Htdp and dmda in the battlefield

Bieniusa, Annette; Degen, Markus; Heidegger, Phillip; Thiemann, Peter; Wehr, Stefan; Gasbichler, Martin; Sperber, Michael; Crestani, Marcus; Klaeren, Herbert; Knauel, Eric

doi:10.1145/1411260.1411262

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Early iterations of our course were not as successful as we would have liked at getting students to engage in deliberate practice, despite the use of DrRacket and the design recipes as well as vast efforts at explaining the benefits of practice, trying to provide positive motivation and establishing mutual trust [2].…”

Section: Learning Habitsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Instead, we use signatures [3], which fulfill a similar role to types: They allow students to state the shape of data, and are checked automatically, albeit at run time. 2 …”

Section: Programming Languages For Beginnersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We adjust those measures with each iteration of the course, partly because of changes in the bureaucratic framework at the University, partly because we keep looking for new ways of encouraging effective habits. These measures have improved the effectiveness of the course measurably [2].…”

Section: Learning Habitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Form over function

Sperber¹,

Crestani

2012

Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Workshop on Scheme and Functional Programming

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teaching beginners how to program is hard: As knowledge about systematic construction of programs is quite young, knowledge about the didactics of the discipline is even younger and correspondingly incomplete. Developing and refining an introductoryprogramming course for more than a decade, we have learned that designing a successful course is a comprehensive activity and teachers should consider and question all aspects of a course. We doubt reports of sweeping successes in introductory-programming classes by the use of just one single didactic device-including claims that "switching to Scheme" magically turns a bad course into a good one. Of course, the choice of individual devices (including the use of Scheme) does matter, but for teaching an effective course the whole package counts. This paper describes the basic ideas and insights that have driven the development of our introductory course. In particular, a number of conclusions about effective teaching were not as we had originally expected.

show abstract

Section: Learning Habitsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Instead, we use signatures [3], which fulfill a similar role to types: They allow students to state the shape of data, and are checked automatically, albeit at run time. 2 …”

Section: Programming Languages For Beginnersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Form over function

Sperber¹,

Crestani

2012

Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Workshop on Scheme and Functional Programming

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, so-called programming labs provide an opportunity to get hands-on experience with FP. During the labs, students solve small programming tasks with the support of student tutors, as it is common in other courses as well [2]. They can also help out each other and exchange different approaches towards solving the tasks.…”

Section: Course Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer Aided Design and Grading for an Electronic Functional Programming Exam

Lübke,

Fuger,

Bahnsen

et al. 2023

Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electronic exams (e-exams) have the potential to substantially reduce the effort required for conducting an exam through automation. Yet, care must be taken to sacrifice neither task complexity nor constructive alignment nor grading fairness in favor of automation. To advance automation in the design and fair grading of (functional programming) e-exams, we introduce the following: A novel algorithm to check Proof Puzzles based on finding correct sequences of proof lines that improves fairness compared to an existing, edit distance-based algorithm; an open-source static analysis tool to check source code for task relevant features by traversing the abstract syntax tree; a higher-level language and open-source tool to specify regular expressions that makes creating complex regular expressions less error-prone. Our findings are embedded in a complete experience report on transforming a paper exam to an e-exam. We evaluated the resulting e-exam by analyzing the degree of automation in the grading process, asking students for their opinion, and critically reviewing our own experiences. Almost all tasks can be graded automatically at least in part (correct solutions can almost always be detected as such), the students agree that an e-exam is a fitting examination format for the course but are split on how well they can express their thoughts compared to a paper exam, and examiners enjoy a more time-efficient grading process while the point distribution in the exam results was almost exactly the same compared to a paper exam.

show abstract

Understanding beginners' mistakes with Haskell

Tirronen¹,

Uusi-Mäkelä²,

Isomöttönen³

2015

J. Funct. Prog.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents an overview of student difficulties in an introductory functional programming (FP) course taught in Haskell. The motivation for this study stems from our belief that many student difficulties can be alleviated by understanding the underlying causes of errors and by modifying the educational approach and, possibly, the teaching language accordingly. We analyze students' exercise submissions and categorize student errors according to compiler error messages and then manually according to the observed underlying cause. Our study complements earlier studies on the topic by applying computer and manual analysis while focusing on providing descriptive statistics of difficulties specific to FP languages. We conclude that the majority of student errors, regardless of cause, are reported by three different compiler error messages that are not well understood by students. In addition, syntactic features, such as precedence, the syntax of function application, and deeply nested statements, cause difficulties throughout the course.

show abstract

Htdp and dmda in the battlefield

Cited by 9 publications

References 10 publications

Form over function

Form over function

Computer Aided Design and Grading for an Electronic Functional Programming Exam

Understanding beginners' mistakes with Haskell

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About