Analysis on Effectiveness of Algorithms Teaching Method With Hands-on Activities For Non-CS Majors

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This research proposes an algorithm teaching method by using an analysis of simple algorithms with hands-on activities. It is an experimental study on teaching well-known sort algorithms to non-CS major students in an introductory course to computer science. The course was designed to help students in a beginning computer science course learn algorithmic thinking skills. The applied method of the course involves hands-on activities to analyze sorting algorithms which enable the realization of computer programming activities. We separated the participants into two procedural groups in which they both learned the sorting algorithms through hands-on activities. We applied the method in two different manners. One of the groups used a card game and the other used a software tool to understand the given algorithm. We then compared the performance of the two groups to assess the learning process. Both groups did well in applying an algorithmic analysis and understanding the given algorithm. In addition both groups grasped the design skills needed to create an algorithm for a given problem. We assessed some differences in learning performance between the two groups. This study reports the process of course activity and its results. The aim of the study is to help researchers and instructors with their CS education studies.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Contents
• Abstract iv
• 1 Introduction 1
• 1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
• 1.2 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
• 2 Background 4
• 3 Related Works 6
• 3.1 Dolittle: Educational Programming Language (EPL) . . 6
• 3.2 Algorithm Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
• 3.3 Hands-on Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
• 4 Research Method 11
• 4.1 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
• 4.2 Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
• 4.3 Teaching Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
• 5 Results 33
• 5.1 Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
• 5.2 Algorithm Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
• 5.3 Algorithm Analysis Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
• 5.4 Final Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
• 5.5 Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
• 5.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
• 6 Summary and Conclusion 49
• Appendices 51
• Appendix A: Algorithm Flowcharts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
• Appendix B: Dolittle Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
• Appendix C: Participants’ Study Samples . . . . . . . . . . . 59
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 68