Parson's programming puzzles: a fun and effective learning tool for first programming courses

ABSTRACT

Mastery of basic syntactic and logical constructs is an essential part of learning to program. Unfortunately, practice exercises for programming basics can be very tedious, making it difficult to motivate students. In this paper we describe Parson's Programming Puzzles, an automated, interactive tool that provides practice with basic programming principles in an entertaining puzzle-like format. Careful design of the items in the puzzles allows the tutor to highlight particular topics and common programming errors. Since each puzzle solution is a complete sample of well-written code, use of the tool exposes students to good programming practice. This paper discusses the motivation of Parson's Programming Puzzles, and gives several examples. We describe the web-based authoring tool used to build the puzzles, and present our plans for future development.

References

1. Allen, R.K., Bluff, K. and Oppenheim, A. (1998): Jumping into Java: Object-Oriented Software Development for the Masses. Proceedings of the 3rd Australasian conference on Computer science education, Brisbane, Australia, 3:165-172.
2. Bergin, J., (2000): Why Procedural is the Wrong First Paradigm if OOP is the Goal, http://csis.pace.edu/~bergin/papers/Whynotprocedurarlfi rst.html. Accessed 14 Oct 2005.
3. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J. and Jacobson, I., (1999): The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Reading, Massachusetts, Addison Wesley,.
4. Decker, R. and Hirshfield, S. (1994): The Top 10 Reasons Why Object-Oriented Programming Can't Be Taught in CS1, Proceedings of the twenty-fifth SIGCSE symposium on Computer science education, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, 51-55, ACM Press.
5. Duke, R. Salzman, E., Burmeister, J., Poon, J. and Murray, L., (2000): Teaching programming to beginners - choosing the language is just the first step, Proceedings of the Australasian conference on Computing education, Melbourne Australia. 79-86.
6. Fincher, S., (1999): What are we doing when we teach programming?, In Frontiers in Education '99, 12a41-5. IEEE, November 1999.
7. Grant, F. and O'Brien, H. (2000): Maths Plus for New Zealand Schools, St. Leonards, Australia, Horowitz Martin.
8. Hill, J., Ray, C., Blair, J and Carver, C. (2003): Puzzles and games: addressing different learning styles in teaching operating systems concepts, Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, Reno, Nevada, USA, 182-186.
9. Hu, Minjie (2004): Teaching Novices Programming with Core Language and Dynamic Visualisation Proceedings of the NACCQ 2004, Christchurch, New Zealand, 95-104.
10. Kearsley, G. and Sheniderman, B., (1999): Engagement Theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm. Accessed 14 Oct 2005.
11. Norman, D.A. and Spohrer, J., C. (1996): Learner-Centered Education, Communications of the ACM, 39(4):24-27.
12. Olsen, A.L. (2005): Using pseudocode to teach problem solving. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 21(2):231-236.
13. O'Neill, P.J. (Ed.) (1972): The Shape of Mathematics, Wellington, New Zealand, Reed Education
14. Prensky, M. (2001): Digital Game-Based Learning, McGraw-Hill.
15. Stein, Lynn Andrea (1998): What we've swept under the rug: Radically rethinking CS1. Computer Science Education 8(2): 118-129.
16. Tabrizi, M., Collins, C, Ozan, E., and Li, K., (2004): Implementation of Object-Orientation Using UML in Entry Level Software Development Courses, Proceedings of the 5th conference on Information technology education, Salt Lake City, UT, 128-131, ACM Press.

Index Terms

• Applied computing

  • Education

  • Enterprise computing

• Human-centered computing

• Social and professional topics

  • Professional topics

    • Computing education

      • Computing education programs

        • Computer science education