Learning and Using Formal Language
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Keywords: POP-I.B. cognitive processes, POP-II.A learning styles, POP-VI.E computer science education Regular expressions are a convenient and simple notation for expressing the members of a regular language. This simplicity enables regular expressions to serve as models of more complex context-free programming languages. To examine techniques in teaching programming, we exposed first year students with no knowledge of regular expressions to two tasks. The tasks asked participants to identify occurrences of a given expression (matching) or to create an expression to describe a set of occurrences (creation). Matching and creation can be viewed as parallel to reading and writing, suggesting that as reading skills help to develop writing skills, then similarly, matching skills help to develop creation skills. We hypothesised that a practice effect exists and that exposure to the matching task before the creation task improves performance on the latter. However, in an experimental setting, this hypothesis is not supported. Practice on recognition tasks provided no measurable benefits and suggests that the learning of formal language differs significantly from that of natural language. To verify this finding in an alternative setting, we performed a second experiment to test the hypothesis that performance will be similar when locating errors in HTML and when creating HTML. This experiment revealed no significant performance differences. One explanation for these results is that novices lack a lexicon of concepts to which language constructs can be mapped, and therefore view formal languages as rule-based systems. Consequently, the skills used for learning natural language can not be applied. These findings also suggest that for formal languages there is a greater need for instructional interventions such as performance feedback.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".