Evaluation of Submission Limits and Regression Penalties to Improve Student Behavior with Automatic Assessment Systems

IF 3.2 3区 工程技术 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ACM Transactions on Computing Education Pub Date : 2023-06-20 DOI:https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3591210
Ramon Lawrence, Sarah Foss, Tatiana Urazova
{"title":"Evaluation of Submission Limits and Regression Penalties to Improve Student Behavior with Automatic Assessment Systems","authors":"Ramon Lawrence, Sarah Foss, Tatiana Urazova","doi":"https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3591210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><b>Objectives</b>. Automatic assessment systems are widely used to provide rapid feedback for students and reduce grading time. Despite the benefits of increased efficiency and improved pedagogical outcomes, an ongoing challenge is mitigating poor student behaviors when interacting with automatic assessment systems including numerous submissions, trial-and-error, and relying on marking feedback for problem solving. These behaviors negatively affect student learning as well as have significant impact on system resources. This research quantitatively examines how utilizing submission policies such as limiting the number of submissions and applying regression penalties can reduce negative student behaviors. The hypothesis is that both submission policies will have a significant impact on student behavior and reduce both the number of submissions and regressions in student performance. The research questions evaluate the impact on student behavior, determine which submission policy is the most effective, and what submission policy is preferred by students.</p><p><b>Participants</b>. The study involved two course sections in two different semesters consisting of a total of 224 students at the University of British Columbia, a research-intensive university. The students were evaluated using an automated assessment system in a large third year database course.</p><p><b>Study Methods</b>. The two course sections used an automated assessment system for constructing database design diagrams for assignments and exams. The first section had no limits on the number of submissions for both assignments and exams. The second section had limits for the exams but no limits on assignments. On the midterm, participants were randomly assigned to have either a restriction on the total number of submissions or unlimited submissions but with regression penalties if a graded answer was lower than a previous submission. On the final exam, students were given the option of selecting their submission policy. Student academic performance and submission profiles were compared between the course sections and the different submission policies.</p><p><b>Findings.</b> Unrestricted use of automatic grading systems results in high occurrence of undesirable student behavior including trial-and-error guessing and reduced time between submissions without sufficient independent thought. Both submission policies of limiting maximum submissions and utilizing regression penalties significantly reduce these behaviors by up to 85%. Overall, students prefer maximum submission limits, and demonstrate improved behavior and educational outcomes.</p><p><b>Conclusions</b>. Automated assessment systems when used for larger problems related to design and programming have benefits when deployed with submission restrictions (maximum attempts or regression penalty) for both improved student learning behaviors and to reduce the computational costs for the system. This is especially important for summative assessment but reasonable limits for formative assessments are also valuable.</p>","PeriodicalId":48764,"journal":{"name":"ACM Transactions on Computing Education","volume":"36 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Transactions on Computing Education","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3591210","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives. Automatic assessment systems are widely used to provide rapid feedback for students and reduce grading time. Despite the benefits of increased efficiency and improved pedagogical outcomes, an ongoing challenge is mitigating poor student behaviors when interacting with automatic assessment systems including numerous submissions, trial-and-error, and relying on marking feedback for problem solving. These behaviors negatively affect student learning as well as have significant impact on system resources. This research quantitatively examines how utilizing submission policies such as limiting the number of submissions and applying regression penalties can reduce negative student behaviors. The hypothesis is that both submission policies will have a significant impact on student behavior and reduce both the number of submissions and regressions in student performance. The research questions evaluate the impact on student behavior, determine which submission policy is the most effective, and what submission policy is preferred by students.

Participants. The study involved two course sections in two different semesters consisting of a total of 224 students at the University of British Columbia, a research-intensive university. The students were evaluated using an automated assessment system in a large third year database course.

Study Methods. The two course sections used an automated assessment system for constructing database design diagrams for assignments and exams. The first section had no limits on the number of submissions for both assignments and exams. The second section had limits for the exams but no limits on assignments. On the midterm, participants were randomly assigned to have either a restriction on the total number of submissions or unlimited submissions but with regression penalties if a graded answer was lower than a previous submission. On the final exam, students were given the option of selecting their submission policy. Student academic performance and submission profiles were compared between the course sections and the different submission policies.

Findings. Unrestricted use of automatic grading systems results in high occurrence of undesirable student behavior including trial-and-error guessing and reduced time between submissions without sufficient independent thought. Both submission policies of limiting maximum submissions and utilizing regression penalties significantly reduce these behaviors by up to 85%. Overall, students prefer maximum submission limits, and demonstrate improved behavior and educational outcomes.

Conclusions. Automated assessment systems when used for larger problems related to design and programming have benefits when deployed with submission restrictions (maximum attempts or regression penalty) for both improved student learning behaviors and to reduce the computational costs for the system. This is especially important for summative assessment but reasonable limits for formative assessments are also valuable.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用自动评估系统评估提交限制和退步处罚以改善学生行为
目标。自动评估系统被广泛使用,为学生提供快速反馈,减少评分时间。尽管提高了效率和改善了教学成果,但在与自动评估系统互动时,包括大量提交、试错和依赖评分反馈来解决问题,如何减轻学生的不良行为仍是一个持续的挑战。这些行为对学生的学习产生了负面影响,对系统资源也产生了重大影响。本研究定量地考察了如何利用提交政策,如限制提交数量和应用回归惩罚,可以减少学生的消极行为。假设两种提交政策都会对学生行为产生显著影响,并减少提交次数和学生成绩的回归。研究问题评估对学生行为的影响,确定哪种提交政策最有效,以及学生更喜欢哪种提交政策。这项研究涉及英属哥伦比亚大学(University of British Columbia)两个不同学期的两个课程部分,共有224名学生参加。学生们在一个大型的三年级数据库课程中使用自动评估系统进行评估。研究方法。这两个课程部分使用了一个自动评估系统来为作业和考试构建数据库设计图。第一部分对作业和考试的提交数量没有限制。第二部分对考试有限制,但对作业没有限制。在期中考试中,参与者被随机分配,要么限制提交的总次数,要么不限制提交,但如果打分的答案低于之前的提交,就会受到回归惩罚。在期末考试中,学生可以选择自己的提交策略。学生的学习成绩和提交资料在不同的课程和不同的提交政策之间进行了比较。不受限制地使用自动评分系统会导致不良学生行为的高发生率,包括反复猜测,以及在没有充分独立思考的情况下缩短提交时间。限制最大提交量和使用回归惩罚的提交策略都可以显著减少这些行为,最多可减少85%。总的来说,学生更喜欢最大限度的提交限制,并表现出改进的行为和教育成果。当自动评估系统用于与设计和编程相关的较大问题时,如果部署有提交限制(最大尝试次数或回归惩罚),则对改进学生的学习行为和减少系统的计算成本都有好处。这对总结性评估尤其重要,但对形成性评估的合理限制也很有价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACM Transactions on Computing Education
ACM Transactions on Computing Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
16.70%
发文量
66
期刊介绍: ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) (formerly named JERIC, Journal on Educational Resources in Computing) covers diverse aspects of computing education: traditional computer science, computer engineering, information technology, and informatics; emerging aspects of computing; and applications of computing to other disciplines. The common characteristics shared by these papers are a scholarly approach to teaching and learning, a broad appeal to educational practitioners, and a clear connection to student learning.
期刊最新文献
Evaluating ChatGPT-4 Vision on Brazil’s National Undergraduate Computer Science Exam Understanding Informatics in Continuing Vocational Education and Training Data in Germany Intent and Extent: Computer Science Concepts and Practices in Integrated Computing Creating Apps for Community and Social Good: Preliminary Learning Outcomes from a Middle School Computer Science Curriculum Doing and Defining Interdisciplinarity in Undergraduate Computing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1