article

The boss online submission and assessment system

Authors:

Nathan Griffiths,

Russell BoyattAuthors Info & Claims

Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC), Volume 5, Issue 3

Pages 2 - es

https://doi.org/10.1145/1163405.1163407

Published: 01 September 2005 Publication History

Abstract

Computer programming lends itself to automated assessment. With appropriate software tools, program correctness can be measured, along with an indication of quality according to a set of metrics. Furthermore, the regularity of program code allows plagiarism detection to be an integral part of the tools that support assessment. In this paper, we describe a submission and assessment system, called BOSS, that supports coursework assessment through collecting submissions, performing automatic tests for correctness and quality, checking for plagiarism, and providing an interface for marking and delivering feedback. We describe how automated assessment is incorporated into BOSS such that it supports, rather than constrains, assessment. The pedagogic and administrative issues that are affected by the assessment process are also discussed.

References

[1]

Bancroft, P., Hynd, J., Santo, F. D., and Reye, J. 2003. Web-based assignment submission and electronic marking. In HERDSA 2003. IEEE. Available: http://surveys.canterbury. ac.nz/herdsa03/pdfsref/Y1007.pdf (accessed: 30 May, 2004).

[2]

Bloom, B. S. and Krathwohl, D. R. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. Longman, London.

[3]

Blumenstein, M., Green, S., Nguyen, A., and Muthukkumarasamy, V. 2004. Game: A generic automated marking environment for programming assessment. In ITTC 2004. IEEE, 212--216.

[4]

BOSS. 2004. The BOSS online submission system. online. Available: http://boss.org.uk/ (accessed 19 December, 2004).

[5]

Bull, J. and McKenna, C. 2001. Blueprint for Computer-Assisted Assessment. CAA Centre, University of Loughborough.

[6]

Burton, P. and Bruhn, R. 2003. Teaching programming in the OOP era. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 35, 111--115.

[7]

Canup, M. and Shackleford, R. 1998. Using software to solve problems in large computing courses. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 30, 1, 135--139.

[8]

CFL Software Development. 2004. Copycatch gold. online. Available: http://www.copycatchgold. com/ (accessed: 30 March, 2004).

[9]

Cheang, B., Kurnia, A., Lim, A., and Oon, W.-C. 2003. On automated grading of programming assignments in an academic institution. Computers and Education 41, 121--131.

[10]

CIAD. 2004. TRIADS. online. Available: http://www.derby.ac.uk/assess/ (accessed: 25 April, 2004)

[11]

Dawson-Howe, K. 1995. Automatic submission and administration of programming assignments. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 27, 4, 51--53.

[12]

Entwistle, N. 2001. Promoting Deep Learning through Assessment and Teaching. AAHE, Washington, DC.

[13]

Free Software Foundation. 2004. GNU general public license. online. Available: http://www.gnu. org/copyleft/gpl.html/ (accessed: 25 April, 2004).

[14]

Ghosh, M., Verma, B., and Nguyen, A. 2002. An automatic assessment marking and plagiarism detection. In ICITA 2002. IEEE.

[15]

Heng, P., Joy, M., Boyatt, R., and Griffiths, N. 2005. Evaluation of the BOSS online submission and assessment system. Tech. Rep. CS-RR-415, Department of Computer Science, University of Warwick Coventry, UK.

[16]

Higgins, C., Hegazy, T., Symeonidis, P., and Tsintsifas, A. 2003. The CourseMarker CBA system: Improvements over Ceilidh. Education and Information Technologies 8, 3, 287--304. Available: http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/CourseMarker/ (accessed: 30 March, 2004).

[17]

Hurst, A. 1996. Literate programming as an aid to marking student assignments. In Proceedings of the First Australasian Conference on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York. 280--286. Available: http://www.literateprogramming.com/lpin-assess.pdf (accessed: 30 March, 2004).

[18]

Isaacson, P. and Scott, T. 1989. Automating the execution of student programs. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 21, 2, 15--22.

[19]

Joy, M. and Luck, M. 1999. Plagiarism in programming assignments. IEEE Transactions on Education 42, 2, 129--133.

[20]

Joy, M., Griffiths, N., Stott, M., Harley, J., Wattebot, C., and Holt, D. 2002. Coresoft: A framework for student data. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences. LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences. 31--36.

[21]

Knuth, D. 1984. Literate programming. The Computer Journal 27, 2, 97--111.

[22]

Lane, D. 2004. JUnit: The Definitive Guide. O'Reilly, Sebastopol, CA.

[23]

Leicester University. 2004. The CASTLE toolkit. online. Available: http://www.le.ac.uk/castle/ (accessed: 25 April, 2004).

[24]

Luck, M. and Joy, M. 1999. A secure on-line submission system. Software---Practice and Experience 29, 8, 721--740.

[25]

MacPherson, P. 1997. A technique for student program submission in UNIX systems. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 29, 4, 54--56.

[26]

Merkle, R. 1990. A fast software one way hash function. Journal of Cryptology 3, 1, 43--58.

[27]

MIT Usability Group. 2005. Usability guidelines. Online. Available: http://www.mit.edu/ist/usability/usability-guidelines.html (accessed: 30 September, 2004).

[28]

Nielsen, J. 2005. useit.com. Online. Available: http://www.useit.com/ (accessed: 30 September, 2004).

[29]

Questionmark. 2004. Questionmark Perception. online. Available: http://perception. questionmark.com/ (accessed: 30 March, 2004).

[30]

Reek, K. 1989. The TRY system---or---how to avoid testing student programs. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 21, 1, 112--116.

[31]

Saikkonen, R., Malmi, L., and Korhonen, A. 2003. Fully automatic assessment of programming exercises. In ITiCSE 2001. ACM, 133--136.

[32]

Shneiderman, B. 1998. Designing the User Interface, (3rd ed.). Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

[33]

Sitthiworachart, J. and Joy, M. 2004. Effective peer assessment for learning computer programming. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference on the Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2004). 122--126.

[34]

WebCT. 2004. WebCT. online. Available: http://www.webct.com/ (accessed: 30 March, 2004).

[35]

White, D. and Joy, M. 2005. Sentence-based natural language plagiarism detection. ACM Journal of Educational Resources in Computing 4, 4, 1--20.

[36]

Yau, J. and Joy, M. 2004. Introducing Java: A case for fundamentals-first. In EISTA 2004. 1861--1865.

Cited By

Tran KBacher JShi YSkripchuk JPrice T(2024)Overcoming Barriers in Scaling Computing Education Research Programming Tools: A Developer's PerspectiveProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3632620.3671113(312-325)Online publication date: 12-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3632620.3671113
Lagakis PDemetriadis S(2024)EvaAI: A Multi-agent Framework Leveraging Large Language Models for Enhanced Automated GradingGenerative Intelligence and Intelligent Tutoring Systems10.1007/978-3-031-63028-6_32(378-385)Online publication date: 10-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-63028-6_32
Lagakis PDemetriadis SPsathas G(2024)Automated Grading in Coding Exercises Using Large Language ModelsSmart Mobile Communication & Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-031-54327-2_37(363-373)Online publication date: 27-Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54327-2_37
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

The boss online submission and assessment system
1. Applied computing
  1. Education
    1. Computer-managed instruction

Recommendations

Evaluating students' programs using automated assessment: a case study
ITiCSE '09: Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education

This poster presents our experience of using automated assessment in a programming course given by the Department of Computer Science at Holon Institute of Technology (HIT). The course was given as a first year course as part of an engineering degree ...
Feedback on Student Programming Assignments: Teaching Assistants vs Automated Assessment Tool
Koli Calling '23: Proceedings of the 23rd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research

Existing research does not quantify and compare the differences between automated and manual assessment in the context of feedback on programming assignments. This makes it hard to reason about the effects of adopting automated assessment at the expense ...
Evaluating students' programs using automated assessment: a case study
ITiCSE '09

This poster presents our experience of using automated assessment in a programming course given by the Department of Computer Science at Holon Institute of Technology (HIT). The course was given as a first year course as part of an engineering degree ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Journal on Educational Resources in Computing

Journal on Educational Resources in Computing Volume 5, Issue 3

September 2005

135 pages

ISSN:1531-4278

EISSN:1531-4278

DOI:10.1145/1163405

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2005 ACM.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 September 2005

Published in JERIC Volume 5, Issue 3

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

140
Total Citations
View Citations
2,198
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)45
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4

Reflects downloads up to 19 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Tran KBacher JShi YSkripchuk JPrice T(2024)Overcoming Barriers in Scaling Computing Education Research Programming Tools: A Developer's PerspectiveProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3632620.3671113(312-325)Online publication date: 12-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3632620.3671113
Lagakis PDemetriadis S(2024)EvaAI: A Multi-agent Framework Leveraging Large Language Models for Enhanced Automated GradingGenerative Intelligence and Intelligent Tutoring Systems10.1007/978-3-031-63028-6_32(378-385)Online publication date: 10-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-63028-6_32
Lagakis PDemetriadis SPsathas G(2024)Automated Grading in Coding Exercises Using Large Language ModelsSmart Mobile Communication & Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-031-54327-2_37(363-373)Online publication date: 27-Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54327-2_37
Duong HChen H(2024)ProgEdu4Web: An automated assessment tool for motivating the learning of web programming courseComputer Applications in Engineering Education10.1002/cae.2277032:5Online publication date: 28-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22770
Fan ZTan SRoychoudhury AJust RFraser G(2023)Concept-Based Automated Grading of CS-1 Programming AssignmentsProceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis10.1145/3597926.3598049(199-210)Online publication date: 12-Jul-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3597926.3598049
Combéfis S(2022)Automated Code Assessment for Education: Review, Classification and Perspectives on Techniques and ToolsSoftware10.3390/software10100021:1(3-30)Online publication date: 8-Feb-2022
https://doi.org/10.3390/software1010002
Topuz ASaka EFatsa ÖKurşun E(2022)Emerging trends of online assessment systems in the emergency remote teaching periodSmart Learning Environments10.1186/s40561-022-00199-69:1Online publication date: 29-Mar-2022
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00199-6
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
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
Yan YKurokawa H(2022)A Model to Automatically Evaluate Beginners’ Programs Based on Syntactic Knowledge Point and Deep Learning Technology2022 Joint 12th International Conference on Soft Computing and Intelligent Systems and 23rd International Symposium on Advanced Intelligent Systems (SCIS&ISIS)10.1109/SCISISIS55246.2022.10001960(1-8)Online publication date: 29-Nov-2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/SCISISIS55246.2022.10001960
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents