Take a look at the new version of this page: [ beta version ]. Tell us what you think.

ABSTRACT

Engaging and maintaining student engagement with the content of a course in formal language theory and the theory of computation is notoriously difficult. A major factor is student's perception of the relevance of the required mathematical material to computer science as they have studied the discipline. Usually, the mathematical material discourages students and for many it forms an insurmountable barrier. This paper describes the construction of a course using the discovery learning technique known as the Moore Method that directly addresses student engagement with this material. The results of the delivery of this course were that students remained engaged with the course throughout the semester and enthusiastically received the pedagogical approach employed. While the course described was delivered to a small class in a liberal arts college, it may be adapted to larger class sizes and taught in any computer science program.

REFERENCES

• 1: M. Armoni , S. Rodger , M. Vardi , R. Verma, automata theory: its relevance to computer science students and course contents, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.38 n.1, March 2006
• 2: Wayne Brookes, Computing theory with relevance, Proceedings of the sixth conference on Australasian computing education, p.9-13, January 01, 2004, Dunedin, New Zealand
• 3: Carlos I. Chesñevar , María L. Cobo , William Yurcik, Using theoretical computer simulators for formal languages and automata theory, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.35 n.2, June 2003 [doi>10.1145/782941.782975]
• 4: Joshua J. Cogliati , Frances W. Goosey , Michael T. Grinder , Bradley A. Pascoe , Rockford J. ROSS , Cheston J. Williams, Realizing the promise of visualization in the theory of computing, Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC), v.5 n.2, p.5-es, June 2005 [doi>10.1145/1141904.1141909]
• 5: Eric Gramond , Susan H. Rodger, Using JFLAP to interact with theorems in automata theory, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.31 n.1, p.336-340, March 1999
• 6: Michael T. Grinder , Seong B. Kim , Teresa L. Lutey , Rockford J. Ross , Kathleen F. Walsh, Loving to learn theory: active learning modules for the theory of computing, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.34 n.1, March 2002
• 7: William H. Hawkins , Christopher A. Healy, Introducing practical applications into a computational theory class, Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, v.20 n.2, p.219-225, December 2004
• 8: The Joint Taskforce on Computing Curricula. Computing curricula 2001. IEEE Computer Society & ACM., December 15, 2001.
• 9: Jones, F. The Moore Method. American Mathematical Monthly, 84 (Apr. 1977), 273--277.
• 10: The Liberal Arts Computer Science Consortium. A 2004 model for a liberal arts degree in computer science. February 2004.
• 11: Parker, G. Getting more from Moore. Primus, 2 (Sept. 1992), 235--246.
• 12: Rakesh M. Verma, A visual and interactive automata theory course emphasizing breadth of automata, Proceedings of the 10th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, June 27-29, 2005, Caparica, Portugal

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  F. Theory of Computation
  F.1 COMPUTATION BY ABSTRACT DEVICES
      F.1.1 Models of Computation
          Subjects: Automata (e.g., finite, push-down, resource-bounded)

Additional Classification:
  F. Theory of Computation
  F.1 COMPUTATION BY ABSTRACT DEVICES
      F.1.1 Models of Computation
          Subjects: Computability theory; Bounded-action devices (e.g., Turing machines, random access machines)

  K. Computing Milieux
  K.3 COMPUTERS AND EDUCATION
      K.3.2 Computer and Information Science Education
          Subjects: Curriculum; Computer science education

General Terms:
Languages, Theory

Keywords:
Moore method, discovery learning, formal language theory, inquiry learning, problem based learning, theory of computation