An official website of the United States government
Background and context. “Explain in Plain English” (EiPE) questions ask students to explain the high-level purpose of code, requiring them to understand the macrostructure of the program’s intent. A lot is known about techniques that experts use to comprehend code, but less is known about how we should teach novices to develop this capability. Objective. Identify techniques that can be taught to students to assist them in developing their ability to comprehend code and contribute to the body of knowledge of how novices develop their code comprehension skills. Method. We developed interventions that could be taught to novices motivated by previous research about how experts comprehend code: prompting students to identify beacons, identify the role of variables, tracing, and abstract tracing. We conducted think-aloud interviews of introductory programming students solving EiPE questions, varying which interventions each student was taught. Some participants were interviewed multiple times throughout the semester to observe any changes in behavior over time. Findings. Identifying beacons and the name of variable roles were rarely helpful, as they did not encourage students to integrate their understanding of that piece in relation to other lines of code. However, prompting students to explain each variable’s purpose helped them focus on useful subsets of the code, which helped manage cognitive load. Tracing was helpful when students incorrectly recognized common programming patterns or made mistakes comprehending syntax (text-surface). Prompting students to pick inputs that potentially contradicted their current understanding of the code was found to be a simple approach to them effectively selecting inputs to trace. Abstract tracing helped students see high-level, functional relationships between variables. In addition, we observed student spontaneously sketching algorithmic visualizations that similarly helped them see relationships between variables. Implications. Because students can get stuck at many points in the process of code comprehension, there seems to be no silver bullet technique that helps in every circumstance. Instead, effective instruction for code comprehension will likely involve teaching a collection of techniques. In addition to these techniques, meta-knowledge about when to apply each technique will need to be learned, but that is left for future research. At present, we recommend teaching a bottom-up, concrete-to-abstract approach.
more »
« less
On Students' Usage of Tracing for Understanding Code
Explain in Plain English (EiPE) questions evaluate whether students can understand and explain the high-level purpose of code. We conducted a qualitative think-aloud study of introductory programming students solving EiPE questions. In this paper, we focus on how students use tracing (mental execution) to understand code in order to explain it. We found that, in some cases, tracing can be an effective strategy for novices to understand and explain code. Furthermore, we observed three problems that prevented tracing from being helpful, which are 1) not employing tracing when it could be helpful (some struggling students explained correctly after the interviewer suggested tracing the code), 2) tracing incorrectly due to misunderstandings of the programming language, and 3) tracing with a set of inputs that did not sufficiently expose the code’s behavior (upon interviewer suggesting inputs, students explained correctly). These results suggest that we should teach students to use tracing as a method for understanding code and teach them how to select appropriate inputs to trace.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2121424
- PAR ID:
- 10434209
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- SIGCSE 2023: Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 129 to 136
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Novice programmers often struggle with code understanding and debugging. Live Programming environments visualize the runtime values of a program each time it is modified to provide immediate feedback, which help with tracing the program execution. This paper presents the use of a Live Programming tool in a CS1 course to better understand the impact of Live Programming on novices’ learning metrics and their perceptions of the tool. We conducted a within-subjects study at a large public university in a CS1 course in Python (N=237) where students completed tasks in a lab setting, in some cases with a Live Programming environment, and in some cases without. Through post-lab surveys and open-ended feedback, we measured how well students understood the material and how students perceived the programming environment. To understand the impact of Live Programming, we compared the collected data for students who used Live Programming with the data for students who did not. We found that while learning outcomes were the same regardless of whether Live Programming was used or not, students who used the Live Programming tool completed some code tracing tasks faster. Furthermore, students liked the Live Programming environment more, and rated it as more helpful for their learning.more » « less
-
What knowledge does learning programming require? Prior work has focused on theorizing program writing and problem solving skills. We examine program comprehension and propose a formal theory of program tracing knowledge based on control flow paths through an interpreter program's source code. Because novices cannot understand the interpreter's programming language notation, we transform it into causal relationships from code tokens to instructions to machine state changes. To teach this knowledge, we propose a comprehension-first pedagogy based on causal inference, by showing, explaining, and assessing each path by stepping through concrete examples within many example programs. To assess this pedagogy, we built PLTutor, a tutorial system with a fixed curriculum of example programs. We evaluate learning gains among self-selected CS1 students using a block randomized lab study comparing PLTutor with Codecademy, a writing tutorial. In our small study, we find some evidence of improved learning gains on the SCS1, with average learning gains of PLTutor 60% higher than Codecademy (gain of 3.89 vs. 2.42 out of 27 questions). These gains strongly predicted midterms (R2=.64) only for PLTutor participants, whose grades showed less variation and no failures.more » « less
-
Background: Previous work has shown that students can understand more complicated pieces of code through the use of common software development tools (code execution, debuggers) than they can without them. Objectives: Given that tools can enable novice programmers to understand more complex code, we believe that students should be explicitly taught to do so, to facilitate their plan acquisition and development as independent programmers. In order to do so, this paper seeks to understand: (1) the relative utility of these tools, (2) the thought process students use to choose a tool, and (3) the degree to which students can choose an appropriate tool to understand a given piece of code. Method: We used a mixed-methods approach. To explore the relative effectiveness of the tools, we used a randomized control trial study (𝑁 = 421) to observe student performance with each tool in understanding a range of different code snippets. To explore tool selection, we used a series of think-aloud interviews (𝑁 = 18) where students were presented with a range of code snippets to understand and were allowed to choose which tool they wanted to use. Findings: Overall, novices were more often successful comprehending code when provided with access to code execution, perhaps because it was easier to test a larger set of inputs than the debugger. As code complexity increased (as indicated by cyclomatic complexity), students become more successful with the debugger. We found that novices preferred code execution for simpler or familiar code, to quickly verify their understanding and used the debugger on more complex or unfamiliar code or when they were confused about a small subset of the code. High-performing novices were adept at switching between tools, alternating from a detail-oriented to a broader perspective of the code and vice versa, when necessary. Novices who were unsuccessful tended to be overconfident in their incorrect understanding or did not display a willingness to double check their answers using a debugger. Implications: We can likely teach novices to independently understand code they do not recognize by utilizing code execution and debuggers. Instructors should teach students to recognize when code is complex (e.g., large number of nested loops present), and to carefully step through these loops using debuggers. We should additionally teach students to be cautious to double check their understanding of the code and to self-assess whether they are familiar with the code. They can also be encouraged to strategically switch between execution and debuggers to manage cognitive load, thus maximizing their problem-solving capabilities.more » « less
-
Ethnoracial identity refers to the racial and ethnic categories that people use to classify themselves and others. How it is measured in surveys has implications for understanding inequalities. Yet how people self-identify may not conform to the categories standardized survey questions use to measure ethnicity and race, leading to potential measurement error. In interviewer-administered surveys, answers to survey questions are achieved through interviewer–respondent interaction. An analysis of interviewer–respondent interaction can illuminate whether, when, how, and why respondents experience problems with questions. In this study, we examine how indicators of interviewer–respondent interactional problems vary across ethnoracial groups when respondents answer questions about ethnicity and race. Further, we explore how interviewers respond in the presence of these interactional problems. Data are provided by the 2013–2014 Voices Heard Survey, a computer-assisted telephone survey designed to measure perceptions of participating in medical research among an ethnoracially diverse sample of respondents.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569741
