AlgoPlan: Supporting Planning in Algorithmic Problem-Solving with Subgoal Diagrams
Pages 389 - 392
Abstract
Planning a solution before writing code is essential in algorithmic problem-solving. However, novices often skip planning and jump straight into coding. Even if they set up a plan, some do not connect to their plan when writing code. Learners solving algorithmic problems often struggle with high-level components such as solution techniques and sub-problems, but existing representations that guide learners in planning, such as flowcharts, focus on presenting lower-level details. We use subgoal diagrams -- diagrams made of subgoal labels and the relationships between them -- as a representation that guides learners to focus on high-level plans when they develop solutions. We introduce AlgoPlan, an interface that enables learners to build their own subgoal diagram and use it to guide their problem-solving process. A preliminary study with seven students shows that subgoal diagrams help learners focus on high-level plans and connect these plans to their code.
Supplementary Material
Despite the importance of solution planning in algorithmic problem-solving, learners often skip the planning stage or make poor connections between plans and code. Representations that show how the solution is organized, such as flowcharts, can guide learners in planning. However, these representations mostly focus on presenting lower-level details, while learners often struggle with high-level components such as solution techniques and sub-problems. We use subgoal diagrams ? diagrams made of subgoal labels and the relationships between them ? as a representation that guides learners to focus on high-level plans when they develop solutions. We introduce AlgoPlan, an interface that enables learners to build their own subgoal diagram and use it to guide their problem-solving process. A preliminary study with seven students shows that subgoal diagrams help learners focus on high-level plans and connect these plans to their code.
- Download
- 58.11 MB
References
[1]
Owen L Astrachan. 2004. Non-competitive programming contest problems as the basis for just-in-time teaching. In 34th Annual Frontiers in Education, 2004. FIE 2004. IEEE, T3H--20.
[2]
Martin C Carlisle, Terry A Wilson, Jeffrey W Humphries, and Steven M Hadfield. 2005. RAPTOR: a visual programming environment for teaching algorithmic problem solving. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 37, 1 (2005), 176--180.
[3]
Francisco Enrique Vicente Castro and Kathi Fisler. 2020. Qualitative Analyses of Movements Between Task-level and Code-level Thinking of Novice Programmers. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 487--493.
[4]
Richard Catrambone. 1998. The subgoal learning model: Creating better examples so that students can solve novel problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 127, 4 (1998), 355.
[5]
Mark Guzdial, Luke Hohmann, Michael Konneman, Christopher Walton, and Elliot Soloway. 1998. Supporting programming and learning-to-program with an integrated CAD and scaffolding workbench. Interactive Learning Environments 6, 1--2 (1998), 143--179.
[6]
Minjie Hu, Michael Winikoff, and Stephen Cranefield. 2013. A process for novice programming using goals and plans. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference-Volume 136. 3--12.
[7]
Hyoungwook Jin, Minsuk Chang, and Juho Kim. 2019. SolveDeep: A System for Supporting Subgoal Learning in Online Math Problem Solving. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--6.
[8]
Dastyni Loksa, Amy J Ko, Will Jernigan, Alannah Oleson, Christopher J Mendez, and Margaret M Burnett. 2016. Programming, problem solving, and self-awareness: effects of explicit guidance. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1449--1461.
[9]
Michael McCracken, Vicki Almstrum, Danny Diaz, Mark Guzdial, Dianne Hagan, Yifat Ben-David Kolikant, Cary Laxer, Lynda Thomas, Ian Utting, and Tadeusz Wilusz. 2001. A multi-national, multi-institutional study of assessment of programming skills of first-year CS students. In Working Group Reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 125--180.
[10]
Thomas W Price, Joseph Jay Williams, Jaemarie Solyst, and Samiha Marwan. 2020. Engaging Students with Instructor Solutions in Online Programming Homework. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--7.
[11]
Robert S Rist. 1991. Knowledge creation and retrieval in program design: A comparison of novice and intermediate student programmers. Human-Computer Interaction 6, 1 (1991), 1--46.
[12]
Renske Smetsers-Weeda and Sjaak Smetsers. 2017. Problem solving and algorithmic development with flowcharts. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education. 25--34.
[13]
Sarah Weir, Juho Kim, Krzysztof Z Gajos, and Robert C Miller. 2015. Learnersourcing subgoal labels for how-to videos. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. 405--416.
[14]
Shamama Zehra, Aishwarya Ramanathan, Larry Yueli Zhang, and Daniel Zingaro. 2018. Student misconceptions of dynamic programming. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 556--561.
Index Terms
- AlgoPlan: Supporting Planning in Algorithmic Problem-Solving with Subgoal Diagrams
Recommendations
AlgoSolve: Supporting Subgoal Learning in Algorithmic Problem-Solving with Learnersourced Microtasks
CHI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsDesigning solution plans before writing code is critical for successful algorithmic problem-solving. Novices, however, often plan on-the-fly during implementation, resulting in unsuccessful problem-solving due to lack of mental organization of the ...
Conformant plans and beyond: Principles and complexity
Conformant planning is used to refer to planning for unobservable problems whose solutions, like classical planning, are linear sequences of operators called linear plans. The term 'conformant' is automatically associated with both the unobservable ...
On modeling planning problems in tabled logic programming
PPDP '15: Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative ProgrammingCurrent research in planning focuses mainly on so called domain independent models using the Planning Domain Description Language (PDDL) as the domain modeling language. This declarative modeling approach embraces the idea of a physics-only model ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
August 2020
442 pages
ISBN:9781450379519
DOI:10.1145/3386527
- General Chair:
- David Joyner,
- Program Chairs:
- Rene Kizilcec,
- Susan Singer
Copyright © 2020 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 12 August 2020
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Short-paper
Conference
L@S '20
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 117 of 440 submissions, 27%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 108Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)14
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 12 Aug 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in