Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2110.15134

An Analysis of Programming Course Evaluations Before and After the Introduction of an Autograder

Abstract

Commonly, introductory programming courses in higher education institutions have hundreds of participating students eager to learn to program. The manual effort for reviewing the submitted source code and for providing feedback can no longer be managed. Manually reviewing the submitted homework can be subjective and unfair, particularly if many tutors are responsible for grading. Different autograders can help in this situation; however, there is a lack of knowledge about how autograders can impact students' overall perception of programming classes and teaching. This is relevant for course organizers and institutions to keep their programming courses attractive while coping with increasing students. This paper studies the answers to the standardized university evaluation questionnaires of multiple large-scale foundational computer science courses which recently introduced autograding. The differences before and after this intervention are analyzed. By incorporating additional observations, we hypothesize how the autograder might have contributed to the significant changes in the data, such as, improved interactions between tutors and students, improved overall course quality, improved learning success, increased time spent, and reduced difficulty. This qualitative study aims to provide hypotheses for future research to define and conduct quantitative surveys and data analysis. The autograder technology can be validated as a teaching method to improve student satisfaction with programming courses.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Gerhard Johann Hagerer, Laura Lahesoo, Miriam Anschütz, Stephan Krusche, Georg Groh. 2023-07-24. An Analysis of Programming Course Evaluations Before and After the Introduction of an Autograder. https://doi.org/10.1109/ithet50392.2021.9759809

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Are explainable AI (XAI) evaluation strategies aligned? Comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical evaluation measures using saliency maps

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) approaches often relies on three families of methods: subjective measures (e.g., questionnaires on trust or satisfaction), objective measures (e.g., task performance metrics), and mathematical metrics (e.g., for faithfulness). Yet, it remains unclear how these families align or diverge in practice. In a{preregistered} between-subjects study (N=166), we use three established saliency map techniques (LIME, Grad-CAM, Guided Backpropagation) as a testbed to examine this issue. We find that each family of methods leads to different conclusions: participants reported no differences in trust or satisfaction, Grad-CAM improved user performance, while mathematical metrics favored Guided Backpropagation. At the same time, mathematical metrics were only partially related to user performance, and these relationships were sometimes counterintuitive. Our findings highlight the methodological importance of comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical approaches when evaluating XAI, illustrating both tensions and aspects that are aligned. We discuss implications for XAI evaluation frameworks.

cs.HC

Mind Your Ps and Qs: Positive Moderation Practice in the Positive Queue

Online communities rely on volunteer moderators to maintain order. Despite their key role, moderators are given a toolbox of punishments and far less support for encouraging contributions they want to see more of. We introduce the Positive Queue as a positive counterpart to Reddit's modqueue: a dedicated space for moderators to discover contributions and behaviors they want to encourage and positively reinforce. With five moderators, four with 6-14 years of experience, we use the Positive Queue to examine how moderators operationalize positive reinforcement. Moderators combined predicted community reception, observed engagement, and their own judgment; used prediction-engagement mismatches to identify overlooked content; and repurposed positive features for punitive and retrospective work. These findings surface tensions around labor, attribution, and community fit. We contribute the Positive Queue as a working system and conceptualize positive moderation as recognition infrastructure that shapes what moderators notice, whose judgment becomes visible, and how recognition reaches contributors.

cs.HC

PILOT: Control Surfaces for Authoring Social Media Feeds

Personalized social media feeds infer preferences from behavior, leaving people little direct control over what they see. Existing controls range from post-level reactions to rules and natural language, but little is known about how people use them together or how added expressiveness changes effort. We built PILOT, a Bluesky feed-authoring system that turns in-feed actions into explicit preferences, deterministic ranking, and inspectable outcomes. A study with seven participants informed an expanded implementation, which we organized into three nested control surfaces that ten participants compared within subjects. Participants assigned controls to distinct jobs: broad controls set direction, in-post actions refined results, and filters removed content. Richer surfaces did not necessarily feel more effortful, and participants' experiences depended more on whether they could verify and repair outcomes. Our findings show that usable feed control requires not simply more controls, but orchestration across mechanisms that support expression, inspection, repair, and episodic use.

cs.HC