On the use of resubmissions in automatic assessment systems

Automatic assessment systems generally support immediate grading and response on learners' submissions. They also allow learners to consider the feedback, revise, and resubmit their solutions. Several strategies exist to implement the resubmission policy. The ultimate goal, however, is to improve the learning outcomes, and thus the strategies should aim at preventing learners from using the resubmission feature irresponsibly. One of the key questions here is how to develop the system and its use in order to cut down such reiteration that does not seem to be worthwhile? In this paper, we study data gathered from an automatic assessment system that supports resubmissions. We use a clustering technique to draw a distinction among learner groups that seem to differ in their use of the resubmission feature and the points achieved from the exercises. By comparing these groups with each other, we conclude that for a small minority of learners there is a risk that they use the resubmission inefficiently. Some learners seem to resubmit the solution without thinking much between two consecutive submissions. In order to prevent such an aimless trial-and-error problem solving method, one option is to limit the number of allowed resubmissions. However, not all resubmissions are bad. In addition, there exist several ways to realize the limitations to achieve the best possible resubmission policy fit for all the students. These are discussed based on the evidence gathered during the research.

[1]  Niklaus Wirth,et al.  Automatic grading programs , 1965, CACM.

[2]  Lauri Malmi,et al.  Fully automatic assessment of programming exercises , 2001 .

[3]  Peter Naur Automatic grading of students' ALGOL programming , 1964 .

[4]  Lauri Malmi,et al.  Experiences on automatically assessed algorithm simulation exercises with different resubmission policies , 2005, JERC.

[5]  Lauri Malmi,et al.  Does it make a difference if students exercise on the web or in the classroom? , 2002, ITiCSE '02.

[6]  Lauri Malmi,et al.  Different Learners Need Different Resubmission Policies in Automatic Assessment Systems , 2005 .

[7]  Michael Luck,et al.  A Secure On-line Submission System , 1999, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[8]  John English,et al.  Experience with an automatically assessed course , 2000, ITiCSE '00.

[9]  Lauri Malmi,et al.  Interaction and Feedback in Automatically Assessed Algorithm Simulation Exercises , 2003, J. Inf. Technol. Educ..

[10]  Michael J. Rees,et al.  Automatic assessment aids for Pascal programs , 1982, SIGP.

[11]  Ursula Fuller,et al.  How shall we assess this , 2003 .

[12]  Lauri Malmi,et al.  Algorithm simulation with automatic assessment , 2000, ITiCSE '00.

[13]  Kirsti Ala-Mutka,et al.  A Survey of Automated Assessment Approaches for Programming Assignments , 2005, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[14]  Anders Krogh,et al.  Introduction to the theory of neural computation , 1994, The advanced book program.

[15]  Tapio Salakoski,et al.  The Feasibility of Automatic Assessment and Feedback , 2005, CELDA.

[16]  Antonija Mitrovic,et al.  Using Evaluation to Shape ITS Design: Results and Experiences with SQL-Tutor , 2002, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[17]  Mordechai Ben-aft,et al.  Constructivism in computer science education , 1998, SIGCSE '98.

[18]  R. Felder,et al.  Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. , 1988 .

[19]  Lauri Malmi,et al.  Visual Algorithm Simulation Exercise System with Automatic Assessment: TRAKLA2 , 2004, Informatics Educ..