Automated Grading and Feedback Tools for Programming Education: A Systematic Review

IF 3.2 3区 工程技术 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ACM Transactions on Computing Education Pub Date : 2023-12-13 DOI:10.1145/3636515
Marcus Messer, Neil C. C. Brown, Michael Kölling, Miaojing Shi
{"title":"Automated Grading and Feedback Tools for Programming Education: A Systematic Review","authors":"Marcus Messer, Neil C. C. Brown, Michael Kölling, Miaojing Shi","doi":"10.1145/3636515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We conducted a systematic literature review on automated grading and feedback tools for programming education. We analysed 121 research papers from 2017 to 2021 inclusive and categorised them based on skills assessed, approach, language paradigm, degree of automation and evaluation techniques. Most papers assess the correctness of assignments in object-oriented languages. Typically, these tools use a dynamic technique, primarily unit testing, to provide grades and feedback to the students or static analysis techniques to compare a submission with a reference solution or with a set of correct student submissions. However, these techniques’ feedback is often limited to whether the unit tests have passed or failed, the expected and actual output, or how they differ from the reference solution. Furthermore, few tools assess the maintainability, readability or documentation of the source code, with most using static analysis techniques, such as code quality metrics, in conjunction with grading correctness. Additionally, we found that most tools offered fully automated assessment to allow for near-instantaneous feedback and multiple resubmissions, which can increase student satisfaction and provide them with more opportunities to succeed. In terms of techniques used to evaluate the tools’ performance, most papers primarily use student surveys or compare the automatic assessment tools to grades or feedback provided by human graders. However, because the evaluation dataset is frequently unavailable, it is more difficult to reproduce results and compare tools to a collection of common assignments.</p>","PeriodicalId":48764,"journal":{"name":"ACM Transactions on Computing Education","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Transactions on Computing Education","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3636515","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: 2

Abstract

We conducted a systematic literature review on automated grading and feedback tools for programming education. We analysed 121 research papers from 2017 to 2021 inclusive and categorised them based on skills assessed, approach, language paradigm, degree of automation and evaluation techniques. Most papers assess the correctness of assignments in object-oriented languages. Typically, these tools use a dynamic technique, primarily unit testing, to provide grades and feedback to the students or static analysis techniques to compare a submission with a reference solution or with a set of correct student submissions. However, these techniques’ feedback is often limited to whether the unit tests have passed or failed, the expected and actual output, or how they differ from the reference solution. Furthermore, few tools assess the maintainability, readability or documentation of the source code, with most using static analysis techniques, such as code quality metrics, in conjunction with grading correctness. Additionally, we found that most tools offered fully automated assessment to allow for near-instantaneous feedback and multiple resubmissions, which can increase student satisfaction and provide them with more opportunities to succeed. In terms of techniques used to evaluate the tools’ performance, most papers primarily use student surveys or compare the automatic assessment tools to grades or feedback provided by human graders. However, because the evaluation dataset is frequently unavailable, it is more difficult to reproduce results and compare tools to a collection of common assignments.

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
编程教育的自动评分和反馈工具:系统回顾
我们对编程教育的自动评分和反馈工具进行了系统的文献综述。我们分析了 2017 年至 2021 年(含 2021 年)的 121 篇研究论文,并根据评估的技能、方法、语言范式、自动化程度和评估技术对论文进行了分类。大多数论文评估面向对象语言作业的正确性。通常,这些工具使用动态技术(主要是单元测试)为学生提供分数和反馈,或使用静态分析技术将提交的作业与参考解决方案或一组正确的学生作业进行比较。然而,这些技术的反馈通常仅限于单元测试是通过还是失败、预期输出和实际输出,或者它们与参考解决方案有什么不同。此外,很少有工具会对源代码的可维护性、可读性或文档进行评估,大多数工具在对正确性进行评分的同时,还会使用代码质量度量等静态分析技术。此外,我们发现大多数工具都提供全自动评估,允许近乎即时的反馈和多次重新提交,这可以提高学生的满意度,为他们提供更多成功的机会。在评估工具性能的技术方面,大多数论文主要使用学生调查或将自动评估工具与人工评分员提供的成绩或反馈进行比较。然而,由于评估数据集经常无法获得,因此更难重现结果,也更难将工具与一系列常见作业进行比较。
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