MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7034558576

Teaching the art of functional programming using automated grading

2020· dissertation· en· W7034558576 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicScarabaeidae Beetle Taxonomy and Biogeography
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrectnessGrading (engineering)Functional programmingLeverage (statistics)SuiteComputer programmingCode (set theory)Inductive programmingProgramming language theory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online programming platforms have immense potential to improve students' educational experience.They make programming more accessible, as no installation is required; and automatic grading facilities provide students with immediate feedback on their code, allowing them to to fix bugs and address errors in their understanding right away.However, these graders tend to focus heavily on the functional correctness of a solution, neglecting other aspects of students' code and thereby causing students to miss out on a significant amount of valuable feedback.In this thesis, we recount our experience in using the Learn-OCaml online programming platform to teach functional programming in a second-year university course on programming languages and paradigms.Moreover, we explore how to leverage Learn-OCaml's automated grading infrastructure to make it easy to write more expressive graders that give students feedback on properties of their code beyond simple input/output correctness, in order to effectively teach elements of functional programming style.In particular, we present our extensions to the Learn-OCaml platform that evaluate students on test quality and code style.We then describe how we used these extensions in a later offering of our course to better pursue our teaching goals, and provide data from a study on students' code submissions to determine how students were using the platform.By providing our lessons learned over these semesters of using Learn-OCaml, as well as our new tools and a suite of our own homework problems and associated graders, we aim to promote functional programming education, enhance students' educational experience, and make teaching and learning typed functional programming more accessible to instructors and students alike all across the globe. AbrégéLes plateformes de programmation en ligne ont un potentiel immense d'améliorer l'expérience éducationnelle des étudiants.Elles offrent une expérience de programmation plus accessible puisqu'elles ne requièrent pas d'installation de configuration de la part des étudiants.De plus, les systèmes de notation automatique permettent aux étudiants d'obtenir un retour d'information immédiat qui leur donne l'opportunité de corriger leurs erreurs et rectifier directement leur compréhension du problème.Cela dit, ces modules de notation ont tendance à se concentrer sur l'exactitude du fonctionnement d'une solution aux dépends d'autres aspects du code.Cela réduit de façon significative la quantité d'information qui pourrait leur être transmise.Dans ce mémoire, nous décrivons notre expérience de l'utilisation en ligne de la plateforme Learn-OCaml pour enseigner à des étudiants de deuxième année la programmation fonctionnelle dans le cadre d'un cours sur les langages et les paradigmes de programmation.De plus, nous explorons de quelle façon nous pouvons utiliser l'infrastructure de notation automatique de Learn-OCaml pour faciliter l'écriture de modules de notation plus expressifs.Ces modules, en plus de vérifier l'exactitude du code, permettent effectivement d'enseigner des éléments de style de la programmation fonctionnelle.En particulier, nous présentons nos extensions de la plateforme Learn-OCaml qui évaluent les étudiants sur la qualité de leurs tests et le style de leur code.De plus, nous décrivons comment nous avons utilisé ces extensions dans le cadre d'un cours pour faciliter l'enseignement de bonnes pratiques de programmation et faisons l'analyse de données provenant d'une étude sur l'utilisation de la plateforme par les étudiants grâce à la soumission de leur code.À travers la présentation des leçons tirées de l'utilisation de la plateforme Learn-OCaml ainsi que des nouveaux outils et modules de notation que nous avons créés, nous désirons faire la promotion de l'éducation de la programmation fonctionnelle, améliorer l'expérience éducationnelle des étudiants et rendre l'enseignement et l'apprentissage de la programmation fonctionnelle typée plus accessible à la fois aux enseignants et aux étudiants à travers le monde.in making our experience using Learn-OCaml a success: Akshal Aniche, Ivan Miloslavov,

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.007

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
DomainMethods
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicScarabaeidae Beetle Taxonomy and BiogeographyFrench-language works237,207