Misconceptions and concept inventory questions for binary search trees and hash tables

Authors:
Kuba Karpierz;Steven A. Wolfman
Affiliations:
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada;University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Venue:
Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education
Year:
2014

Citing 9
Cited 0

Using counter-examples in the data structures course

ACE '03 Proceedings of the fifth Australasian conference on Computing education - Volume 20
Concept inventories in computer science for the topic discrete mathematics

ITiCSE-WGR '06 Working group reports on ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education
Developing a validated assessment of fundamental CS1 concepts

Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education
Making sense of data structures exams

Proceedings of the Sixth international workshop on Computing education research
Detecting and understanding students' misconceptions related to algorithms and data structures

Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education
The development of a digital logic concept inventory

The development of a digital logic concept inventory
Hunting high and low: instruments to detect misconceptions related to algorithms and data structures

Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education
On the countably many misconceptions about #hashtables (abstract only)

Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education
"Dictionary Wars" (abstract only): an inverted, leaderboard-driven project for learning dictionary data structures

Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

In this paper, we triangulate evidence for five misconceptions concerning binary search trees and hash tables. In addition, we design and validate multiple-choice concept inventory questions to measure the prevalence of four of these misconceptions. We support our conclusions with quantitative analysis of grade data and closed-ended problems, and qualitative analysis of interview data and open-ended problems. Instructors and researchers can inexpensively measure the impact of pedagogical changes on these misconceptions by using these questions in a larger concept inventory.