Engaging Students to Learn Coding in the AI Era with Emphasis on the Process
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56916/ejip.v3i2.728Keywords:
process, learning, programming, artificial intelligence, EducationAbstract
Students learning to code for the first time face several challenges. For instance, they struggle to interpret the error messages they see when their code fails to run. Since teaching standards in coding are focused primarily on whether a student’s code runs successfully, students are often penalized in their grades not for the effort they put into their work but for the code they turn in. Automated grading tools deployed in educational institutions, unfortunately, make the issue worse. In this work, we discuss a novel approach to motivate students to learn coding by shifting the focus of both educators and students from outcomes to the process behind the outcomes. In this study, educators and students are introduced to a new tool, Process Feedback (PF), which shows each student’s work as a visual journey. After using both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis, the paper discusses how using PF can help students code insightfully and help educators grade quickly and thoroughly. Our findings reveal that tools such as PF can be beneficial in addressing challenges in learning to code and encouraging students to be original in the age of AI. The results also imply that the incorporation of process-oriented learning tools can make coding education more effective and that the process-centric approach can play a key role in the development and effectiveness of educational tools for students.
References
Adhikari, B. (2023). Thinking beyond chatbotsrsquo; threat to education: Visualizations to elucidate the writing or coding process. Education Sciences, 13(9).
Cutler, L. & Graham, S. (2008). Primary Grade Writing Instruction: A National Survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 100, No. 4, 907–919.
Dennen, V. P. & Burner, K. J. (2008). The cognitive apprenticeship model in educational practice. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, pages 425–439. Routledge.
Devore-McDonald, B. & Berger, E. D. (2020). Mossad: Defeating software plagiarism detection. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, 4(OOPSLA):1–28.
Fraser, R. (2014). Collaboration, Collusion and Plagiarism in Computer Science Coursework. Informatics in Education, 13(2): 179-195.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Chorzempa, B. F. (2002). Contribution of spelling instruction to the spelling, writing, and reading of poor spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 669–686.
Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of educational psychology, 99(3):445.
Graham, S., & Sandmel, K. (2011). The process writing approach: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(6), 396-407.
Grønli, T. & Fagernes, S. (2020). The live programming lecturing technique: A study of the student experience in introductory and advanced programming courses. In Norsk IKT-konferanse for forskning og utdanning, volume 4.
Hart, K., Mano, C., & Edwards, J. (2023). Plagiarism Deterrence in CS1 Through Keystroke Data. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (SIGCSE 2023).
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27).
Hayes, P. J. & Mouradian, G. V. (1981). Flexible parsing. American Journal of Computational Linguistics, 7(4):232–242.
Hristova, M., Misra, A., Rutter, M., & Mercuri, R. (2003). Identifying and correcting java programming errors for introductory computer science students. ACM Sigcse Bulletin, 35(1):153–156.
Kölling, M. & Barnes, D. J. (2004). Enhancing apprentice-based learning of java. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 286–290.
Kustanto, C. & Liem, I. (2009). Automatic source code plagiarism detection. In 2009 10th ACIS International conference on software engineering, artificial intelligences, networking and parallel/distributed computing, pages 481–486. IEEE.
Livingston, J. A. (2003). Metacognition: An Overview. ERIC.
Marceau, G., Fisler, K., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2011). Mind your language: on novices’ interactions with error messages. In Proceedings of the 10th SIGPLAN symposium on New ideas, new paradigms, and reflections on programming and software, pages 3–18.
Mekterović, I., Brkić, L., & Horvat, M. (2023). Scaling automated programming assessment systems. Electronics, 12(4):942.
Nienaltowski, M., Pedroni, M., & Meyer, B. (2008). Compiler error messages: What can help novices? In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 168–172.
Prather, J., Pettit, R., McMurry, K. H., Peters, A., Homer, J., Simone, N., & Cohen, M. (2017). On novices’ interaction with compiler error messages: A human factors approach. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, pages 74–82.
Pritchard, R. & Honeycutt, R. (2007). Best Practices in Implementing a Process Approach to Teaching Writing. In Best Practices in Writing Instruction, pages 28-49.
Rowley, J. (2014). Designing and using research questionnaires. Management research review, 37(3):308–330.
Rubin, M. J. (2013). The effectiveness of live-coding to teach introductory programming. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 651–656.
Schober, M. F. & Conrad, F. G. (1997). Does conversational interviewing reduce survey measurement error? Public opinion quarterly, pages 576–602.
Schultz, K. & Fecho, B. (2000). Society's child: Social context and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 51–62.
Selvaraj, A., Zhang, E., Porter, L., & Raj, A. G. S. (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, pages 164–170.
Shaffer, D. W. & Resnick, M. (1999). “Thick” authenticity: New media and authentic learning. Journal of interactive learning research, 10(2):195–216.
Turner, J. & Paris, S. G. (1995). How literacy tasks influence children's motivation for literacy. The Reading Teacher, 48, 662-673.
Ullah, Z., Lajis, A., Jamjoom, M., Altalhi, A., Al-Ghamdi, A., & Saleem, F. (2018). The effect of automatic assessment on novice programming: Strengths and limitations of existing systems. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 26(6):2328–2341.
Yadav, A., Burkhart, D., Moix, D., Snow, E., Bandaru, P., & Clayborn, L. (2015). Sowing the seeds: A landscape study on assessment in secondary computer science education. Comp. Sci. Teachers Assn., NY, NY.
Xiao, Y. (2010). The effects of training in peer assessment on university students’ writing performance and peer assessment quality in an online environment. Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Dissertation, Teaching and Learning, Old Dominion University.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Kate Arendes, Shea Kerkhoff, Badri Adhikari
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
