skip to main content
10.1145/2899415.2899463acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiticseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A New Metric to Quantify Repeated Compiler Errors for Novice Programmers

Published:11 July 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Encountering the same compiler error repeatedly, particularly several times consecutively, has been cited as a strong indicator that a student is struggling with important programming concepts. Despite this, there are relatively few studies which investigate repeated errors in isolation or in much depth. There are also few data-driven metrics for measuring programming performance, and fewer for measuring repeated errors. This paper makes two contributions. First we introduce a new metric to quantify repeated errors, the repeated error density (RED). We compare this to Jadud's Error Quotient (EQ), the most studied metric, and show that RED has advantages over EQ including being less context dependent, and being useful for short sessions. This allows us to answer two questions posited by Jadud in 2006 that have until now been unanswered. Second, we compare the EQ and RED scores using data from an empirical control/intervention group study involving an editor which enhances compiler error messages. This intervention group has been previously shown to have a reduced overall number of student errors, number of errors per student, and number of repeated student errors per compiler error message. In this research we find a reduction in EQ, providing further evidence that error message enhancement has positive effects. In addition we find a significant reduction in RED providing evidence that this metric is valid.

References

  1. A. Ahadi, R. Lister, H. Haapala, and A. Vihavainen. Exploring machine learning methods to automatically identify students in need of assistance. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research, pages 121--130. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. A. Altadmri and N. C. Brown. 37 million compilations: Investigating novice programming mistakes in large-scale student data. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 522--527. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. B. A. Becker. An exploration of the e ects of enhanced compiler error messages for computer programming novices. Master's thesis, Dublin Institute of Technology, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. B. A. Becker. An e ective approach to enhancing compiler error messages. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 126--131. ACM, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. J. S. Brown and K. VanLehn. Repair theory: A generative theory of bugs in procedural skills. Cognitive science, 4(4):379--426, 1980.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. N. C. Brown and A. Altadmri. Investigating novice programming mistakes: Educator beliefs vs. student data. In Proceedings of the tenth annual Conference on International Computing Education Research, pages 43--50. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. N. C. C. Brown, M. Kölling, D. McCall, and I. Utting. Blackbox: A large scale repository of novice programmers' activity. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 223--228. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. R. Chmiel and M. C. Loui. Debugging: from novice to expert. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(1):17--21, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. P. Denny, A. Luxton-Reilly, E. Tempero, and J. Hendrickx. Codewrite: supporting student-driven practice of java. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 471--476. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. M. C. Jadud. A rst look at novice compilation behaviour using bluej. Computer Science Education, 15(1):25--40, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. M. C. Jadud. An exploration of novice compilation behaviour in BlueJ. PhD thesis, University of Kent, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. M. C. Jadud and B. Dorn. Aggregate compilation behavior: Findings and implications from 27,698 users. In Proceedings of the eleventh annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research, pages 131--139. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. W. L. Johnson. Intention-based diagnosis of novice programming errors. Morgan Kaufmann, 1986. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. I. R. Katz and J. R. Anderson. Debugging: An analysis of bug-location strategies. Human-Computer Interaction, 3(4):351--399, 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. A. Petersen, J. Spacco, and A. Vihavainen. An exploration of error quotient in multiple contexts. In Proceedings of the 15th Koli Calling Conference on Computing Education Research, pages 77--86. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. M. M. T. Rodrigo, E. Tabanao, M. B. E. Lahoz, and M. C. Jadud. Analyzing online protocols to characterize novice java programmers. Philippine Journal of Science, 138(2):177--190, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. J. C. Spohrer and E. Soloway. Novice mistakes: Are the folk wisdoms correct? Communications of the ACM, 29(7):624--632, 1986. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. E. S. Tabanao, M. M. Rodrigo, and M. C. Jadud. Predicting at-risk novice java programmers through the analysis of online protocols. In Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on Computing education research, pages 85--92. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. H. Tamada, A. Ogino, and H. Ueda. A framework for programming process measurement and compiling error interpretation for novice programmers. In Software Measurement, 2011 Joint Conference of the 21st Int'l Workshop on and 6th International Conference on Software Process and Product Measurement (IWSM-MENSURA), pages 233--238. IEEE, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. C. Watson, F. W. Li, and J. L. Godwin. Predicting performance in an introductory programming course by logging and analyzing student programming behavior. In Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on, pages 319--323. IEEE, 2013 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A New Metric to Quantify Repeated Compiler Errors for Novice Programmers

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

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

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    ITiCSE '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education
    July 2016
    394 pages
    ISBN:9781450342315
    DOI:10.1145/2899415

    Copyright © 2016 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: 11 July 2016

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    ITiCSE '16 Paper Acceptance Rate56of147submissions,38%Overall Acceptance Rate552of1,613submissions,34%

    Upcoming Conference

    ITiCSE 2024

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader