Every mechanic has her favorite screwdrivers, and every good teacher has different kinds of exercises to check that her students are actually learning, let them practice their new skills, and keep them engaged. Some types of exercise are well known, but others aren’t as widely used as they should be. DataCamp (my current employer) supports some of each type, and I’m keen to find both new things to try, and new ways to use what we already have.
In order to be considered for inclusion in this article, an exercise has to be quick for learners to do, and it has to be possible to check the answer automatically. These requirements rule out some useful kinds of assessment, but I was surprised by how many remain.
Let’s start with the two types of exercise DataCamp users will be most familiar with. The first is a multiple choice question that presents a question and asks the student to pick the correct answer from a list. Doing this might (in fact, should) require them to do more than just read and remember, and as a previous post discussed, multiple-choice questions are most effective when their wrong answers probe for specific misconceptions on the student’s part.
Example: You are in
lswith an appropriate argument to get a listing of the files in the directory
/home/repl/seasonal. Which of the following files is not in that directory?
The second type of exercise is write and run, in which the student has to write code that produces a specified output. When the code is submitted, we check its structure and/or output and give feedback. Write and run exercises can be as simple or as complex as the instructor wants. For example, it’s often enough with novices to simply ask them to call a function or method: experienced instructors often forget how hard it can be to figure out which parameters go where.
Example: the matrix M contains data read from a file. Using one function or method call, create a matrix Z that has the same shape as M but contains only zeroes.
Write and run exercises help students practice the skills they most want to learn, but writing good automated checks is hard: students can find very creative ways to get the right answer, and it’s demoralizing to give them a false negative. One way to reduce how often this occurs is to give them a small test suite they can run their code against before they submit it (at which point it is run against a more comprehensive set of tests). Doing this helps to catch cases in which students have completely misunderstood the written spec of the exercise.
To help students realize just how hard it is to write good tests instructors can get them to do it themselves. Instead of writing code that satisfies some specification, they can be asked to write tests to determine whether a piece of code conforms to a spec.
Example: the function
monotonic_sumcalculates the sum of each section of a list of numbers in which the values are monotonically increasing. For example, given the input
[1, 3, 3, 4, 5, 1], the output should be
[4, 3, 9, 1]. Write and run unit tests to determine which of the following bugs the function contains:
- Considers every negative number the start of a new sub-sequence.
- Does not include the first value of each sub-sequence in the sub-sum.
- Does not include the last value of each sub-sequence in the sub-sum.
- Only re-starts the sum when values decrease rather than fail to increase.
Fill in the blanks is a refinement of write and run in which the student is given some starter code and asked to complete it. (In practice, many write and run exercises are actually fill in the blanks because the instructor will provide comments to remind the students of what steps they should take.) Novices often find fill in the blanks less intimidating than writing all the code from scratch, and since the instructor has provided most of the answer’s structure, submissions are much easier to check.
Example: fill in the blanks so that the code below prints the string ‘hat’.
text = 'all that it is' slice = text[____:____] print(slice)
A Parsons Problem is another kind of exercise that avoids the “blank screen of terror” problem: the student is given the lines of code needed to solve a problem, but has to put them in the right order. Research over the past few years has shown that Parsons Problems are effective because they allow students to concentrate on control flow (“what order do I do things?”) separately from vocabulary (“what do I need to do?”). The same research shows that giving the student more lines than she needs, or asking her to rearrange some lines and add a few more, makes this kind of problem significantly harder. Our mobile platform has direct support for Parsons Problems, and they can be emulated (albeit somewhat clumsily) by asking students to rearrange code in an editor.
Example: rearrange and indent these lines to calculate the sums of the positive and negative values in a list.
positive = 0 return negative, positive if v > 0 else positive += v negative = 0 for v in values negative += v
Tracing execution is the inverse of a Parsons Problem: given a few lines of code, the student has to trace the order in which those lines are executed. This is an essential debugging skill, and is a good way to solidify students’ understanding of loops, conditionals, and the evaluation order of function and method calls. Again, we don’t yet support this directly, but it can be emulated by having students type in a list of line labels.
Example: in what order are the labelled lines in this block of code executed?
A) vals = [-1, 0, 1] B) inverse_sum = 0 try: for v in vals: C) inverse_sum += 1/v except: D) pass
Tracing values is similar to tracing execution, but instead of spelling out the order in which code is executed, the student is asked to list the values that one or more variables take on as the program runs. Again, it can be implemented by having students type in their answers, but this quickly becomes impractical. In practice, the best approach is to give the student a table whose columns are labelled with variable names and whose rows are labelled with line numbers.
Example: what lines of text pass through the pipes and the final redirect when this file:
2017-11-01,Akeratu,9 2017-11-01,Monona,3 2017-11-02,Monona,1 2017-11-03,Monona,1 2017-11-03,Akeratu,7
is run through this Unix shell command:
cut -d , -f 2 filename | sort | uniq > result.txt
Returning to debugging skills, another exercise that helps student develop them is minimal fixes. Given a few lines of code that contain a bug, the student must either make or identify the smallest change that will produce the correct output. Making the change can be done as using write and run, while identifying it can be done as a multiple choice question.
Example: this function is supposed to test whether a point
(x, y)lies strictly within a rectangle defined by
(x_min, y_min, x_max, y_max). Change one line to make it do so correctly.
def inside(point, rect): if (point.x <= rect.x_min): return false if (point.y <= rect.y_min): return false if (point.x >= rect.y_max): return false if (point.y >= rect.y_max): return false return true
Theme and variation exercises are similar, but instead of making a change to fix a bug, the student is asked to make a small alteration that changes the output in some specific way. These alterations can include:
- replacing one function call with another
- changing one variable’s initial value
- swapping an inner and outer loop
- changing the order of tests in a chain of conditionals
- changing the nesting of function calls or the order in which methods are chained
Again, this gives students a chance to practice a useful real-world skill: the fastest way to produce a working program is often to tweak one that already does something useful.
Example: change the inner loop control in the function below so that it sets the upper left triangle of the matrix to zero.
def zeroTriangle(matrix): for c in range(matrix.cols): for r in range(matrix.rows): matrix[r, c] = 0
Matching problems are another entire family of exercises. A one-to-one matching problem gives the student two lists of equal length and asks her to pair corresponding items, e.g., “match each piece of code with the output it produces”.
Example: match each function’s name with the operation it implements.
SGEMV triangular banded matrix-vector multiply STBMV solve triangular matrix with multiple right-hand sides STRSM matrix-vector multiply
Many-to-many matching problems are similar, but the lists aren’t the same length, so some items may be matched to several others. Both kinds require students to use higher-order thinking skills, but many-to-many are more difficult because students can’t do easy matches first to reduce their search space.
Our platform doesn’t currently support matching problems; they can be emulated by having students submit lists of pairs as text (such as “A3, B1, C2”), but that’s clumsy and error-prone. A future implementation could re-use machinery built for Parsons Problems and let students drag and drop blocks of text to form matches.
Drag-and-drop would open many other doors: for example, tracing execution is easy to implement this way. So is labelling diagrams: rather than students typing in the labels, it is faster and more reliable for them to drag labels around to attach to the correct elements. The picture can be a complex data structure (“after this code is executed, which variables point to which parts of this structure?”), the graph that a program produces (“match each of these pieces of code with the part of the graph it generated”), the code itself (“match each term to an example of that program element”), or many other things.
Example: label the following diagram to show which structures the variables
zrefer to after these three lines of code are executed.
x = 3 y = [x, x] z = [x, y]
Drawing diagrams of things like data structures is also straightforward to do on paper but very difficult to grade automatically. One way to make solutions gradable may be to constrain the drawing in the same way that Parsons Problems constrain code construction, i.e., give students the pieces of the diagram and ask them to arrange them correctly, but this is a long way off.
We mentioned earlier that matching problems require students to use higher-order thinking skills. Summarization also does this, and gives them a chance to practice a skill that is very useful when reporting bugs rather than fixing them. For example, students can be asked, “Which sentence best describes how the output of f changes as x varies from 0 to 10?” and then given several options as a multiple choice question. Similarly, ranking problems present the student with several choices and ask them to order them from fastest to slowest, most robust to most brittle, and so on. (Ranking is more manageable when implemented with drag and drop than as a multiple choice question.)
One other kind of exercise that can be implemented as a multiple choice question is fault mapping: given a piece of buggy code and an error message, the student has to identify the line on which the error occurred. In simple cases this will be the line mentioned in the error message, but in more subtle cases, the student will have to trace execution forward and backward to figure out where things first went wrong.
DataCamp’s platform doesn’t directly support all of these kinds of exercises yet, and there are others that are hard for any online platform to provide. Refactoring exercises are the complement of theme and variation exercises: given a working piece of code, the student has to modify it in some way without changing its output. For example, the student could be asked to replace loops with vectorized expressions, to simplify the condition in a while loop, etc. The challenge here is that there are often so many ways to refactor a piece of code that grading requires human intervention.
Example: write a single list comprehension that has the same effect as this loop.
result =  for v in values: if len(v) > threshold: result.append(v)
Code review is hard to grade automatically in the general case, but can be tackled if the student is given a rubric (i.e., a list of faults to look for) and asked to match particular comments against particular lines of code. For example, the student can be told that there are two indentation errors and one bad variable name, and asked to point them out; if she is more advanced, she could be given half a dozen kinds of remarks she could make about the code without guidance as to how many of each she should find. As with tracing values, this is easiest for students to do when presented as a table, which we currently don’t support.
Example: using the rubric provided, mark each line of the code below.
01) def addem(f): 02) x1 = open(f).readlines() 03) x2 = [x for x in x1 if x.strip()] 04) changes = 0 05) for v in x2: 06) print('total', total) 07) tot = tot + int(v) 08) print('total')
- poor variable name
- unused variable
- use of undefined variable
- missing values
- fossil code
There are undoubtedly many other kinds of exercises out there that are also fast to do and automatically gradable, but which we haven’t heard of. If you know of any, we’d enjoy hearing about them.
Thanks to everyone who contributed ideas to this post, including Francis Castro, Katie Cunningham, Brian Dillingham, Mark Guzdial, Ian Hawke, Toby Hodges, Colleen Lewis, Jeramia Ory, Alex Pounds, Danielle Quinn, Ariel Rokem, Pat Schloss, Malvika Sharan, Richard Tomsett, Stéfan van der Walt, Hadley Wickham, and Andromeda Yelton.