Educator Experiences with Automated Marking of Programming Assessments in a Computer Graphics-based Design Course

Grading computer graphics programming assessments and generating formative and summative feedback can require significant effort on the part of human experts.Since these assessments generate visual outputs that can be static or animated, determining correctness may be subjective.For feedback to be effective, it must be delivered in a timely manner.This can be a challenge for introductory computer graphics-based courses since cohort size can be substantial, errors in visual output can be subtle, and causes of errors are often not obvious.In this paper, we explore the feasibility of an automated system for marking visual output and providing program implementation feedback for learners in an introductory computer graphics-based design course in three short programming assessments, including static and animated scenes.To assess the effectiveness of our approach, we compare the marks generated by our tool with those assigned by a human expert.We show that it is possible to automate marking, providing both a grade based on the visual output and formative feedback on source code in the style of a human marker.This can improve objective consistency, grade reproducibility, and reduce marking time, enabling a course to scale to support large cohorts without the need for more resourcing for human markers.We describe lessons learnt and potential pitfalls to assist educators with introducing automated marking for their courses.Finally, we identify areas for future refinement and development of our automated system.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2025-02-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1145/3641554.3701969
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Teaching and Learning Programming
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.69
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Educator Experiences with Automated Marking of Programming Assessments in a Computer Graphics-based Design Course

Paul Denny, Angus Campbell, Burkhard Wüensche, Andrew Luxton-Reilly et al.
1 citations
Teaching and Learning Programming
1.69
article

Educator Experiences with Automated Marking of Programming Assessments in a Computer Graphics-based Design Course

Paul Denny, Angus Campbell, Burkhard Wüensche, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Steffan Hooper, Nick Konings
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Grading computer graphics programming assessments and generating formative and summative feedback can require significant effort on the part of human experts.Since these assessments generate visual outputs that can be static or animated, determining correctness may be subjective.For feedback to be effective, it must be delivered in a timely manner.This can be a challenge for introductory computer graphics-based courses since cohort size can be substantial, errors in visual output can be subtle, and causes of errors are often not obvious.In this paper, we explore the feasibility of an automated system for marking visual output and providing program implementation feedback for learners in an introductory computer graphics-based design course in three short programming assessments, including static and animated scenes.To assess the effectiveness of our approach, we compare the marks generated by our tool with those assigned by a human expert.We show that it is possible to automate marking, providing both a grade based on the visual output and formative feedback on source code in the style of a human marker.This can improve objective consistency, grade reproducibility, and reduce marking time, enabling a course to scale to support large cohorts without the need for more resourcing for human markers.We describe lessons learnt and potential pitfalls to assist educators with introducing automated marking for their courses.Finally, we identify areas for future refinement and development of our automated system.

University of Auckland (NZ)
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Teaching and Learning Programming
1.69
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.