research-article

Code Perfumes: Reporting Good Code to Encourage Learners

Authors:

Florian Obermüller,

Luisa Greifenstein,

Gordon FraserAuthors Info & Claims

WiPSCE '21: Proceedings of the 16th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education

Article No.: 5, Pages 1 - 10

https://doi.org/10.1145/3481312.3481346

Published: 19 October 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Block-based programming languages like enable children to be creative while learning to program. Even though the block-based approach simplifies the creation of programs, learning to program can nevertheless be challenging. Automated tools such as linters therefore support learners by providing feedback about potential bugs or code smells in their programs. Even when this feedback is elaborate and constructive, it still represents purely negative criticism and by construction ignores what learners have done correctly in their programs. In this paper we introduce an orthogonal approach to linting: We complement the criticism produced by a linter with positive feedback. We introduce the concept of code perfumes as the counterpart to code smells, indicating the correct application of programming practices considered to be good. By analysing not only what learners did wrong but also what they did right we hope to encourage learners, to provide teachers and students a better understanding of learners’ progress, and to support the adoption of automated feedback tools. Using a catalogue of 25 code perfumes for, we empirically demonstrate that these represent frequent practices in, and we find that better programs indeed contain more code perfumes.

References

[1]

Kashif Amanullah and Tim Bell. 2018. Analysing students’ scratch programs and addressing issues using elementary patterns. In 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, 1–5.

Digital Library

[2]

Kashif Amanullah and Tim Bell. 2020. Teaching Resources for Young Programmers: the use of Patterns. In 2020 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, 1–9.

Digital Library

[3]

Bryce Boe, Charlotte Hill, Michelle Len, Greg Dreschler, Phillip Conrad, and Diana Franklin. 2013. Hairball: Lint-inspired static analysis of scratch projects. SIGCSE 2013 - Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445265

Digital Library

[4]

Edward L Deci, Richard Koestner, and Richard M Ryan. 1999. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation.Psychological bulletin 125, 6 (1999), 627.

[5]

Samantha DePasque and Elizabeth Tricomi. 2015. Effects of intrinsic motivation on feedback processing during learning. NeuroImage 119(2015), 175–186.

[6]

Ayelet Fishbach, Tal Eyal, and Stacey R Finkelstein. 2010. How positive and negative feedback motivate goal pursuit. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 4, 8 (2010), 517–530.

[7]

Martin Fowler. 1999. Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA, USA.

Digital Library

[8]

Gordon Fraser, Ute Heuer, Nina Körber, Florian Obermüller, and Ewald Wasmeier. 2021. LitterBox: A Linter for Scratch Programs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.07440(2021).

[9]

Christoph Frädrich, Florian Obermüller, Nina Körber, Ute Heuer, and Gordon Fraser. 2020. Common Bugs in Scratch Programs. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Trondheim, Norway) (ITiCSE ’20). 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1145/3341525.3387389

Digital Library

[10]

John Hattie. 2009. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887332

[11]

John AC Hattie and Gregory CR Yates. 2014. Using feedback to promote learning. Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum (2014), 45–58.

[12]

Felienne Hermans and Efthimia Aivaloglou. 2016. Do code smells hamper novice programming? A controlled experiment on Scratch programs. In 2016 IEEE 24th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC). 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPC.2016.7503706

[13]

Felienne Hermans, Kathryn T. Stolee, and David Hoepelman. 2016. Smells in Block-Based Programming Languages. In 2016 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) (Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2016-09). IEEE, 68–72. https://doi.org/10.1109/VLHCC.2016.7739666

[14]

David Hovemeyer and William Pugh. 2004. Finding Bugs is Easy. SIGPLAN Not. 39, 12 (Dec. 2004), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1145/1052883.1052895

Digital Library

[15]

David E Johnson. 2016. ITCH: Individual Testing of Computer Homework for Scratch Assignments. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education. ACM, 223–227.

Digital Library

[16]

P. Louridas. 2006. Static code analysis. IEEE Software 23, 4 (2006), 58–61. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2006.114

Digital Library

[17]

John Maloney, Mitchel Resnick, Natalie Rusk, Brian Silverman, and Evelyn Eastmond. 2010. The Scratch Programming Language and Environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 10 (11 2010), 16. https://doi.org/10.1145/1868358.1868363

Digital Library

[18]

Monica M. McGill and Adrienne Decker. 2020. Tools, Languages, and Environments Used in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Trondheim, Norway) (ITiCSE ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1145/3341525.3387365

Digital Library

[19]

Orni Meerbaum-Salant, Michal Armoni, and Mordechai Ben-Ari. 2011. Habits of Programming in Scratch. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Darmstadt, Germany) (ITiCSE ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 168–172. https://doi.org/10.1145/1999747.1999796

Digital Library

[20]

Tilman Michaeli and Ralf Romeike. 2019. Current Status and Perspectives of Debugging in the K12 Classroom: A Qualitative Study. In 2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). IEEE, 1030–1038.

[21]

Maria Montessori. 1959. The absorbent mind. Lulu. com.

[22]

Jesús Moreno-León and Gregorio Robles. 2014. Automatic detection of bad programming habits in scratch: A preliminary study. In 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2014.7044055

[23]

Jesús Moreno-León, Gregorio Robles, and Marcos Román-González. 2015. Dr. Scratch: Automatic Analysis of Scratch Projects to Assess and Foster Computational Thinking. RED-Revista de Educación a Distancia (09 2015).

[24]

Susanne Narciss. 2013. Designing and evaluating tutoring feedback strategies for digital learning. Digital Education Review23 (2013), 7–26.

[25]

J. Novak, A. Krajnc, and R. Žontar. 2010. Taxonomy of static code analysis tools. In The 33rd International Convention MIPRO. 418–422.

[26]

Richard M Ryan and Edward L Deci. 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology 25, 1 (2000), 54–67.

[27]

Richard M Ryan and Edward L Deci. 2000. When rewards compete with nature: The undermining of intrinsic motivation and self-regulation. In Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Elsevier, 13–54.

[28]

Linda Seiter and Brendan Foreman. 2013. Modeling the learning progressions of computational thinking of primary grade students. In Proceedings of the ninth annual international ACM conference on International computing education research. 59–66.

Digital Library

[29]

Sue Sentance and Andrew Csizmadia. 2017. Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher’s perspective. Education and Information Technologies 22, 2 (2017), 469–495.

Digital Library

[30]

Andreas Stahlbauer, Christoph Frädrich, and Gordon Fraser. 2020. Verified from Scratch: Program Analysis for Learners’ Programs. In In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). IEEE.

Digital Library

[31]

Andreas Stahlbauer, Marvin Kreis, and Gordon Fraser. 2019. Testing scratch programs automatically. In Proceedings of the 2019 27th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. 165–175.

Digital Library

[32]

Mike Talbot, Katharina Geldreich, Julia Sommer, and Peter Hubwieser. 2020. Re-use of programming patterns or problem solving? representation of scratch programs by TGraphs to support static code analysis. In Proceedings of the 15th Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education. 1–10.

Digital Library

[33]

Peeratham Techapalokul and Eli Tilevich. 2017. Quality Hound — An online code smell analyzer for scratch programs. In 2017 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). 337–338. https://doi.org/10.1109/VLHCC.2017.8103498

[34]

Peeratham Techapalokul and Eli Tilevich. 2017. Understanding Recurring Quality Problems and Their Impact on Code Sharing in Block-Based Software. In 2017 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) (Raleigh, NC, USA, 2017-10). IEEE, 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1109/VLHCC.2017.8103449

[35]

Linda Werner, Jill Denner, Shannon Campe, and David M Torres. 2020. Computational sophistication of games programmed by children: a model for its measurement. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 20, 2 (2020), 1–23.

Digital Library

[36]

Benedikt Wisniewski, Klaus Zierer, and John Hattie. 2020. The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology 10 (2020), 3087.

[37]

Aman Yadav, Sarah Gretter, Susanne Hambrusch, and Phil Sands. 2016. Expanding computer science education in schools: understanding teacher experiences and challenges. Computer Science Education 26, 4 (2016), 235–254.

Cited By

Nyenah EDöll PKatz DReinecke R(2024)Software sustainability of global impact modelsGeoscientific Model Development10.5194/gmd-17-8593-202417:23(8593-8611)Online publication date: 5-Dec-2024
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8593-2024
Obermüller FFraser G(2024)Do Scratchers Fix Their Bugs? Detecting Fixes of Scratch Static Analysis WarningsProceedings of the 19th WiPSCE Conference on Primary and Secondary Computing Education Research10.1145/3677619.3678108(1-4)Online publication date: 16-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3677619.3678108
Straubinger PObermüller FFraser G(2024)Acknowledging Good Java Code with Code Perfumes2024 36th International Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T)10.1109/CSEET62301.2024.10662995(1-10)Online publication date: 29-Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/CSEET62301.2024.10662995
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Code Perfumes: Reporting Good Code to Encourage Learners

Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

Recommendations

Do Scratchers Fix Their Bugs? Detecting Fixes of Scratch Static Analysis Warnings
WiPSCE '24: Proceedings of the 19th WiPSCE Conference on Primary and Secondary Computing Education Research

Although block-based programming languages like Scratch simplify the creation of programs, learning to program can nevertheless be challenging. Program analysis tools such as linters therefore support learners by providing feedback about potential bugs ...
Copilot-in-the-Loop: Fixing Code Smells in Copilot-Generated Python Code using Copilot
ASE '24: Proceedings of the 39th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering

As one of the most popular dynamic languages, Python experiences a decrease in readability and maintainability when code smells are present. Recent advancements in Large Language Models have sparked growing interest in AI-enabled tools for both code ...
A review of code smell mining techniques

Over the past 15years, researchers presented numerous techniques and tools for mining code smells. It is imperative to classify, compare, and evaluate existing techniques and tools used for the detection of code smells because of their varying features ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

WiPSCE '21: Proceedings of the 16th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education

October 2021

119 pages

ISBN:9781450385718

DOI:10.1145/3481312

Copyright © 2021 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 ACM 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: 19 October 2021

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Funding Sources

BMBF
DFG

Conference

WiPSCE '21

WiPSCE '21: The 16th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education

October 18 - 20, 2021

Virtual Event, Germany

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 104 of 279 submissions, 37%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

6
Total Citations
View Citations
240
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)61
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)8

Reflects downloads up to 11 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Nyenah EDöll PKatz DReinecke R(2024)Software sustainability of global impact modelsGeoscientific Model Development10.5194/gmd-17-8593-202417:23(8593-8611)Online publication date: 5-Dec-2024
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8593-2024
Obermüller FFraser G(2024)Do Scratchers Fix Their Bugs? Detecting Fixes of Scratch Static Analysis WarningsProceedings of the 19th WiPSCE Conference on Primary and Secondary Computing Education Research10.1145/3677619.3678108(1-4)Online publication date: 16-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3677619.3678108
Straubinger PObermüller FFraser G(2024)Acknowledging Good Java Code with Code Perfumes2024 36th International Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T)10.1109/CSEET62301.2024.10662995(1-10)Online publication date: 29-Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/CSEET62301.2024.10662995
Lozano RPrabhu RCheon Y(2024)Code Smells for Assessing and Improving Students’ Coding Skills and PracticesProceedings of the Third International Conference on Innovations in Computing Research (ICR’24)10.1007/978-3-031-65522-7_21(225-236)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65522-7_21
Greifenstein LBrune MFuchs THeuer UFraser G(2023)Impact of Hint Content on Performance and Learning: A Study with Primary School Children in a Scratch CourseProceedings of the 18th WiPSCE Conference on Primary and Secondary Computing Education Research10.1145/3605468.3605498(1-10)Online publication date: 27-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3605468.3605498
Deiner AFeldmeier PFraser GSchweikl SWang W(2023)Automated test generation for Scratch programsEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-022-10255-x28:3Online publication date: 13-May-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10664-022-10255-x

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten