MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109014800 · doi:10.5753/cbie.sbie.2020.1573

Parameterized and automated assessment on an introductory programming course

2020· article· en· W3109014800 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnais do XXXI Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na Educação (SBIE 2020) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloCanadian Bureau for International Education
KeywordsParameterized complexityPlug-inComputer scienceJavaContext (archaeology)Programming languageSoftware engineeringAnswer set programmingOpen sourceArtificial intelligenceSet (abstract data type)AlgorithmSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The generation of individualized exams can contribute to a more reliable assessment of the students. Manually performing this procedure may not be feasible, even more on a large scale. An alternative to deal with it is the automatic generation of questions. This paper discusses an innovative solution to simplify test generation and correction through parameterized questions in the context of a four-month Introduction to Programming course under a blended- learning (IP-BL) approach. It combines the open-source tool MCTest with Moodle and VPL plugin to generate and also automatically evaluate parameterized programming language questions. We applied an intervention based on this solution in two IP-BL groups (a total of 171 enrolled students) using Java.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it