A Validated Scoring Rubric for Explain-in-Plain-English Questions

被引:18
作者
Chen, Binglin [1 ]
Azad, Sushmita [1 ]
Haldar, Rajarshi [1 ]
West, Matthew [1 ]
Zilles, Craig [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801 USA
来源
SIGCSE 2020: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 51ST ACM TECHNICAL SYMPOSIUM ON COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION | 2020年
关键词
code reading; CS1; experience report; reliability; validity; INSTRUCTION;
D O I
10.1145/3328778.3366879
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Previous research has identified the ability to read code and understand its high-level purpose as an important developmental skill that is harder to do (for a given piece of code) than executing code in one's head for a given input ("code tracing"), but easier to do than writing the code. Prior work involving code reading ("Explain in plain English") problems, have used a scoring rubric inspired by the SOLO taxonomy, but we found it difficult to employ because it didn't adequately handle the three dimensions of answer quality: correctness, level of abstraction, and ambiguity. In this paper, we describe a 7-point rubric that we developed for scoring student responses to "Explain in plain English" questions, and we validate this rubric through four means. First, we find that the scale can be reliably applied with with a median Krippendorff's alpha (inter-rater reliability) of 0.775. Second, we report on an experiment to assess the validity of our scale. Third, we find that a survey consisting of 12 code reading questions had a high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.954). Last, we find that our scores for code reading questions in a large enrollment (N = 452) data structures course are correlated (Pearson's R = 0.555) to code writing performance to a similar degree as found in previous work.
引用
收藏
页码:563 / 569
页数:7
相关论文
共 31 条
[11]  
Lister R., 2006, SIGCSE Bulletin, V38, P118, DOI 10.1145/1140123.1140157
[12]  
Lister R, 2009, ITICSE 2009: PROCEEDING OF THE 2009 ACM SIGSE ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY IN COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION, P161, DOI 10.1145/1595496.1562930
[13]   NATURAL-LANGUAGE PROGRAMMING - STYLES, STRATEGIES, AND CONTRASTS [J].
MILLER, LA .
IBM SYSTEMS JOURNAL, 1981, 20 (02) :184-215
[14]  
Murphy Laurie, 2012, P 43 ACM TECHN S COM, P385, DOI DOI 10.1145/2157136.2157249
[15]  
Murphy Laurie, 2012, P 9 ANN INT C INT CO, P111, DOI DOI 10.1145/2361276.2361299
[16]   Comprehension First: Evaluating a Novel Pedagogy and Tutoring System for Program Tracing in CS1 [J].
Nelson, Greg L. ;
Xie, Benjamin ;
Ko, Andrew J. .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2017 ACM CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL COMPUTING EDUCATION RESEARCH (ICER 17), 2017, :2-11
[17]   On the Frequency ofWords Used in Answers to Explain in Plain English Questions by Novice Programmers [J].
Pelchen, Thomas ;
Lister, Raymond .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 21ST AUSTRALASIAN COMPUTING EDUCATION CONFERENCE (ACE 2019), 2019, :11-20
[18]   Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences [J].
Preston, CC ;
Colman, AM .
ACTA PSYCHOLOGICA, 2000, 104 (01) :1-15
[20]  
Simon B., 2006, ICER '06, P29, DOI DOI 10.1145/1151588.1151594