Current CS1 learning outcomes are relatively general, specifying tasks such as designing, implementing, testing and debugging programs that use some fundamental programming constructs. These outcomes impact what we teach, our expectations, and our assessments. Although prior work has demonstrated the utility of single concept assessments, most assessments used in formal examinations combine numerous heterogeneous concepts, resulting in complex and difficult tasks. As a consequence, teachers may not be able to diagnose the actual difficulties faced by students and students are not provided with accurate feedback about their achievements. Such limitations on the nature and quality of feedback to teachers and students alike may contribute to the perceived difficulty and high dropout rates commonly observed in introductory programming courses.In this paper we review the concepts that CS education researchers have identified as important for novice programming. We survey learning outcomes for introductory programming courses that characterize the expectations of CS1 courses, and analyse assessments designed for CS1 to determine the individual components of syntax and semantics required to complete them. Having recognized the implicit and explicit expectations of novice programming courses, we look at the relationships between components and progression between concepts. Finally, we demonstrate how some complex assessments can be decomposed into atomic elements that can be assessed independently.Pre-print of the paper (accepted manuscript) for the institutional repository and not for redistribution. See terms of the ACM Copyright Transfer Agreement.
Collaborative exams have shown promise for improving student learning in computing. Prior studies have focused on benefits for all students, whereas this study seeks to refine our understanding of which students benefit and how group composition impacts that benefit. Using a crossover experimental design, the study first investigates whether students from differing performance levels (low, medium, or high) benefit from the collaborative exam. We find that students in the middle of the class (neither high nor low performers) tend to benefit strongly from the collaborative exam. Second, we explore whether group composition based on performance levels impacts the performance of members of the group. The results suggest more homogeneous groups (i.e., students in the group are at similar performance levels) are beneficial whereas students in groups with high heterogeneity do not experience significant performance differences between the pre-test and post-test.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.