MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605355633 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.6461

TEACHING FUNDAMENTAL COMPUTER PROGRAMMING CONCEPTS TO MECHANICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS USING PALPABLE INTERACTIVE VISUAL LEARNING AIDS

2017· article· en· W2605355633 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Kush Bubbar, Yang Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsComputer scienceAbstractionSyntaxHuman–computer interactionProcess (computing)MultimediaComprehensionArtificial intelligenceSoftware engineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pointers have long been the Achilles heel of mechanical engineering students attempting to master dynamic memory allocation in mechatronic applications. They are abstract and intangible, both opposing characteristics of a discipline based on the concrete (and often hands on) physical world. With this said, pointers are considered an important threshold concept opening the door to the implementation of complex microcontroller applications in our digitally connected world.One of the primary challenges in learning the application of pointers is that the programming syntax and the abstract memory management concepts are often taught simultaneously. The natural progression of learning is to first comprehend the concepts followed by the syntax. Further newer learning theories suggest a conceptual understanding can only result through abstraction of experiences using metaphorical linkages.The following research body is focused on proposing a new strategy for teaching this complex concept using low cost physical props as a palpable interactive visual medium to provide the requisite experiences for concept abstraction. The learning aids are designed to enforce a strict process flow mimicking the invisible actions occurring internal to the microprocessor. Data is collected via questionnaires administered pre and post lecture delivery. Analysis of the results suggest moderate to high improvement in student comprehension of computer memory allocation concepts

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicTeaching and Learning ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207