Cited by 70Teaching and Learning ProgrammingIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

Evaluating the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Adaptive Parsons Problems

Open access
Ericson, Barbara J., Foley, James D., Rick, Jochen·2018·Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research

Abstract

Practice is essential for learning. There is evidence that solving Parsons problems (putting mixed up code blocks in order) is a more efficient, but just as effective, form of practice than writing code from scratch. However, not all students successfully solve every Parsons problem. Making the problems adaptive, so that the difficulty changes based on the learner's performance, should keep the learner in Vygotsky's zone of proximal development and maximize learning gains. This paper reports on a study comparing the efficiency and effectiveness of learning from solving adaptive Parsons problems vs non-adaptive Parsons problem vs writing the equivalent code. The adaptive Parsons problems used both intra-problem and inter-problem adaptation. Intra-problem adaptation means that if the learner is struggling to solve the current problem, the problem can dynamically be made easier. Inter-problem adaptation means that the difficulty of the next problem is modified based on the learner's performance on the previous problem. This study provides evidence that solving intra-problem and inter-problem adaptive Parsons problems is a more efficient, but just as effective, form of practice as writing the equivalent code.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3230977.3231000

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [16]16. Albert T Corbett, Kenneth R Koedinger, and John R Anderson. 1997. Intelligent tutoring systems. Handbook of human-computer interaction 5 (1997), 849-874.
  2. [30]30. Amruth N Kumar. 2018. Epplets: A Tool for Solving Parsons Puzzles. In Proceed- ings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 527-532.
  3. [36]36. Barbara Rogoff. 1990. Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in socio- cultural activity. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ericson, B. J., Foley, J. D., & Rick, J.
Affiliations
Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
Publisher
ACM
Published
2018-08-08
Pages
60-68
OpenAlex
W2886511030
Cited by
70
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8
FWCI
7.36
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER) (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1432300, 1138378)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
Parsons problems, adaptive learning, programming education, zone of proximal development, practice efficiency, learning effectiveness, writing software

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review