Cédric Libert
Wim Vanhoof
ABSTRACT
In previous literature, several authors have recommended teaching concurrent programming, as the current evolution of IT involves concurrency. However, in order to teach concurrent programming properly, in a constructivist educational learning framework, we need to know the preconceptions students have regarding it. In this paper, we report on the results found from data collected through a questionnaire submitted in secondary schools to 101 students aged from 12 to 15. We detail the preconceptions of concurrent programming we extracted from the questionnaire answers and formulate recommendations toward creating a course teaching concurrent programming.
- ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula. 2013. Computer Science Curricula 2013. Technical Report. ACM Press and IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
- Claus Brabrand. 2008. Constructive Alignment for Teaching Model-Based Design for Concurrency. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1–18.Google Scholar
- Manuel Carro, Ángel Herranz, and Julio Mariño. 2013. A Model-driven Approach to Teaching Concurrency. Trans. Comput. Educ. 13, 1, Article 5 (2013), 19 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael B. Feldman and Bruce D. Bachus. 1997. Concurrent Programming CAN Be Introduced into the Lower-level Undergraduate Curriculum. SIGCSE Bull. 29, 3 (1997), 77–79. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Alena Juvova, Stefan Chudy, Pavel Neumeister, Jitka Plischke, and Jana Kvintova. 2015. Reflection of constructivist theories in current educational practice. Universal Journal of Educational Research 3, 5 (2015), 345–349.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yifat Ben-David Kolikant. 2001. Gardeners and Cinema Tickets: High School Students’ Preconceptions of Concurrency. Computer Science Education 11, 3 (2001), 221–245.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gary Lewandowski, Dennis J Bouvier, Robert McCartney, Kate Sanders, and Beth Simon. 2007. Commonsense computing (episode 3): concurrency and concert tickets. In Proceedings of the third international workshop on Computing education research. ACM, 133–144. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Adrienne Naumescu and Pierre Pirson. 1993. Utiliser les Préconceptions des Élèves pour construire l’Apprentissage en Sciences. European Journal of Teacher Education 16, 3 (1993), 205–214.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lynn Andrea Stein. 1999. Challenging the Computational Metaphor: Implications for How We Think., 35 pages.Google Scholar
- Herb Sutter. 2005. The Free Lunch Is Over: A Fundamental Turn Toward Concurrency in Software. Dr. Dobb’s Journal 30, 3 (2005).Google Scholar
- Peter Van Roy, Joe Armstrong, Matthew Flatt, and Boris Magnusson. 2003. The Role of Language Paradigms in Teaching Programming. SIGCSE Bull. 35, 1 (2003), 269–270. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Heather Verkade, Jason M Lodge, Kristine Elliott, TD Mulhern, AA Espinosa, SJ Cropper, and BIP Rubinstein. 2017. Exploring misconceptions as a trigger for enhancing student learning. (2017).Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Analysis of students’ preconceptions of concurrency
Recommendations
Effects of Learning Analytics on Students' Self-Regulated Learning in Flipped Classroom
The present article is aimed at analyzing the effects of learning analytics on students' self-regulated learning in a flipped classroom. An experiment was conducted with 96 engineering students, enrolled in a subject offered in the Flipped Classroom ...
Relaxed Concurrency Control in Software Transactional Memory
Some of today's TM systems implement the two-phase-locking (2PL) algorithm which aborts transactions every time a conflict occurs. 2PL is a simple algorithm that provides fast transactional operations. However, it limits concurrency in benchmarks with ...
Comments