Code or (not code): separating formal and natural language in CS education
Code or (not code): separating formal and natural language in CS education
复制标题
代码或（不是代码）：计算机科学教育中的形式语言和自然语言的分离
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Peter Donaldson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Q. Cutts;R. Connor;G. Michaelson;Peter Donaldson
本文认为，伪代码作为正式和自然语言的混合物的“制度化的理解”，使其成为一个不合适的选择，国家评估的目的是测试程序的理解能力。它允许提问者无意中引入一定程度的模糊性和随之而来的混乱。这既不符合良好的评估实践，也不符合论文中提出的论点，即CS教育应该明确培养理解正式语言所需的技能，而不是自然语言。这一论点得到了一个国家的全国学校CS考试的49个问题的分析的支持，跨越了六年和两个阶段-第一个阶段没有正式的伪代码被定义，第二个阶段正式的参考语言，被称为“正式定义的伪代码”，为教师和考试设置者提供。分析表明，在这两个阶段，不正确的，混乱的或模棱两可的代码中提出的问题。本文最后建议，应使用术语参考语言代替伪代码，并在国家考试设置中指定一种适当的正式定义的语言，需要一种通用的评估语言。这一术语的变化强调了用于评估程序理解的语言所需的特征。概述了研究中使用的参考语言。它是由作者为了人类可读性而设计的，也是为了明确正式和非正式语言之间的界限，这样就可以对用这种语言编写的程序进行自动检查。正式的规范和语言的检查器是可用的。
This paper argues that the "institutionalised understanding" of pseudo-code as a blend of formal and natural languages makes it an unsuitable choice for national assessment where the intention is to test program comprehension skills. It permits question-setters to inadvertently introduce a level of ambiguity and consequent confusion. This is not in keeping with either good assessment practice or an argument developed in the paper that CS education should be clearly fostering the skills needed for understanding formal, as distinct from natural, languages. The argument is backed up by an analysis of 49 questions drawn from the national school CS examinations of a single country, spanning a period of six years and two phases -- the first in which no formal pseudo-code was defined, the second in which a formal reference language, referred to as a "formally-defined pseudo-code", was provided for teachers and exam setters. The analysis demonstrates that in both phases, incorrect, confusing or ambiguous code was presented in questions. The paper concludes by recommending that the term reference language should be used in place of pseudo-code, and an appropriate formally-defined language specified, in national exam settings where a common language of assessment is required. This change of terms emphasises the characteristics required of a language to be used for assessment of program comprehension. The reference language used in the study is outlined. It was designed by the authors for human readability and also to make absolutely explicit the demarcation between formal and informal language, in such a way that automated checking can be carried out on programs written in the language. Formal specifications and a checker for the language are available.