research-article
Free access
Author: Sven Strickroth
ITiCSE 2024: Proceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1
July 2024
Pages 499 - 505
Published: 03 July 2024 Publication History
- 0citation
- 0
- Downloads
Metrics
Total Citations0Total Downloads0Last 12 Months0
Last 6 weeks0
New Citation Alert added!
This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:
You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.
To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.
Manage my Alerts
New Citation Alert!
Please log in to your account
PDFeReader
- View Options
- References
- Media
- Tables
- Share
Abstract
Programming courses in higher education are often attended by several hundred students. In such large-scale courses, direct instruction is often the last resort, resulting in mostly passive students and limited social interaction. The instructor may present worked examples or perform live coding and the students try to reproduce these on their devices. However, there is usually no live coding where students work on small programming assignments themselves directly in class, because the instructor does not have a timely/rapid overview of the most important common issues that are prevalent in class to support the students. This paper presents experiences with a teaching format to activate students that addresses the aforementioned issues. After students have worked on a small assignment and uploaded their solution attempt within a specified time period, an extended e-assessment system analyzes all submissions and instantly provides an overview of the number of correct submissions as well as all common errors and their frequency to assist the instructor in the immediate tailored discussion. This approach makes it possible to engage students, make student performance visible to all participants, and discuss the most common errors. Students liked "their" live coding, the discussion of "their" errors, and want to do it more often, although not many students uploaded their solution attempts. The teaching scenario, benefits, pitfalls, possible improvements, and further application scenarios are discussed.
References
[1]
Ella Albrecht and Jens Grabowski. 2020. Sometimes It's Just Sloppiness - Studying Students' Programming Errors and Misconceptions. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '20). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366862
Digital Library
[2]
Ryan Baker, Jason Walonoski, Neil Heffernan, Ido Roll, Albert Corbett, and Kenneth Koedinger. 2008. Why students engage in "gaming the system" behavior in interactive learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, Vol. 19, 2 (2008), 185--224. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/24328/
[3]
Jerrold E. Barnett and Alisha L. Francis. 2012. Using higher order thinking questions to foster critical thinking: a classroom study. Educational Psychology, Vol. 32, 2 (mar 2012), 201--211. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2011.638619
[4]
Brett A. Becker, Paul Denny, Raymond Pettit, Durell Bouchard, Dennis J. Bouvier, Brian Harrington, Amir Kamil, Amey Karkare, Chris McDonald, Peter-Michael Osera, Janice L. Pearce, and James Prather. 2019. Compiler Error Messages Considered Unhelpful. In ITiCSE-WGR '19: Proceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3344429.3372508
Digital Library
[5]
James T. Boyle and David J. Nicol. 2003. Using classroom communication systems to support interaction and discussion in large class settings. Research in Learning Technology, Vol. 11, 3 (sep 2003). https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v11i3.11284
[6]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, Vol. 3, 2 (2006), 77--101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
[7]
Neil C.C. Brown and Amjad Altadmri. 2014. Investigating novice programming mistakes: educator beliefs vs. student data. In Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on International computing education research (ICER '14). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2632320.2632343
Digital Library
[8]
Charles H. Chen and Philip J. Guo. 2019. Improv: Teaching Programming at Scale via Live Coding. In Proceedings of the Sixth (2019) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S '19). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3330430.3333627
Digital Library
[9]
Luca Chiodini, Igor Moreno Santos, Andrea Gallidabino, Anya Tafliovich, André L. Santos, and Matthias Hauswirth. 2021. A Curated Inventory of Programming Language Misconceptions. In Proc. ITiCSE. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3430665.3456343
Digital Library
[10]
Michael Ebert and Markus Ring. 2016. A presentation framework for programming in programing lectures. In Proc. EDUCON. IEEE, 369--374. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2016.7474580
[11]
Carmen Fies and Jill Marshall. 2006. Classroom Response Systems: A Review of the Literature. J Sci Educ Technol, Vol. 15, 1 (2006), 101--109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-0360--1
[12]
Daniel Gerhardt, Jan Kammer, Daniel Knapp, Klaus Quibeldey-Cirkel, Christoph Thelen, and Paul-Christian Volkmer. 2013. ARSnova: ein Audience Response System für Inverted-Classroom-Szenarien mit Unterstützung von Just-in-Time Teaching und Peer Instruction. In Proc. DeLFI 2013. Gesellschaft für Informatik e.,V., Bonn, 297--300.
[13]
John Hattie and Helen Timperley. 2007. The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 77, 1 (mar 2007), 81--112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
[14]
Matthias Hauswirth and Andrea Adamoli. 2009. Solve & evaluate with informa: a Java-based classroom response system for teaching Java. In PPPJ '09: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Programming in Java. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1596655.1596657
Digital Library
[15]
Niels Heller and Francois Bry. 2019. Organizing Peer Correction in Tertiary STEM Education: An Approach and its Evaluation. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), Vol. 9, 4 (2019), 16--32. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v9i4.10201
[16]
Niels Heller and François Bry. 2021. Human computation for learning and teaching or collaborative tracking of learners' misconceptions. In Intelligent Systems and Learning Data Analytics in Online Education. Elsevier, 323--343. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0--12--823410--5.00015--2
[17]
Amy Hoyt, John A McNulty, Gregory Gruener, Arcot Chandrasekhar, Baltazar Espiritu, David Ensminger, Ron Price Jr, and Ross Naheedy. 2010. An audience response system may influence student performance on anatomy examination questions. Anatomical Sciences Education, Vol. 3, 6 (2010), 295--299. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.184
[18]
J. Jackson, M. Cobb, and C. Carver. 2005. Identifying Top Java Errors for Novice Programmers. In Proceedings Frontiers in Education. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/fie.2005.1611967
[19]
Luke Johnston, Madeleine Bonsma-Fisher, Joel Ostblom, Ahmed Hasan, James Santangelo, Lindsay Coome, Lina Tran, Elliott De Andrade, and Sara Mahallati. 2019. A graduate student-led participatory live-coding quantitative methods course in R: Experiences on initiating, developing, and teaching. Journal of Open Source Education, Vol. 2, 16 (June 2019), 49. https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00049
[20]
Robin H Kay and Ann LeSage. 2009. Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, Vol. 53, 3 (2009), 819--827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001
Digital Library
[21]
Hieke Keuning, Johan Jeuring, and Bastiaan Heeren. 2018. A Systematic Literature Review of Automated Feedback Generation for Programming Exercises. TOCE, Vol. 19, 1, Article 3 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3231711
Digital Library
[22]
Alexander Kiy and Sven Strickroth. 2017. Potentiale aufzeigen und Synergien nutzen: Audience Response Systeme als ein Anwendungsgebiet hochschulübergreifender Kooperationen. In Joint Proceedings of the Pre-Conference Workshops of DeLFI and GMW 2017, Vol. 2092. CEUR-WS.org, Bonn, Germany. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2092/paper11.pdf
[23]
Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Simon, Ibrahim Albluwi, Brett A. Becker, Michail Giannakos, Amruth N. Kumar, Linda Ott, James Paterson, Michael James Scott, Judy Sheard, and Claudia Szabo. 2018. Introductory Programming: A Systematic Literature Review. In Proc. ITiCSE 2018 Companion. 55--106. https://doi.org/10.1145/3293881.3295779
Digital Library
[24]
Sebastian Mader and Francc ois Bry. 2019a. Audience Response Systems Reimagined. In Proc. ICWL. 203--216. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3-030--35758-0_19
Digital Library
[25]
Sebastian Mader and François Bry. 2019b. Fun and Engagement in Lecture Halls through Social Gamification. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), Vol. 15, 2 (2019), 117--136. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v9i2.10163
[26]
Eric Mazur and Mark D. Somers. 1999. Peer Instruction: A User's Manual. American Journal of Physics, Vol. 67, 4 (apr 1999), 359--360. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19265
[27]
I. T. Chan Mow. 2012. Analyses of student programming errors in Java programming courses. Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences, Vol. 3, 5 (2012), 739--749.
[28]
Lorelli S. Nowell, Jill M. Norris, Deborah E. White, and Nancy J. Moules. 2017. Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Vol. 16, 1 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
[29]
James Oigara and Jared Keengwe. 2011. Students' perceptions of clickers as an instructional tool to promote active learning. Education and Information Technologies, Vol. 18, 1 (2011), 15--28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-011--9173--9
Digital Library
[30]
Archana Pradhan, Dina Sparano, and Cande V. Ananth. 2005. The influence of an audience response system on knowledge retention: An application to resident education. AJOG, Vol. 193, 5 (2005), 1827--1830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2005.07.075
[31]
Steven Robbins. 2011. Beyond clickers. In Proc. SIGCSE. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953347
Digital Library
[32]
Marc J. Rubin. 2013. The Effectiveness of Live-Coding to Teach Introductory Programming. In Proc. SIGCSE. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 651--656. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445388
Digital Library
[33]
Stefan Seegerer and Ralf Romeike. 2018. Goals, Topics and Tools of Computer Science for All University or College Courses. In Proc. SIGCSE. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3162237
Digital Library
[34]
Ana Selvaraj, Eda Zhang, Leo Porter, and Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj. 2021. Live Coding: A Review of the Literature. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3430665.3456382
Digital Library
[35]
Sven Strickroth. [n.,d.]. Automatic Grouping of Common Errors in Programming Exercises. (under review). https://www.tel.ifi.lmu.de/software/gate/, the full reference will be posted there, also the source code of GATE is available there.
[36]
Sven Strickroth. 2023 a. Does Peer Code Review Change My Mind on My Submission?. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 (ITiCSE 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, 498--504. https://doi.org/10.1145/3587102.3588802
Digital Library
[37]
Sven Strickroth. 2023 b. Towards Live Coding and Instant Feedback on Common Issues in Large Lectures. In Responsive and Sustainable Educational Futures. 18th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2023, Aveiro, Portugal, September 4--8, 2023, Proceedings. Springer Nature Switzerland, 662--667. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3-031--42682--7_58
[38]
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, Vol. 1. INSTICC, SciTePress, 389--396. https://doi.org/10.5220/0011087700003182
[39]
Sven Strickroth and Florian Holzinger. 2022. Supporting the Semi-Automatic Feedback Provisioning on Programming Assignments. In Methodologies and Intelligent Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning, 12th International Conference (MIS4TEL'22). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 13--19. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3-031--20617--7_3
[40]
Sven Strickroth, Hannes Olivier, and Niels Pinkwart. 2011. Das GATE-System: Qualit"atssteigerung durch Selbsttests für Studenten bei der Onlineabgabe von Übungsaufgaben?. In Proc. DeLFI. 115--126. https://dl.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/4740
[41]
Sven Strickroth and Michael Striewe. 2022. Building a Corpus of Task-based Grading and Feedback Systems for Learning and Teaching Programming. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), Vol. 12, 5 (Nov. 2022), 26--41. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v12i5.31283
[42]
Jonas Vetterick, Martin Garbe, and Clemens Cap. 2013. Tweedback: A Live Feedback System for Large Audiences. In Proc. CSEDU. https://doi.org/10.5220/0004414501940198
[43]
Daniela Zehetmeier, Axel Böttcher, Anne Brüggemann-Klein, and Veronika Thurner. 2015. Development of a Classification Scheme for Errors Observed in the Process of Computer Programming Education. In HEAdtextquotesingle15. Conference on Higher Education Advances. https://doi.org/10.4995/head15.2015.356
Index Terms
Scalable Feedback for Student Live Coding in Large Courses Using Automatic Error Grouping
Applied computing
Education
Social and professional topics
Professional topics
Computing education
Recommendations
- Towards Live Coding andInstant Feedback onCommon Issues inLarge Lectures
Responsive and Sustainable Educational Futures
Abstract
Learning programming requires practice. Timely feedback is one of the main drivers for learning and overcoming obstacles. In large lectures, however, social interactions and feedback are rather limited. Currently, there are no satisfactory ways ...
Read More
- Towards Supporting Programming Education at Scale via Live Streaming
CSCW
Live streaming, which allows streamers to broadcast their work to live viewers, is an emerging practice for teaching and learning computer programming. Participation in live streaming is growing rapidly, despite several apparent challenges, such as a ...
Read More
- e-Assessment in Mathematics Courses with Multiple-choice Questions Tests
CSEDU 2015: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2
With the implementation of the Bologna Process several challenges have been posed to higher education
institution, particularly in Portugal. One of the main implications is related to the change of the paradigm of
a teacher centered education, to a ...
Read More
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
ITiCSE 2024: Proceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1
July 2024
776 pages
ISBN:9798400706004
DOI:10.1145/3649217
- General Chairs:
- Mattia Monga
University of Milan, Italy
, - Violetta Lonati
University of Milan, Italy
, - Erik Barendsen
Radboud University, The Netherlands
, - Program Chairs:
- Judithe Sheard
Monash University, Australia
, - James Paterson
Glasgow Caledonian University, Scotland
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 [emailprotected].
Sponsors
- SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 03 July 2024
Permissions
Request permissions for this article.
Check for updates
Author Tags
- audience response
- e-assessment
- formative assessment
- just-in-time teaching
- live coding
- live feedback
- programming education
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
ITiCSE 2024
Sponsor:
- SIGCSE
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 552 of 1,613 submissions, 34%
Contributors
Other Metrics
View Article Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
Total Citations
Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Other Metrics
View Author Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderGet Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in
Full Access
Get this Publication
Media
Figures
Other
Tables
