Challenge-based and Competency-based Assessments in an Undergraduate Programming Course
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we investigate an optimal assessment strategy to measure student learning in the first-year undergraduate engineering course at X-Department at X University. Specifically, we evaluate and compare challenge-based and competency-based assessment strategies. In the challenge-based approach, the students are required to design a C++-based application that meet the required design objectives. The competency-based assessment involves assessing learning by asking a variety of pointed questions pertaining to a single or a small group of concepts. After studying the performance of 207 students, we found that in the challenge-based assessment, due to the complex nature of the questions that assess numerous concepts simultaneously, students who are not very thorough with even one or two concepts fared very poorly since they were unable to finish the challenge and present a functional prototype of the program. On the other hand, the competency-based assessment allowed for a more balanced approach in which the students’ learning was reflected more accurately by their performance in the various assessments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it