, and J. Sweller. 2010. Cognitive load theory: New conceptualizations, specifications, and integrated research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 2, 115--121.

[33]

C. Priester, Y-S. Sun, and M. Sitaraman, "Tool-Assisted Loop Invariant Development and Analysis", In Proceedings of the 29th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T 2016), IEEE, NY, USA, 66--70

[34]

P. R. Pintrich, D. Smith, T. Garcia, and W. McKeachie. 1993. Predictive validity and reliability of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 5, 801--813.

[35]

P. R. Pintrich, and D. H. Schunk. 2002. Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

[36]

T. W. Price, Y. Dong, and D. Lipovac. 2017. iSnap: Towards Intelligent Tutoring in Novice Programming Environments. In Procs. SIGCSE '17, ACM, NY, USA, 483--488.

Digital Library

[37]

K. J. Pugh, and D. A. Bergin. 2006. Motivational influences on transfer. Educational Psychologist, 41, 147 -- 160.

[38]

M. Sitaraman, B. Adcock, J. Avigad, D. Bronish, P. Bucci, D. Frazier, H. M. Friedman, H. Harton, W., Heym, J., Kirschenbaum, J., Krone, H. Smith, and B. W. Weide., "Building a Push button RESOLVE Verifier: Progress and Challenges," In Formal Aspects of Computing, Springer, 2011, 607--626.

[39]

J. C. Spohrer, and E. Soloway. 1986. Novice mistakes: are the folk wisdoms correct? Communications of the ACM 29, 7, 624--632.

Digital Library

[40]

J. Sweller, P. Ayres, and S. Kalyuga, 2011. Cognitive load theory. Springer, NY.

[41]

Web-CAT is an advanced automated grading system that can grade students on how well they test their own code. http://web-cat.org/home

[42]

J. B. Wiggins, et al. 2015. JavaTutor: An Intelligent Tutoring System that Adapts to Cognitive and Affective States during Computer Programming. In Procs. SIGCSE '15, ACM, NY, USA, 599--599.

Digital Library

[43]

P. Wouters, F. Paas, and J. J. G. van Merriënboer. 2008. How to Optimize Learning from Animated Models: A Review of Guidelines Based on Cognitive Load. Review of Educational Research.

[44]

B. Xie, G. L. Nelson, and A. J. Ko. 2018. An Explicit Strategy to Scaffold Novice Program Tracing. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 344--349.

Digital Library

Cited By

Almazova NHallstrom JFowler MHollingsworth JKraemer ESitaraman MWashington G(2022)Automated Analysis of Student Verbalizations in Online Learning EnvironmentsEmerging Technologies for Education10.1007/978-3-030-92836-0_25(290-302)Online publication date: 28-Jan-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92836-0_25
Hollingsworth JKraemer ESitaraman MHawthorne EPérez-Quiñones MHeckman SZhang J(2019)Engaging in Logical Code Reasoning with an Activity-Based Online ToolProceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education10.1145/3287324.3293754(1289-1289)Online publication date: 22-Feb-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3287324.3293754

Index Terms

Impact of Steps, Instruction, and Motivation on Learning Symbolic Reasoning Using an Online Tool
1. Applied computing
  1. Education
    1. Computer-assisted instruction
2. Theory of computation
  1. Semantics and reasoning
    1. Program reasoning

Recommendations

Tool-Aided Assessment of Difficulties in Learning Formal Design-by-Contract Assertions
ECSEE '20: Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Software Engineering Education

Object-based development using design-by-contract (DbC) is broadly taught and practiced. Students must be able to read and write symbolic DbC assertions that are sufficiently precise and be able to use these assertions to trace program code. This paper ...
The Impact of Weblog on Omani Learners' Writing Skills in the English Language

The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of utilizing weblog on facilitating teaching writing at Buraimi University College BUC and to explore the extent to which a blog as a computer-mediated tool enhances learners' writing skills in English ...
Students' Attitudes and Motivation During Robotics Activities
WiPSCE '15: Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education

This work investigates students' attitudes towards and motivation for learning robotics and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics). The population consisted of middle-school students (ages 13-15 years) who participated in the FIRST® ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

SIGCSE '19: Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

February 2019

1364 pages

ISBN:9781450358903

DOI:10.1145/3287324

General Chairs:
Elizabeth K. Hawthorne
Union County College, USA
,
Manuel A. Pérez-Quiñones
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA
,
Program Chairs:
Sarah Heckman
North Carolina State University, USA
,
Jian Zhang
Texas Woman's University, USA

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]

Sponsors

SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 22 February 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

National Science Foundation

Conference

SIGCSE '19

Sponsor:

SIGCSE

SIGCSE '19: The 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

February 27 - March 2, 2019

MN, Minneapolis, USA

Acceptance Rates

SIGCSE '19 Paper Acceptance Rate 169 of 526 submissions, 32%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,595 of 4,542 submissions, 35%

Upcoming Conference

SIGCSE TS 2025

Sponsor:
sigcse

The 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

February 26 - March 1, 2025

Pittsburgh , PA , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

1
Total Citations
View Citations
421
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)51
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)16

Reflects downloads up to 20 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Almazova NHallstrom JFowler MHollingsworth JKraemer ESitaraman MWashington G(2022)Automated Analysis of Student Verbalizations in Online Learning EnvironmentsEmerging Technologies for Education10.1007/978-3-030-92836-0_25(290-302)Online publication date: 28-Jan-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92836-0_25
Hollingsworth JKraemer ESitaraman MHawthorne EPérez-Quiñones MHeckman SZhang J(2019)Engaging in Logical Code Reasoning with an Activity-Based Online ToolProceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education10.1145/3287324.3293754(1289-1289)Online publication date: 22-Feb-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3287324.3293754

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

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

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents