1. Amruth N. Kumar amruth@ramapo.edu

2. Course: Comparative Programming Languages Junior/Senior Course Content: Design of programming languages Practicum: C++, LISP, Java, Prolog projects Balanced with mathematical reasoning

3. Mechanism: Course Enrichment Component Students study after class No in-class instruction “If you build, they will come” NOT! Extra credit question on mid-term, final

4. Mid-term – String Theory 7 problems 1 & 2: One concept 3, 4 & 5: Two concepts 6 & 7: Three concepts Average time spent by students: 40 min

5. Mid-term Results

6. One concept problem score > Two/Three concept problem score Delayed test scores went up or down by 1 for most students

7. Final – Parameter Passing Mechanisms 3 problems Students asked to: Identify parameter modes Write ensures and requires clauses Average time spent by students: 41.43 min

8. Final Results

9. Parameter modes were easy except: Clears – no one got it Replaces – Only 25% got it Ensures/Requires clauses: Score dropped dramatically if answer contained more than one part May be provide a hint about the multi-part nature?

10. Conclusions Worthwhile to introduce formal reasoning Even as a self-study component With no supplementary classroom instruction “If you require it, they will study”