Abstract
This article introduces a new learner's self-assessment environment as CEHL that allows comparison of learners' programs with those elaborated by the teacher. The subjacent idea is to indirectly compare programs through their graphical representations described by ontologies. So, CEHL developed so-called S_Onto_ALPPWA which allows comparing learners' productions with those elaborated by the teacher. The tool allows essentially (1) generating two ontologies from the learner's program and the teacher's one, (2) applies some matching algorithms for measuring degrees of similarity and dissimilarity between learner's program and teacher's one, and (3) assessing the learners by giving them a list of semantic and syntactic errors detected in their programs. The present work is an extension of the authors' previous work, which did not take into account semantics errors. In the present work, they have managed to detect syntactic and semantic errors by using ontologies. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the system, two prospective experiments were conducted. The obtained results were very encouraging.
Highlights
This article introduces a new learner’s self-assessment environment as CEHL that allows comparison of learners’ programs with those elaborated by the teacher
The two hypothesis reformulated from the research questions are: Null hypothesis H0: ‘’ the use of self-assessment CHEL for learning practical works activities based on a hybrid matching-agent algorithm and ontologies cannot ameliorate the learners’ results, and cannot reduce the rate of failure or abandonment of the programming in the introductory courses in first university cycle’’?
Let us remember that: the Null hypothesis reformulated from the research questions is: Null hypothesis H0:’’ the use of self-assessment CHEL for learning practical works activities based on a hybrid matching-agent algorithm and ontologies cannot ameliorate the learners’ results, Table 5
Summary
This article introduces a new learner’s self-assessment environment as CEHL that allows comparison of learners’ programs with those elaborated by the teacher. When the assessment is given, it is one mark for all the group members and this makes the assessment subjective and does not reflect the true level of each learner belonging to the group, because there are elements of the group that do not work and rely on the active elements In addition to this problem, the authors cite the problem of failure to learn these types of activities as studies have proven. Learning algorithmic / programming was always a source of difficulty for students and for teachers too This is due to the intrinsic characteristics of the discipline and the classic methods of teaching (classic practical works in the classes rooms). When the authors consider the topic of the self-assessment, some key generic factors should inform, the self-assessment has several different purposes for all those involved in the process these include(Hadadi & Bouaarab-Dahmani,2019):
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
