用一种新的测量技术分析学生并行编程成绩的随机对照试验

P. Daleiden, A. Stefik, P. M. Uesbeck, J. Pedersen
{"title":"用一种新的测量技术分析学生并行编程成绩的随机对照试验","authors":"P. Daleiden, A. Stefik, P. M. Uesbeck, J. Pedersen","doi":"10.1145/3401892","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There are many paradigms available to address the unique and complex problems introduced with parallel programming. These complexities have implications for computer science education as ubiquitous multi-core computers drive the need for programmers to understand parallelism. One major obstacle to student learning of parallel programming is that there is very little human factors evidence comparing the different techniques to one another, so there is no clear direction on which techniques should be taught and how. We performed a randomized controlled trial using 88 university-level computer science student participants performing three identical tasks to examine the question of whether or not there are measurable differences in programming performance between two paradigms for concurrent programming: threads compared to process-oriented programming based on Communicating Sequential Processes. We measured both time on task and programming accuracy using an automated token accuracy map (TAM) technique. Our results showed trade-offs between the paradigms using both metrics and the TAMs provided further insight about specific areas of difficulty in comprehension.","PeriodicalId":352564,"journal":{"name":"ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE)","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Student Performance in Parallel Programming using a New Measurement Technique\",\"authors\":\"P. Daleiden, A. Stefik, P. M. Uesbeck, J. Pedersen\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3401892\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There are many paradigms available to address the unique and complex problems introduced with parallel programming. These complexities have implications for computer science education as ubiquitous multi-core computers drive the need for programmers to understand parallelism. One major obstacle to student learning of parallel programming is that there is very little human factors evidence comparing the different techniques to one another, so there is no clear direction on which techniques should be taught and how. We performed a randomized controlled trial using 88 university-level computer science student participants performing three identical tasks to examine the question of whether or not there are measurable differences in programming performance between two paradigms for concurrent programming: threads compared to process-oriented programming based on Communicating Sequential Processes. We measured both time on task and programming accuracy using an automated token accuracy map (TAM) technique. Our results showed trade-offs between the paradigms using both metrics and the TAMs provided further insight about specific areas of difficulty in comprehension.\",\"PeriodicalId\":352564,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE)\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3401892\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3401892","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

有许多范例可用于解决由并行编程引入的独特而复杂的问题。这些复杂性对计算机科学教育有影响,因为无处不在的多核计算机促使程序员需要理解并行性。学生学习并行编程的一个主要障碍是,很少有人为因素的证据来比较不同的技术,因此没有明确的方向来教授哪些技术以及如何教授。我们进行了一项随机对照试验,使用88名大学级别的计算机科学学生参与者执行三个相同的任务,以检查并发编程的两种范式之间的编程性能是否存在可测量的差异:线程与基于通信顺序进程的面向进程编程。我们使用自动标记精度映射(TAM)技术测量了任务时间和编程精度。我们的结果显示了使用度量和tam的范例之间的权衡,提供了对理解困难的特定领域的进一步了解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Student Performance in Parallel Programming using a New Measurement Technique
There are many paradigms available to address the unique and complex problems introduced with parallel programming. These complexities have implications for computer science education as ubiquitous multi-core computers drive the need for programmers to understand parallelism. One major obstacle to student learning of parallel programming is that there is very little human factors evidence comparing the different techniques to one another, so there is no clear direction on which techniques should be taught and how. We performed a randomized controlled trial using 88 university-level computer science student participants performing three identical tasks to examine the question of whether or not there are measurable differences in programming performance between two paradigms for concurrent programming: threads compared to process-oriented programming based on Communicating Sequential Processes. We measured both time on task and programming accuracy using an automated token accuracy map (TAM) technique. Our results showed trade-offs between the paradigms using both metrics and the TAMs provided further insight about specific areas of difficulty in comprehension.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信