Advertisement

TOO-MUCH: Testing Online Over MNNIT Unified Coding Hub

  • Deepanshu Gupta
  • Dhruv Sharma
  • G. Sree Deepthi
  • Yogeshwar Patel
  • Pawan Subedi
  • Abdul Aleem
  • Manoj Madhava Gore
Conference paper
  • 61 Downloads
Part of the Algorithms for Intelligent Systems book series (AIS)

Abstract

The omnipresence of programming in the world today is inevitably enhanced by the efficiency and interface of online judges. The feasibility of the programming environment, as well as evaluation on these platforms, is quite appealing in terms of easiness and fairness. Most of the university/technical laboratory examinations of computer science are based on programming questions, which are similar to the coding problems available online. Yet, the evaluation methodology, as per the current scenario, is quite cumbersome, manual and time-consuming. Introducing a university-specific online platform for these coding exams can really prove to be a boon for applying state-of-the-art coding style and evaluation techniques. This article proposes a software tool, named as TOO-MUCH, which evaluates code and provides a feasible platform for carrying multiple programming contests/tests/lab exams with multiple languages in an easy, cost-efficient, and paperless fashion.

Keywords

Programming Online judges Evaluation methodology Online code testing 

References

  1. 1.
    Wasik S, Antczak M, Badura J, Laskowski A, Sternal T (2018) A survey on online judge systems and their applications. ACM Comput Surv (CSUR) 51(1):3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rashad MZ, Kandil MS, Hassan AE, Zaher MA (2010) An arabic web-based exam management system. Int J Electr Comput Sci IJECS-IJENS 10(01):48–55Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gupta D, Sharma D, Deepthi GS, Patel Y, Subedi P (2019) B. Tech. project: Testing One Online—MNNIT Unified Coding Hub (TOO-MUCH). Tech. rep., MNNIT Allahabad, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ICPC Foundation—ICPC Fact Sheet (2016, Feb) The 40th annual world finals of the ACM ICPC. https://icpc.baylor.edu/worldfinals/pdf/Factsheet.pdf. Accessed 19 Apr 2019
  5. 5.
    Cheang B, Kurnia A, Lim A, Oon W-C (2003) On automated grading of programming assignments in an academic institution. Comput Educ 41(2):121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Revilla MA, Manzoor S, Liu R (2008) Competitive learning in informatics: the UVa online judge experience. Olympiads Inform 2(10):131–148Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Edwards SH, Perez-Quinones MA (2008) Web-cat: automatically grading programming assignments. In: ACM SIGCSE bulletin, vol 40. ACM, pp 328–328Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu J, Chen S, Yang R (2012) Development and application of online judge system. In: 2012 international symposium on information technologies in medicine and education, vol 1. IEEE, pp 83–86Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kosowski A, Małafiejski M, Noiński T (2007) Application of an online judge & contester system in academic tuition. In: International conference on web-based learning. Springer, pp 343–354Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Luo Y, Wang X, Zhang Z (2008) Programming grid: a computer-aided education system for programming courses based on online judge. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM summit on computing education in China on first ACM summit on computing education in China. ACM, p 10Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Combéfis S, Wautelet J (2014) Programming trainings and informatics teaching through online contests. Olympiads in informatics, vol 8Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alemán JLF (2011) Automated assessment in a programming tools course. IEEE Trans Educ 54(4):576–581Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Antonucci P, Estler C, Nikolić D, Piccioni M, Meyer B (2015) An incremental hint system for automated programming assignments. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education. ACM, pp 320–325Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Staubitz T, Klement H, Renz J, Teusner R, Meinel C (2015) Towards practical programming exercises and automated assessment in massive open online courses. In: 2015 IEEE international conference on teaching, assessment, and learning for engineering (TALE). IEEE, pp 23–30Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wilcox C (2016) Testing strategies for the automated grading of student programs. In: Proceedings of the 47th ACM technical symposium on computing science education. ACM, pp 437–442Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Node Js Official Website (2019) https://nodejs.o-rg/en/. Accessed 25 Apr 2019
  17. 17.
    Angular JS Official Website (2019) https://angular-js.org/. Accessed 21 Apr 2019
  18. 18.
    Stack Overflow (2019) http://www.stackover-flow.com. Accessed 23 Apr 2019

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science and Engineering DepartmentMNNIT AllahabadPrayagrajIndia

Personalised recommendations