slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
CS6604 Spring 2012 Notes on Algorithm Visualization Clifford A. Shaffer PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
CS6604 Spring 2012 Notes on Algorithm Visualization Clifford A. Shaffer

play fullscreen
1 / 30
Download Presentation

CS6604 Spring 2012 Notes on Algorithm Visualization Clifford A. Shaffer - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

talib
125 Views
Download Presentation

CS6604 Spring 2012 Notes on Algorithm Visualization Clifford A. Shaffer

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. CS6604 Spring 2012 Notes on Algorithm Visualization Clifford A. Shaffer Department of Computer Science Virginia Tech

  2. “State of the Field” • Hundreds of visualizations are freely available on the Internet • Studies on the effectiveness of AVs • Many studies show no significant difference • But AVs have been shown to help in some implementations • One conclusion is that creating/using effective AVs is possible but not easy • Many faculty wish to use Avs – but there is not as much use as this would indicate.

  3. What AVs are Available? • A collection of links available at http://algoviz.org • Links to over 500 visualizations • Nearly all AVs now written in Java • Applets vs. applications • Stand-alone vs. collections

  4. Who Makes Them? • Single authors, one-off implementations (1-5) • 30% • Small shops, sustained over a few years • Typically a faculty member and a few students • 5-10 visualizations • 10% • Larger teams, longer term investment • Team built, maybe funded • 25% • Major Projects • integrated package or shared look-and-feel • 35%

  5. Is There Adequate Coverage? • No • Sorting, search trees, and linear structures overwhelmingly dominate • Coverage for more advanced topics is spotty

  6. What Is Their Quality? • A majority have no pedagogical value • These give the user no understanding of how the data structure or algorithm works • Will be of little use in the classroom • We would recommend less than one quarter of what we have seen for any purpose • Even the better visualizations usually have serious deficiencies • Animation only: Users are passive observers • Tree structure visualizations tend to show what happens, but not how • Limited interactivity

  7. Is the Field Improving? • Pros: • A growing body of literature on best practices to create effective AVs • Community starting to organize (AlgoViz) • Cons: • Recent projects are no more in tune with coverage gaps than old projects • No apparent movement in creating repositories

  8. Is the Field Active? • Appears to be a reduction in “one-off” development. (Drop in student projects) • Fewer CS students • Less interest in Java • But these trends might reverse • But steady activity in the larger groups.

  9. AVs: The Problem • AVs have high faculty and student favorability ratings • But most faculty don’t use them much in courses

  10. Informal Survey Results • Warning: Self-selected responders • Are AVs useful? • Strongly Agree: 12 • Agree: 17 • Neutral: 1 • A (bare) majority indicated that they used some sort of visualization with class

  11. Survey: Impediments to Use • Lack of knowledge/time to find good AVs: 13

  12. Survey: Impediments to Use • Lack of knowledge/time to find good AVs: 13 • Time to make good AVs: 2 • Difficulty integrating in class: 9 • Lack of time within class constraints: 2 • Uncertainty about quality outcomes: 1 • Content not relevant to my classes: 1

  13. Overcoming Impediments • Reassurance about what AVs are good • Ideas on how to use AVs • Reassurance about how a given AV can be used successfully in class • Ability to connect to developers

  14. AVs: The Solution is Community • http://algoviz.org/ • Build a community of users/developers • Better disseminate best practices information • Project Support • NSF CCLI grant • NSF NSDL grant • Connections to NSDL/Ensemble project

  15. AlgoViz.org • A collection of links to over 500 AVs • Annotated bibliography of over 500 research papers • Forums, field reports • OpenAlgoViz

  16. Are AVs of Pedagogical Value? • Instructors generally think so • Students usually say they “like” them

  17. Metastudy: 2002 • Reviewed 24 prior studies on pedagogical effectiveness related to AVs • Generally of an individual system or AV • Results of 24 studies: • 11 found significant (positive) results • 10 did not find a significant result • 2 entangled prediction with visualization • 1 study found a negative result!

  18. Epistemic Fidelity Model • There is an “objective truth” • Experts carry a model of this truth in their heads • For data structures, graphics are especially helpful in representing this model • Therefore AVs should be especially helpful in transferring this model to students.

  19. Cognitive Constructivism • Individuals construct their own knowledge from subjective experiences • When they become engaged in learning, they actively construct new understandings from new experiences • Therefore, passively watching AVs won’t have much effect • Students must become actively engaged • The technology should be a tool for knowledge construction.

  20. Classification • The studies represented a wide range of activities and methods • Looking deeper, reclassify the independent variables: • Epistemic Fidelity: 10 • Cognitive Constructivism: 14 • (others too few to measure) • CC has the highest percentage of positive studies

  21. Results • CC: 71% statistically signficant • EF: 30% statistically significant

  22. CC Activities • Construct own input sets • Make predictions about future states • Program the algorithm • Answer questions about the algorithm • Construct own visualization

  23. Level of Effort • Compared whether the two treatments required similar “cognitive effort” vs. different levels of effort • Equivalent effort: 33% significant • Not equivalent: 71% significant • Construct algorithm/visualization takes time • Note that just taking time need not correlate to learning

  24. Procedural vs. Conceptual Knowledge • Procedural only: 67% [10/15] • Procedural and Conceptual: 67% [2/3] • Conceptual only: 38% [3/8]

  25. Study Measures • Post-test only: 54% • Pre- to Post-test difference: 78% • But most of these studies came from one source

  26. Study Conclusions • How students use AV is more important than what they see • Pre-test/post-test experiments on procedural knowledge show most improvement • Technology is effective when it is used for active engagment

  27. Bloom’s Taxonomy • Knowledge (facts) • Comprehension (of the facts) • Application (mechanically use the facts) • Analysis (interpreting the facts) • Synthesis (using facts at higher level) • Evaluation (ability to make judgments)

  28. Engagement Taxonomy • Naps Working Group 2002 • No viewing • Viewing • Responding • Changing • Constructing • Presenting • Relates to Bloom’s Taxonomy

  29. Extended Engagement Taxonomy • Myller, et al. • No viewing* (textbook) • Viewing* (video) • Controlled Viewing (slideshow) • Entering Input (Define the input to execute) • Responding* (answer questions) • Changing* (direct manipulation) • Modifying (Modify existing AV) • Constructing* (create the AV) • Presenting* (Teach the material) • Reviewing (Give a review of AV)

  30. 2009 EvaluationUrquiza-Fuentes/Velazquez-Iturbide • Analyzed 33 successful evaluations • Evaluation: • Usability (half of evaluations – often shallow) • Learning outcomes (other half) • Many studies compared Viewing, Changing, or Constructing vs. Non-Viewing • A few compared Changing or Constructing vs. Viewing • Learning improvements in 75% of studies