Aalto computer scientists in ICER 2024

News

Aalto computer scientists in ICER 2024

Published: 5.8.2024

Three papers from the Department of Computer Science were accepted to the International Computing Education Research conference (ICER).

Aalto Computer Science Department, image: Matti Ahlgren

The 20th annual ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER) aims at gathering high-quality contributions to the computing education research discipline. The hybrid conference is organized in Melbourne, Australia on 12-15 August, 2024.

Accepted papers

In alphabetical order. Click the title to see the authors and the abstract.

Authors

Evanfiya Logacheva, Arto Hellas, James Prather, Sami Sarsa, Juho Leinonen

Abstract

Programming skills are typically developed through completing various hands-on exercises. Such programming problems can be contextualized to students’ interests and cultural backgrounds. Prior research in educational psychology has demonstrated that context personalization of exercises stimulates learners’ situational interests and positively affects their engagement. However, creating a varied and comprehensive set of programming exercises for students to practice on is a time-consuming and laborious task for computer science educators. Previous studies have shown that large language models can generate conceptually and contextually relevant pro- gramming exercises. Thus, they offer a possibility to automatically produce personalized programming problems to fit students’ inter- ests and needs. This article reports on a user study conducted in an elective introductory programming course that included con- textually personalized programming exercises created with GPT-4. The quality of the exercises was evaluated by both the students and the authors. Additionally, this work investigated student at- titudes towards the created exercises and their engagement with the system. The results demonstrate that the quality of exercises generated with GPT-4 was generally high. What is more, the course participants found them engaging and useful. This suggests that AI-generated programming problems can be a worthwhile addition to introductory programming courses, as they provide students with a practically unlimited pool of practice material tailored to their personal interests and educational needs.

Authors

Artturi Tilanterä, Juha Sorva, Otto Seppälä, Ari Korhonen

Abstract

Teachers who are aware of potential student misconceptions teach better than teachers who do not. In this article, we focus on misconceptions in the context of teaching and learning graph algorithms: we seek to discover student misconceptions about Dijkstra’s shortest-path algorithm and related concepts. We observed and interviewed fourteen students who worked on a visual simulation task involving the algorithm; we qualitatively analyzed these data to explore the students’ mistakes and their underlying reasons. We find, among other things, that students conflate concepts such as spanning tree, fringe, and priority queue and that students may neglect the greedy and dynamic-programming aspects of the algorithm; we also identify usability issues in the visualization tool we employed. These findings suggest that teachers and tool designers need to take great care to help students tease apart the key concepts in graph algorithms.

Authors

James Prather, Brent Reeves, Juho Leinonen, Stephen MacNeil, Arisoa S. Randrianasolo, Brett Becker, Bailey Kimmel, Jared Wright, Ben Briggs

Abstract

Novice programmers often struggle through programming problem solving due to a lack of metacognitive awareness and strategies. Previous research has shown that novices can encounter multiple metacognitive difficulties while programming. Novices are typically unaware of how these difficulties are hindering their progress. Meanwhile, many novices are now programming with generative AI (GenAI), which can provide complete solutions to most introductory programming problems, code suggestions, hints for next steps when stuck, and explain cryptic error messages. Its impact on novice metacognition has only started to be explored. Here we replicate a previous study that examined novice programming problem solving behavior and extend it by incorporating GenAI tools. Through 21 lab sessions consisting of participant observation, interview, and eye tracking, we explore how novices are coding with GenAI tools. Although 20 of 21 students completed the assigned programming problem, our findings show an unfortunate divide in the use of GenAI tools between students who accelerated and students who struggled. Students who accelerated were able to use GenAI to create code they already intended to make and were able to ignore unhelpful or incorrect inline code suggestions. But for students who struggled, our findings indicate that previously known metacognitive difficulties persist, and that GenAI unfortunately can compound them and even introduce new metacognitive difficulties. Furthermore, struggling students often expressed cognitive dissonance about their problem solving ability, thought they performed better than they did, and finished with an illusion of competence. Based on our observations from both groups, we propose ways to scaffold the novice GenAI experience and make suggestions for future work.