Advertisement

A Rule-Based Self-Learning Model for Automatic Evaluation and Grading of C++ Programs

  • Maxwell Christian
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 9)

Abstract

A procedural and formulated evaluation of the practical work or task performed by a student, irrespective of the procedure or method incorporated by him, has always been a challenging job, as perceived by many researchers and practical program evaluators since long [1, 2, 3, 5]. So there always has been a continuous process of improvisations in different techniques to properly judge and evaluate the tasks performed by students [5, 6]. Also the time required to solve the trivial and re-occurring common errors, during the initial phase of the student learning of new concepts, leads to more time consumption and hence needs to be reduced. Thus, the model that can evaluate, grade and inform the work accomplished by the student against the actual requirement can smoothen the learning curve and ease the job of the evaluator always comes handy.

Keywords

Automatic evaluation Automatic grading Rule-based evaluation Rule-based grading Self-learning models 

References

  1. 1.
    Doshi JC, Christian M, Trivedi BH (2014) Effect of conceptual cue based (CCB) practical exam evaluation of learning and evaluation approaches: a case for use in process-based pedagogy, technology for education (T4E). In 2014 IEEE sixth international conference on technology for education, pp 90–94Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Forsythe GE, Wirth N (1965) Automatic grading programs. Commun ACM 8:275–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Higgins CA, Gray G, Symeonidis P, Tsintsifas A (2005) Automated assessment and experiences of teaching programming. J Educ Resour Comput (JERIC) 5:5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ihantola P, Ahoniemi T, Karavirta V, Seppälä O (2010) Review of recent systems for automatic asessment of programming assignments. In: Proceedings of the 10th Koli calling international conference on computing education research. pp 86–93Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Romli R, Sulaiman S, Zamli KZ (2010) Automatic programming assessment and test data generation a review on its approaches. In: 2010 International symposium information technology (ITSim), pp 1186–1192Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caiza JC, Del Alamo JM (2013) Programming assignments automatic grading: review of tools and implementations. In: Proceedings of the Inted 2013, pp 5691–5700Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rodríguez-del-Pino JC, Rubio-Royo E, Hernández-Figueroa ZJ (2012) A virtual programming lab for moodle with automatic assessment and anti-plagiarism featuresGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Queirós RAP, Leal JP (2012) PETCHA: a Programming exercises teaching assistant. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM annual conference on innovation and technology in computer science education, pp 192–197Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Spacco J, Hovemeyer D, Pugh W, Emad F, Hollingsworth JK, Padua-Perez N (2006) Experiences with marmoset: designing and using an advanced submission and testing system for programming courses. ACM SIGCSE Bull 38:13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Enstrom E, Kreitz G, Niemela F, Soderman P, and Kann V (2011) Five years with Kattis—using an automated assess ment system in teaching. In: Frontiers in education conference (FIE), 2011. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, NJ, T3 J–1Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Malmi L, Korhonen A, Saikkonen R (2002) Experiences in automatic assessment on mass courses and issues for designing virtual courses. ACM SIGCSE Bull 34(3):55–59Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zanden BV, Anderson D, Taylor C, Davis W, Berry MW (2012) CodeAssessor: an interactive, web-based tool for introductory programming. J Comput Sci Coll 28(2):73–80Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yu YT, Poon CK, Choy M (2006) Experiences with PASS: developing and using a programming assignment assessment system. In Sixth international conference on quality software, 2006. QSIC 2006. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, NJ, pp 360–368. doi: 10.1109/QSIC.2006.28
  14. 14.
    Douce C, Livingstone D, Orwell J (2005) Automatic test-based assessment of programming: a review. J Educ Resour Comput (JERIC) 5:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MCA DepartmentGLS UniversityAhmedabadIndia

Personalised recommendations