skip to main content
10.1145/1734263.1734412acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Using strategies for assessment of programming exercises

Published:10 March 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Programming exercise assessment tools alleviate the task of teachers, and increase consistency of markings. Many programming exercise assessment tools are based on testing. A test-based assessment tool for programming exercises cannot ensure that a solution is correct. Moreover, it is difficult to test if a student has used good programming practices. This is unfortunate, because teachers want students to adopt good programming techniques. We propose to use strategies, in combination with program transformations, as a foundation for functional programming exercise assessment. Expert knowledge, in the form of model solutions, can be expressed as programming strategies. Using these strategies we can guarantee that a student program is equivalent to a model solution, and we can report which solution strategy has been used to solve the programming problem.

References

  1. K. Ala--Mutka. A survey of automated assessment approaches for programming assignments. Computer Science Education, 15(2):83---102, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. A. Gerdes, B. Heeren, and J. Jeuring. Constructing Strategies for Programming. In J. Cordeiro et al., editor, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computer Supported Education, pages 65---72. INSTICC Press, March 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. B. Heeren, J. Jeuring, A. v. Leeuwen, and A. Gerdes. Specifying strategies for exercises. In MKM 2008: Mathematical Knowledge management, volume 5144 of LNAI, pages 430---445. Springer--Verlag, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. B. Heeren, D. Leijen, and A. v. IJzendoorn. Helium, for learning Haskell. In Haskell 2003, pages 62---71. ACM, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. M. d. Mol, M. v. Eekelen, and R. Plasmeijer. Theorem proving for functional programmers -- Sparkle: a functional theorem prover. In IFL 2001, Selected Papers, volume 2312 of LNCS, pages 55---72. Springer, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. S. D. Swierstra and L. Duponcheel. Deterministic, error--correcting combinator parsers. In J. Launchbury et al., editor, AFP, volume 1129 of LNCS, pages 184---207. Springer--Verlag, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. G. Thorburn and G. Rowe. Pass: an automated system for program assessment. Computers & Education, 29(4):195---206, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. N. Truong, P. Roe, and P. Bancroft. Static analysis of students' Java programs. In ACE '04: Proceedings of the sixth conference on Australasian computing education, pages 317---325, Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 2004. Australian Computer Society, Inc. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. D. N. Xu. Static Contract Checking for Haskell. PhD thesis, Cambridge University, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. S. Xu and Y. S. Chee. Transformation--based diagnosis of student programs for programming tutoring systems. IEEE Transansactions on Software Engineering, 29(4):360---384, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Using strategies for assessment of programming exercises

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        SIGCSE '10: Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education
        March 2010
        618 pages
        ISBN:9781450300063
        DOI:10.1145/1734263

        Copyright © 2010 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 10 March 2010

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate1,595of4,542submissions,35%

        Upcoming Conference

        SIGCSE Virtual 2024

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader