MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241885102 · doi:10.1145/366413.364536

Teaching CS1 with karel the robot in Java

2001· article· en· W4241885102 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGCSE Bulletin · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKarelJavaComputer scienceProgramming languageSelection (genetic algorithm)Inheritance (genetic algorithm)Object (grammar)RobotRecursion (computer science)Object-oriented programmingCurriculumInterface (matter)Software engineeringMathematics educationArtificial intelligencePedagogySociologyPsychologyOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most current Java textbooks for CS1 (and thus most current courses) begin either with fundamentals from the procedural paradigm (assignment, iteration, selection) or with a brief introduction to using objects followed quickly with writing objects. We have found a third way to be most satisfying for both teachers and students: using interesting predefined classes to introduce the fundamentals of object-oriented programming (object instantiation, method calls, inheritance) followed quickly by the traditional fundamentals of iteration and selection, also taught using the same predefined classes.Karel the Robot, developed by Richard Pattis [6] and well-known to many computer science educators, has aged gracefully and is a vital part of our CS1 curriculum. This paper explains how Karel may be used and the advantages of doing so.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.226 · 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