nach oben

Erschienen in:

22.05.2020

Using image recognition to automatically assess programming tasks with graphical output

verfasst von: Eerik Muuli, Eno Tõnisson, Marina Lepp, Piret Luik, Tauno Palts, Reelika Suviste, Kaspar Papli, Merilin Säde

Erschienen in: Education and Information Technologies | Ausgabe 6/2020

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

There are thousands of participants in different programming MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) which means thousands of solutions have to be assessed. As it is very time-consuming to assess that amount of solutions manually, using automated assessment is essential. Since task requirements must be strict for the solutions to be automatically gradable, it often limits the types of different assignments and creativity. In order to promote more creativity we wanted to enable programming tasks with graphical output. In order to analyze and assess the creative tasks we developed, implemented and analyzed a system capable of assessing the graphical output of a solution program using image recognition. Image recognition is used to analyze the graphical output (image) produced by the solution program. The graphical output with a keyword attached to it is sent to an image recognition service provider that responds with a probability score. The solution is accepted or rejected based on the probability of a given object appearing in the image. The system was tested and evaluated in two runs of the MOOC “Introduction to Programming.” In the first run, we used the system to automatically assess the solutions of programming tasks on a predefined topic and in the second run on a topic chosen by the participant. The evaluation of the usefulness of the system and overview of participants’ feedback are presented as results. Suggestions for future improvements of the system and possible research are also listed.

Vorheriger Artikel The influence of the Nearpod application on learning social geography in a grammar school in Czecha

Nächster Artikel Gamification of student peer review in education: A systematic literature review

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Alcarria, R., Bordel, B., de Andrés, D. M., & Robles, T. (2018). Enhanced peer assessment in MOOC evaluation through assignment and review analysis. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13(1), 206–219. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i01.7461.CrossRef

An J., & Park, N. (2011). Computer application in elementary education bases on fractal geometry theory using LOGO programming. In IT convergence and services (pp. 241–249). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2598-0_26.

Artifex. (2019). Ghostscript Homepage. Retrieved from https://www.ghostscript.com/

Bers, M. U. (2017). Coding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315398945.CrossRef

Bey, A., Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2018). A comparison between two automatic assessment approaches for programming: An empirical study on MOOCs. Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 259–272.

Clarifai. (2019). Clarifai Homepage. Retrieved from https://www.clarifai.com/

Doherty, I., Harbutt, D., & Sharma, N. (2015). Designing and developing a MOOC. Medical Science Educator, 25(2), 177–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-015-0123-9.CrossRef

Douce, C., Livingstone, D., & Orwell, J. (2005). Automatic test-based assessment of programming: A review. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC), 5(3). https://doi.org/10.1145/1163405.1163409.

Dougiamas, M., & Taylor, P. C. (2003). Moodle: Using Learning Communities to Create an Open Source Course Management System. In Proceedings of the EDMEDIA 2003 Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/13739/

English, J. (2004). Automated assessment of GUI programs using JEWL. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(3), 137–141. https://doi.org/10.1145/1026487.1008033.CrossRef

Fricker, P., Wartmann, C., & Hovestadt, L. (2008). Processing: Programming instead of drawing. 26th eCAADe proceedings, 525-530. Retrieved from https://cumincad.architexturez.net/system/files/pdf/ecaade2008_183.content.pdf

Gardner, J., & Brooks, C. (2018). Student success prediction in MOOCs. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 28(2), 127–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-018-9203-z.CrossRef

Giannakos, M. N., Jaccheri, L., & Proto, R. (2013). Teaching computer science to young children through creativity: Lessons learned from the case of Norway. In Proceedings of the 3rd Computer Science Education Research Conference (pp. 103-111). Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2541927

Goh, K. N., & Hilisebua Manao, R. (2013). Assessing engineering drawings through automated assessment: Discussing mechanism to award marks. International Journal of Smart Home, 7(4), 327–335.

Google Cloud. (2019). Vision AI. Retrieved from https://cloud.google.com/vision/

Hein, H., Kiho, J., Palm, R., & Tõnisson, E. (2007). Programmeerimise Ülesannete Kogu. Tartu: Tartu Ülikool.

Higgins, C. A., Gray, G., Symeonidis, P., & Tsintsifas, A. (2005). Automated assessment and experiences of teaching programming. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.1145/1163405.1163410.

Horstmann, C. S. (2015). Big Java: Early objects. New York: Wiley Textbooks.

Huisman, B., Admiraal, W., van de Ven, M., & Pilli, O. (2016). Peer assessment in MOOCs: The relationship between peer reviewers’ ability and authors’ essay performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(1), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12520.CrossRef

Imagga. (2019). All in One Image Recognition Solutions for Developers and Businesses. Retrieved from https://imagga.com/

Kohn T., & Komm, D. (2018). Teaching programming and algorithmic complexity with tangible machines. In International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (pp. 68-83). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02750-6_6.

Kulkarni, C., Wei, K. P., Le, H., Chia, D., Papadopoulos, K., Cheng, J., Koller, D., & Klemmer, S. R. (2013). Peer and self assessment in massive online classes. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(6), 131–168. https://doi.org/10.1145/2505057.CrossRef

Lepp, M., Luik, P., Palts, T., Papli, K., Suviste, R., Säde, M., & Tõnisson, E. (2017a). MOOC in programming: A success story. In Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Learning (pp. 138–147).

Lepp, M., Luik, P., Palts, T., Papli, K., Suviste, R., Säde, M., Hollo, K., Vaherpuu, V., & Tõnisson, E. (2017b). Self-and automated assessment in programming MOOCs. International Computer Assisted Assessment Conference (pp. 72–85). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57744-9_7.

Lepp, M., Palts, T., Luik, P., Papli, K., Suviste, R., Säde, M., Hollo, K., Vaherpuu, V., & Tõnisson, E. (2018). Troubleshooters for Tasks of Introductory Programming MOOCs. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3639.

Luik, P., Lepp, M., Palts, T., Säde, M., Suviste, R., Tõnisson, E., & Gaiduk, M. (2018). Completion of programming MOOC or dropping out: Are there any differences in motivation. In Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on e-Learning ECEL (pp. 329-337).

Muuli, E., Papli, K., Tõnisson, E., Lepp, M., Palts, T., Suviste, R., Säde, M., & Luik, P. (2017). Automatic assessment of programming assignments using image recognition. European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 153–163). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66610-5_12.

Papathoma, T., Blake, C., Clow, D., & Scanlon, E. (2015). Investigating learners’ views of assessment types in massive open online courses (MOOCs). In Design for Teaching and Learning in a Networked World (pp. 617–621). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24258-3_72.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

Pears, A., Seidman, S., Malmi, L., Mannila, L., Adams, E., Bennedsen, J., Devlin, M., & Paterson, J. (2007). A survey of literature on the teaching of introductory programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(4), 204–223. https://doi.org/10.1145/1345443.1345441.CrossRef

Pieterse, V. (2013). Automated assessment of programming assignments. In Proceedings of the 3rd Computer Science Education Research Conference on Computer Science Education Research (CSERC '13) (pp. 45–56). Open Universiteit, Heerlen, The Netherlands. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2541921

Python. (2019a). Abstract Syntax Trees. Retrieved from https://docs.python.org/3.6/library/ast.html

Python. (2019b). Graphical User Interfaces with Tk. Retrieved from https://docs.python.org/3/library/tk.html

Rodríguez-del-Pino, J. C., Rubio-Royo, E., & Hernández-Figueroa, Z. J. (2012). A virtual programming lab for Moodle with automatic assessment and anti-plagiarism features. In Proceedings of The 2012 International Conference on e-Learning, e-Business, Enterprise Information Systems, & e-Government.

Sánchez-Vera, M. M., & Prendes-Espinosa, M. P. (2015). Beyond objective testing and peer assessment: Alternative ways of assessment in MOOCs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 12(1), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v12i1.2262.CrossRef

Shah, D. (2018). By The Numbers: MOOCs in 2018. Retrieved from https://www.classcentral.com/report/mooc-stats-2018/

Skalka, J., Drlík, M., & Obonya, J. (2019). Automated assessment in learning and teaching programming languages using virtual learning environment. In 2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 689–697). Dubai, United Arab Emirates. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2019.8725127.

Staubitz, T., Klement, H., Renz, J., Teusner R., & Meinel, C. (2015). Towards practical programming exercises and automated assessment in massive open online courses. In 2015IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE) (pp. 23-30). https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE.2015.7386010.

Thornton, M., Edwards, S. H., Tan, R. P., & Pérez-Quiñones, M. A. (2008). Supporting student-written tests of GUI programs. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 537–541. https://doi.org/10.1145/1352322.1352316.CrossRef

Vidal Duarte, E. (2016). Teaching the first programming course with Python's turtle graphic library. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 244-245). https://doi.org/10.1145/2899415.2925499.

Vihavainen, A., Luukkainen, M., & Kurhila, J. (2012). Multi-faceted support for MOOC in programming. In Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on Information technology education (pp. 171–176). https://doi.org/10.1145/2380552.2380603

VPL. (2014). Virtual Programming Lab for Moodle (Module). Retrieved from http://vpl.dis.ulpgc.es/

Wang, Y., Liang, Y., Liu, L., & Liu, Y. (2016). A multi-peer assessment platform for programming language learning: Considering group non-consensus and personal radicalness. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(8), 2011–2031. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1073748.CrossRef

Wulf, J., Blohm, I., Leimeister, J. M., & Brenner, W. (2014). Massive Open Online Courses. Business & Information Systems Engineering (BISE), 6(2), 111–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11576-014-0405-7.CrossRef

Xvfb. (2018). Xvfb Homepage. Retrieved from https://www.x.org/archive/X11R7.6/doc/man/man1/Xvfb.1.xhtml

Titel: Using image recognition to automatically assess programming tasks with graphical output
verfasst von: Eerik Muuli
Eno Tõnisson
Marina Lepp
Piret Luik
Tauno Palts
Reelika Suviste
Kaspar Papli
Merilin Säde
Publikationsdatum: 22.05.2020
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Education and Information Technologies / Ausgabe 6/2020
Print ISSN: 1360-2357
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7608
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10218-z

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2020

Antecedents of university lecturers’ intentions to adopt information and communication technology in Zimbabwe

Learner modeling in cloud computing

Clarifying the impact of surprise in e-learning system design based on university students with multiple learning goals orientation

WhatsApp supported language teacher development: A case study in the Zataari refugee camp

Recognition system for alphabet Arabic sign language using neutrosophic and fuzzy c-means

Application of machine learning and data mining in predicting the performance of intermediate and secondary education level student