References

  1. Facts and Figures – TUM Department of Informatics. https://www.in.tum.de/in/die-fakultaet/profil-der-fakultaet/die-fakultaet-in-zahlen/. Accessed: 2022-06-27.
  2. Peter Achten (2011): The Soccer-Fun project. J. Funct. Program. 21, pp. 1–19, doi:10.1017/S0956796810000055.
  3. José Bacelar Almeida, Alcino Cunha, Nuno Macedo, Hugo Pacheco & José Proença (2018): Teaching How to Program using Automated Assessment and Functional Glossy Games (Experience Report). Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2(ICFP), pp. 82:1–82:17, doi:10.1145/3236777.
  4. Jasmin Christian Blanchette, Lars Hupel, Tobias Nipkow, Lars Noschinski & Dmitriy Traytel (2014): Experience Report: The next 1100 Haskell Programmers. SIGPLAN Not. 49(12), pp. 25–30, doi:10.1145/2775050.2633359.
  5. Robert M. Carini, George D. Kuh & Stephen P. Klein (2006): Student Engagement and Student Learning: Testing the Linkages*. Research in Higher Education 47, pp. 1–32, doi:10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9.
  6. Manuel M. T. Chakravarty & Gabriele Keller (2004): The risks and benefits of teaching purely functional programming in first year. J. Funct. Program. 14(1), pp. 113–123, doi:10.1017/S0956796803004805.
  7. Koen Claessen & John Hughes (2011): QuickCheck: A Lightweight Tool for Random Testing of Haskell Programs. SIGPLAN Not. 46(4), pp. 53–64, doi:10.1145/1988042.1988046.
  8. Malcolm Corney, Donna Teague & Richard N. Thomas (2010): Engaging Students in Programming. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth Australasian Conference on Computing Education - Volume 103, ACE '10. Australian Computer Society, Inc., AUS, pp. 63–72.
  9. Nils Anders Danielsson, John Hughes, Patrik Jansson & Jeremy Gibbons (2006): Fast and Loose Reasoning is Morally Correct. SIGPLAN Not. 41(1), pp. 206–217, doi:10.1145/1111320.1111056.
  10. Marcia D. Dixson (2012): Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging?. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 10(2), pp. 1–13. Available at https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/josotl/article/view/1744.
  11. John Dunlosky, Katherine A. Rawson, Elizabeth J. Marsh, Mitchell J. Nathan & Daniel T. Willingham (2013): Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 14(1), pp. 4–58, doi:10.1177/1529100612453266.
  12. Timon Elmer, Kieran Mepham & Christoph Stadtfeld (2020-07): Students under lockdown: Comparisons of students’ social networks and mental health before and during the COVID-19 crisis in Switzerland. PLoS ONE 15(7), pp. e0236337, doi:10.3929/ethz-b-000428501.
  13. Pedro Figueirêdo, Yuri Kim, Le Minh Nghia, Evan Sitt, Xue Ying & Viktória Zsók (2020): How to Increase Interest in Studying Functional Programming via Interdisciplinary Application. In: Proceedings Eighth and Ninth International Workshop on Trends in Functional Programming in Education, TFPIE 2020, EPTCS 321, pp. 37–54, doi:10.4204/EPTCS.321.3.
  14. Tsukino Furukawa, Youyou Cong & Kenichi Asai (2019): Stepping OCaml. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science 295, pp. 17–34, doi:10.4204/EPTCS.295.2.
  15. Aliya Hameer & Brigitte Pientka (2019): Teaching the Art of Functional Programming using Automated Grading (Experience Report). Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 3(ICFP), pp. 115:1–115:15, doi:10.1145/3341719.
  16. Paul Hudak (2000): The Haskell school of expression: learning functional programming through multimedia. Cambridge University Press, doi:10.1017/CBO9780511818073.
  17. John Hughes (2008): Experiences from teaching functional programming at Chalmers. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 43(11), pp. 77–80, doi:10.1145/1480828.1480845.
  18. Beth Hurst, Randall R. Wallace & Sarah B. Nixon (2013): The Impact of Social Interaction on Student Learning. Reading Horizons 52, pp. 375–398.
  19. Stef Joosten, Klaas van den Berg & Gerrit van Der Hoeven (1993): Teaching Functional Programming to First-Year Students. J. Funct. Program. 3(1), pp. 49–65, doi:10.1017/S0956796800000599.
  20. Nate Kornell (2009): Optimising learning using flashcards: Spacing is more effective than cramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology 23(9), pp. 1297–1317, doi:10.1002/acp.1537.
  21. Alexander Krauss (2009): Automating recursive definitions and termination proofs in higher-order logic. Technical University Munich. Available at http://mediatum2.ub.tum.de/doc/681651/document.pdf.
  22. Stephan Krusche & Andreas Seitz (2018): ArTEMiS: An Automatic Assessment Management System for Interactive Learning. In: Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE '18. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 284–289, doi:10.1145/3159450.3159602.
  23. Cassandra Lewis & Husein Abdul-Hamid (2006): Implementing Effective Online Teaching Practices: Voices of Exemplary Faculty. Innovative Higher Education 31, pp. 83–98, doi:10.1007/s10755-006-9010-z.
  24. Hrafn Loftsson & Ásrún Matthíasdóttir (2021): Moving Classes in a Large Programming Course Online: An Experience Report. In: Second International Computer Programming Education Conference, ICPEC 2021, May 27-28, 2021, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, OASIcs 91. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, doi:10.4230/OASIcs.ICPEC.2021.2.
  25. Prashant Loyalka, Ou Lydia Liu, Guirong Li, Igor Chirikov, Elena Kardanova, Lin Gu, Guangming Ling, Ningning Yu, Fei Guo, Liping Ma, Shangfeng Hu, Angela Sun Johnson, Ashutosh Bhuradia, Saurabh Khanna, Isak Froumin, Jinghuan Shi, Pradeep Kumar Choudhury, Tara Beteille, Francisco Marmolejo & Namrata Tognatta (2019): Computer science skills across China, India, Russia, and the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(14), pp. 6732–6736, doi:10.1073/pnas.1814646116.
  26. Fred Nafukho & Misha Chakraborty (2014): Strengthening student engagement: What do students want in online courses?. European Journal of Training and Development 38, pp. 782–802, doi:10.1108/EJTD-11-2013-0123.
  27. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018): Assessing and Responding to the Growth of Computer Science Undergraduate Enrollments. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, doi:10.17226/24926.
  28. Tobias Nipkow, Lawrence C. Paulson & Markus Wenzel (2002): Isabelle/HOL - A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2283. Springer, doi:10.1007/3-540-45949-9.
  29. José Carlos Paiva, José Paulo Leal & Álvaro Figueira (2022): Automated Assessment in Computer Science Education: A State-of-the-Art Review. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 22(3), doi:10.1145/3513140.
  30. Alexandra Pentaraki & Gary Burkholder (2017): Emerging Evidence Regarding the Roles of Emotional, Behavioural, and Cognitive Aspects of Student Engagement in the Online Classroom. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning 20, pp. 1–21, doi:10.1515/eurodl-2017-0001.
  31. Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj, Jignesh M. Patel, Richard Halverson & Erica Rosenfeld Halverson (2018): Role of Live-Coding in Learning Introductory Programming. In: Proceedings of the 18th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, Koli Calling '18. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, doi:10.1145/3279720.3279725.
  32. Dennis Renz, Sibylle Schwarz & Johannes Waldmann (2020): Check Your (Students') Proofs-With Holes. CoRR abs/2009.01326, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2009.01326.
  33. Marc Rubin (2013): The Effectiveness of Live-Coding to Teach Introductory Programming. ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE), doi:10.1145/2445196.2445388.
  34. Colin Runciman, Matthew Naylor & Fredrik Lindblad (2008): Smallcheck and Lazy Smallcheck: Automatic Exhaustive Testing for Small Values. In: Proceedings of the First ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Haskell, Haskell '08. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 37–48, doi:10.1145/1411286.1411292.
  35. Kalpathi Subramanian & Kiran Budhrani (2020): Influence of Course Design on Student Engagement and Motivation in an Online Course, pp. 303–308. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, doi:10.1145/3328778.3366828.
  36. Wouter Swierstra & Thorsten Altenkirch (2007): Beauty in the Beast. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Haskell Workshop, Haskell '07. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 25–36, doi:10.1145/1291201.1291206.
  37. Kire Trivodaliev, Biljana Risteska Stojkoska, Marija Mihova, Mile Jovanov & Slobodan Kalajdziski (2017): Teaching Computer Programming: the Macedonian Case Study of Functional Programming. In: 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON 2017, Athens, Greece, April 25-28, 2017. IEEE, pp. 1282–1289, doi:10.1109/EDUCON.2017.7943013.
  38. Kristen A. Walker & Katherine E. Koralesky (2021): Student and instructor perceptions of engagement after the rapid online transition of teaching due to COVID-19. Natural Sciences Education 50(1), pp. e20038, doi:10.1002/nse2.20038.
  39. Oliver Westphal & Janis Voigtländer (2020): Describing Console I/O Behavior for Testing Student Submissions in Haskell. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science 321, pp. 19–36, doi:10.4204/EPTCS.321.2.
  40. Nick Zepke & Linda Leach (2010): Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education 11, pp. 167–177, doi:10.1177/1469787410379680.
Comments and questions to: eptcs@eptcs.org
For website issues: webmaster@eptcs.org