Towards a Fine-grained Analysis of Complexity of Programming Tasks
Pages 271 - 272
Abstract
Bloom's and SOLO taxonomies have been used to describe the complexity of computer science tasks and student's outcome. However, using these taxonomies have coarse granularity and programming tasks with very different demands could be equally classified at the same level. My research proposes a new framework using Neo-Piagetian stages of development based on the Model of Hierarchical Complexity (MHC) that enable formal definition and fine-grained evaluation of programming tasks nuances in paradigms, languages, and constructs. By empirically validating the model, I expect it to be a valuable tool to provide best practices to develop pedagogical approaches and tools.
References
[1]
Michael Lamport Commons, Robin Gane-McCalla, Cory David Barked, and Eva Yujia Li. 2014. The model of hierarchical complexity as a measurement system. Behavioral Development Bulletin 19, 3 (2014), 9.
[2]
Michael Lamport Commons, Eric Andrew Goodheart, Alexander Pekker, Theo Linda Dawson, Karen Draney, and Kathryn Marie Adams. 2008. Using Rasch scaled stage scores to validate orders of hierarchical complexity of balance beam task sequences. Journal of Applied Measurement 9, 2 (2008), 182.
[3]
Michael Lamport Commons, Edward James Trudeau, Sharon Anne Stein, Francis Asbury Richards, and Sharon R Krause. 1998. Hierarchical complexity of tasks shows the existence of developmental stages. Developmental Review 18, 3 (1998), 237--278.
[4]
Raymond Lister. 2011. Concrete and Other Neo-Piagetian Forms of Reasoning in the Novice Programmer. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference Ace (2011), 9--18.
[5]
Raymond Lister and John Leaney. 2003. Introductory programming, criterion-referencing, and bloom. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 35, 1 (2003), 143--147.
[6]
Patrice Marie Miller and Darlene Crone-Todd. 2016. Comparing different ways of using the model of hierarchical complexity to evaluate graduate students. Behavioral Development Bulletin 21, 2 (2016), 223.
[7]
Judy Sheard, Angela Carbone, Raymond Lister, Beth Simon, Errol Thompson, and Jacqueline L Whalley. 2008. Going SOLO to assess novice programmers. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 40. ACM, 209--213.
[8]
Elliot Soloway. 1986. Learning to program= learning to construct mechanisms and explanations. Commun. ACM 29, 9 (1986), 850--858.
Index Terms
- Towards a Fine-grained Analysis of Complexity of Programming Tasks
Recommendations
Toward Understanding Task Complexity in Maintenance-Based Studies of Programming Tools
Programming '22: Companion Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Art, Science, and Engineering of ProgrammingResearchers conducting studies on programming tools often make use of maintenance tasks. The complexity of these tasks can influence the behavior of participants significantly. At the same time, the complexity of tasks is difficult to pinpoint due to ...
A taxonomy of crowdsourcing based on task complexity
Although a great many different crowdsourcing approaches are available to those seeking to accomplish individual or organizational tasks, little research attention has yet been given to characterizing how those approaches might be based on task ...
The complexity of partition tasks
In this article, we introduce the partition task problem class along with a complexity measure to evaluate its instances and a performance measure to quantify the ability of a system to solve them. We explore, via simulations, some potential ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
August 2017
316 pages
ISBN:9781450349680
DOI:10.1145/3105726
- General Chairs:
- Josh Tenenberg,
- Donald Chinn,
- Judy Sheard,
- Lauri Malmi,
- Program Chairs:
- Josh Tenenberg,
- Lauri Malmi
Copyright © 2017 Owner/Author.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 14 August 2017
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Abstract
Funding Sources
Conference
ICER '17
Sponsor:
ICER '17: International Computing Education Research Conference
August 18 - 20, 2017
Washington, Tacoma, USA
Acceptance Rates
ICER '17 Paper Acceptance Rate 29 of 180 submissions, 16%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 189 of 803 submissions, 24%
Upcoming Conference
ICER 2025
- Sponsor:
- sigcse
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 145Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)4
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 01 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in