skip to main content
10.1145/2839509.2844640acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Students' Syntactic Mistakes in Writing Seven Different Types of SQL Queries and its Application to Predicting Students' Success

Published:17 February 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

The computing education community has studied extensively the errors of novice programmers. In contrast, little attention has been given to student's mistake in writing SQL statements. This paper represents the first large scale quantitative analysis of the student's syntactic mistakes in writing different types of SQL queries. Over 160 thousand snapshots of SQL queries were collected from over 2000 students across eight years. We describe the most common types of syntactic errors that students make. We also describe our development of an automatic classifier with an overall accuracy of 0.78 for predicting student performance in writing SQL queries.

References

  1. Brusilovsky, P., Sosnovsky, S., Lee, D., Yudelson, M., Zadorozhny, V., and Zhou, X. 2008. An open integrated exploratorium for database courses. ITiCSE '08. pp. 22--26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Brusilovsky, P., Sosnovsky, S., Yudelson, M. V., Lee, D. H., Zadorozhny, V., and Zhou, X. 2010. Learning SQL programming with interactive tools: From integration to personalization. Trans. Comput. Educ. 9, 4, Article 19 (January 2010). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Mitrovic, A. 1998. Learning SQL with a computerized tutor. SIGCSE '98, pp. 307--311. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Mitrovic, A. 2003. An intelligent SQL tutor on the web. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Ed. 13, 2--4 (April 2003), pp. 173--197. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Prior, J., and Lister, R. 2004. The backwash effect on SQL skills grading. ITiCSE 2004, Leeds, UK. pp. 32--36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Prior, J. 2014. AsseSQL: an online, browser-based SQL skills assessment tool. ITiCSE 2014. pp. 327--327. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Wetly, C. and Stemple, D. 1981. Human factors comparison of a procedural and a nonprocedural query language. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS) 6;4:626--629 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Reisner, P. 1977. Use of psychological experimentation as an aid to development of a query language. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-3, 3 (1977), 218--229. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Wetly, C. 1985. Correcting user errors in SQL. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 22(4): 463--477. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Buitendijk, R. B., 1988. Logical errors in database SQL retrieval queries. Computer Science in Economics and Management 1 (1988) 79--96 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Smelcer, J. B. 1995. User error in database query composition. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies (1995) 42, 353--381 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Brass, S. and Goldberg, C. 2006. Semantic error in SQL queries: A quite complete list. The Journal of Systems and Software 79 (2006) 630--644. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Frank, E. and Witten, I. H. 1998. Generating accurate rule sets without global optimization. (Working paper 98/2). Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato, Department of Computer Science.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Hall, M., Frank, E., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Reutemann, P. and Witten. I. H. 2009. The WEKA data mining software: an update. ACM SIGKDD explorations newsletter, 11(1):10--18, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Ahadi, A., Prior, J., Behbood, V. and Lister, R. 2015. A quantitative study of the difficulty for novices of writing seven different types of SQL queries. ITiCSE (2015) Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education 201-206. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Students' Syntactic Mistakes in Writing Seven Different Types of SQL Queries and its Application to Predicting Students' Success

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGCSE '16: Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education
      February 2016
      768 pages
      ISBN:9781450336857
      DOI:10.1145/2839509

      Copyright © 2016 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 17 February 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      SIGCSE '16 Paper Acceptance Rate105of297submissions,35%Overall Acceptance Rate1,595of4,542submissions,35%

      Upcoming Conference

      SIGCSE Virtual 2024

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader