demonstration

Work-in-progress: program grading and feedback generation with Web-CAT

Author:

Stephen H. EdwardsAuthors Info & Claims

L@S '14: Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning @ scale conference

Pages 215 - 216

https://doi.org/10.1145/2556325.2567888

Published: 04 March 2014 Publication History

Get Access

Abstract

Web-CAT, the Web-based Center for Automated Testing, is the most widely used open-source automated grading system for programming assignments in the world. Web-CAT is customizable and extensible, allowing it to support a wide variety of programming languages and assessment strategies. Web-CAT is most well known as the system that "grades students on how well they test their own code," with experimental evidence that it offers greater learning benefits than more traditional output-comparison grading. This work-in-progress demonstration will show how Web-CAT can be used to automatically grade student work, assess conformance with coding style guidelines, provide students with feedback on how well they have tested their own code, and allow instructors to provide directed hints to students on where to focus their attention for improvements.

References

[1]

A. Allevato and S.H. Edwards. 2012. RoboLIFT: Engaging CS2 students with testable, automatically evaluated Android applications. In Proc. 43rd ACM Tech. Symp. Computer Science Education. ACM, pp. 547--552.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[2]

A. Allevato, M. Thornton, S.H. Edwards, and M.A. Pérez-Quiñones. 2008. Mining data from an automated grading and testing system by adding rich reporting capabilities. In Educational Data Mining 2008: 1st Int'l Conf. Educational Data Mining, Proceedings, pp. 167--176.

Google Scholar

[3]

A. Allowatt and S.H. Edwards. 2005. IDE support for test-driven development and automated grading in both Java and C++. In Proc. 2005 OOPSLA Workshop on Eclipse Tech. eXchange. ACM, pp. 100--104.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[4]

K. Buffardi and S.H. Edwards. 2013. Impacts of adaptive feedback on teaching test-driven development. In Proc. 44th ACM Tech. Symp. Computer Science Education. ACM, pp. 293--298.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[5]

S.H. Edwards. 2003. Improving student performance by evaluating how well students test their own programs. J. Educ. Resour. Comput. 3(3): Article 1 (September 2003).

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[6]

S.H. Edwards. 2004. Using software testing to move students from trial-and-error to reflection-in-action. In Proc. 35th SIGCSE Tech. Symp. Computer Science Education. ACM, pp. 26--30.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[7]

S. H. Edwards, J. Snyder, M. A. Pérez-Quiñones, A. Allevato, D. Kim, and B. Tretola. 2009. Comparing effective and ineffective behaviors of student programmers. In Proc. 5th Int'l Workshop on Comput. Education Research, ICER '09, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 3--14.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[8]

J. Snyder, S.H. Edwards, M.A. Pérez-Quiñones. 201 LIFT: Taking GUI unit testing to new heights. In Proc. 42nd ACM Tech. Symp. Computer Science Education. ACM, pp. 643--648.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[9]

M. Thornton, S.H. Edwards, R.P. Tan, and M.A. Pérez-Quiñones. 2008. Supporting student-written tests of GUI programs. In Proc. 39th SIGCSE Tech. Symp. Computer Science Education. ACM, pp. 537--541.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[10]

The Web-CAT Community. Last accessed 11/8/2013: http://web-cat.org/.

Google Scholar

Cited By

View all

Blanchard JHott JBerry VCarroll REdmison BGlassey RKarnalim OPlancher BRussell SQuille KAlshaigy BBecker BQuille KLaakso M(2022)Stop Reinventing the Wheel! Promoting Community Software in Computing EducationProceedings of the 2022 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education10.1145/3571785.3574129(261-292)Online publication date: 27-Dec-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3571785.3574129
Blanchard JHott JBerry VCarroll REdmison BGlassey RKarnalim OPlancher BRussell SBecker BQuille KLaakso MBarendsen ESimon (2022)Leveraging Community Software in CS Education to Avoid Reinventing the WheelProceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 210.1145/3502717.3532169(580-581)Online publication date: 7-Jul-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3502717.3532169
Charitsis CPiech CMitchell JKizilcec RDavis KOchoa X(2022)Function Names: Quantifying the Relationship Between Identifiers and Their Functionality to Improve ThemProceedings of the Ninth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale10.1145/3491140.3528269(93-101)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3491140.3528269
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Work-in-progress: program grading and feedback generation with Web-CAT
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. Computing education programs
        Computer science education

Recommendations

Checked Coverage and Object Branch Coverage: New Alternatives for Assessing Student-Written Tests
SIGCSE '15: Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

Many educators currently use code coverage metrics to assess student-written software tests. While test adequacy criteria such as statement or branch coverage can also be used to measure the thoroughness of a test suite, they have limitations. Coverage ...
Comparing test quality measures for assessing student-written tests
ICSE Companion 2014: Companion Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering

Many educators now include software testing activities in programming assignments, so there is a growing demand for appropriate methods of assessing the quality of student-written software tests. While tests can be hand-graded, some educators also use ...
The absolute beginner's guide to JUnit in the classroom (abstract only)
SIGCSE '12: Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education

Software testing has become popular in introductory courses, but many educators are unfamiliar with how to write software tests or how they might be used in the classroom. This workshop provides a practical introduction to JUnit for educators. JUnit is ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

L@S '14: Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning @ scale conference

March 2014

234 pages

ISBN:9781450326698

DOI:10.1145/2556325

General Chair:
Mehran Sahami
Stanford University, USA
,
Program Chairs:
Armando Fox
University of California, Berkeley, USA
,
Marti A. Hearst
University of California, Berkeley, USA
,
Michelene T.H. Chi
Arizona State University, USA

Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 04 March 2014

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Demonstration

Conference

L@S 2014

Sponsor:

ACM Ed Board

L@S 2014: First (2014) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale

March 4 - 5, 2014

Georgia, Atlanta, USA

Acceptance Rates

L@S '14 Paper Acceptance Rate 14 of 38 submissions, 37%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 117 of 440 submissions, 27%

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

7
Total Citations
View Citations
378
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)33
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 22 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

Blanchard JHott JBerry VCarroll REdmison BGlassey RKarnalim OPlancher BRussell SQuille KAlshaigy BBecker BQuille KLaakso M(2022)Stop Reinventing the Wheel! Promoting Community Software in Computing EducationProceedings of the 2022 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education10.1145/3571785.3574129(261-292)Online publication date: 27-Dec-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3571785.3574129
Blanchard JHott JBerry VCarroll REdmison BGlassey RKarnalim OPlancher BRussell SBecker BQuille KLaakso MBarendsen ESimon (2022)Leveraging Community Software in CS Education to Avoid Reinventing the WheelProceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 210.1145/3502717.3532169(580-581)Online publication date: 7-Jul-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3502717.3532169
Charitsis CPiech CMitchell JKizilcec RDavis KOchoa X(2022)Function Names: Quantifying the Relationship Between Identifiers and Their Functionality to Improve ThemProceedings of the Ninth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale10.1145/3491140.3528269(93-101)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3491140.3528269
Charitsis CPiech CMitchell J(2021)Simplifying Automated Assessment in CS1Proceedings of the 2021 4th International Conference on Education Technology Management10.1145/3510309.3510345(226-231)Online publication date: 17-Dec-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3510309.3510345
Coleman BSommer N(2018)Git-keeperJournal of Computing Sciences in Colleges10.5555/3280489.328050334:1(89-92)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3280489.3280503
Yamamoto KKan FMurao KMochizuki MNishio N(2018)GERMIC: Application of Gesture Recognition Model with Interactive Correction to Manual Grading TasksMobile Computing, Applications, and Services10.1007/978-3-319-90740-6_6(90-105)Online publication date: 6-May-2018
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90740-6_6
Tanaka MFischer K(2016)Structure and Management of an Engineering Senior Design CourseJournal of Biomechanical Engineering10.1115/1.4033583138:7Online publication date: 7-Jun-2016
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4033583

View Options

Login options

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

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Checked Coverage and Object Branch Coverage: New Alternatives for Assessing Student-Written Tests

Comparing test quality measures for assessing student-written tests

The absolute beginner's guide to JUnit in the classroom (abstract only)