skip to main content
10.1109/ICSE-SEET.2019.00021acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Simulating student mistakes to evaluate the fairness of automated grading

Published:27 May 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

The use of autograding to assess programming students may lead to unfairness if an autograder is incorrectly configured. Mutation analysis offers a potential solution to this problem. By simulating student coding mistakes, an automated technique can evaluate the fairness and completeness of an autograding configuration. In this paper, we introduce a set of mutation operators to be used in such a technique, derived from a mistake classification of real student solutions for two introductory programming tasks.

References

  1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Assessing and Responding to the Growth of Computer Science Undergraduate Enrollments. The National Academies Press, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. C. Douce, D. Livingstone, and J. Orwell, "Automatic test-based assessment of programming: A review," J. Educ. Resour. Comput., 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. N. C. C. Brown and A. Altadmri, "Novice Java programming mistakes: Large-scale data vs. educator beliefs," Trans. Comput. Educ., 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. J. Breitner, M. Hecker, and G. Snelting, "Der grader Praktomat," Automatisierte Bewertung in der Programmierausbildung, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. R. A. DeMillo, D. S. Guindi, W. McCracken, A. J. Offutt, and K. King, "An extended overview of the Mothra software testing environment," in Workshop on Software Testing, Verification, and Analysis, IEEE, 1988.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. J. H. Andrews, L. C. Briand, and Y. Labiche, "Is mutation an appropriate tool for testing experiments?," in ICSE '05, pp. 402--411, ACM, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. R. Just, D. Jalali, L. Inozemtseva, M. D. Ernst, R. Holmes, and G. Fraser, "Are mutants a valid substitute for real faults in software testing?," in FSE 2014, pp. 654--665, ACM, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Google, "Google Java style guide." https://google.github.io/styleguide/javaguide.html#s4.4-column-limit. {Online; accessed 27-Sept-2018}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. H. Keuning, B. Heeren, and J. Jeuring, "Code quality issues in student programs," in ITiCSE '17, pp. 110--115, ACM, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Y. Jia and M. Harman, "An analysis and survey of the development of mutation testing," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 37, pp. 649--678, Sept 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

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

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader