skip to main content
10.1145/2939672.2939696acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Question Independent Grading using Machine Learning: The Case of Computer Program Grading

Published:13 August 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Learning supervised models to grade open-ended responses is an expensive process. A model has to be trained for every prompt/question separately, which in turn requires graded samples. In automatic programming evaluation specifically, the focus of this work, this issue is amplified. The models have to be trained not only for every question but also for every language the question is offered in. Moreover, the availability and time taken by experts to create a labeled set of programs for each question is a major bottleneck in scaling such a system. We address this issue by presenting a method to grade computer programs which requires no manually assigned labeled samples for grading responses to a new, unseen question. We extend our previous work [25] wherein we introduced a grammar of features to learn question specific models. In this work, we propose a method to transform those features into a set of features that maintain their structural relation with the labels across questions. Using these features we learn one supervised model, across questions for a given language, which can then be applied to an ungraded response to an unseen question. We show that our method rivals the performance of both, question specific models and the consensus among human experts while substantially outperforming extant ways of evaluating codes. We demonstrate the system single s value by deploying it to grade programs in a high stakes assessment. The learning from this work is transferable to other grading tasks such as math question grading and also provides a new variation to the supervised learning approach.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

kdd2016_singh_program_grading_01-acm.mp4

mp4

402.6 MB

References

  1. Automata. Aspiring Minds http://www.aspiringminds.com/technology/automata.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. E-rater. ETS http://www.ets.org/research/topics/as_nlp/writing_quality/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Intelli metric. Vantage Learning http://www.vantagelearning.com/products/intellimetric/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Speechrater. ETS https://www.ets.org/research/topics/as_nlp/speech/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Svar. Aspiring Minds http://www.aspiringminds.com/technology/svar.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. V. Aggarwal, S. Srikant, and V. Shashidhar. Principles for using machine learning in the assessment of open response items: Programming assessment as a case study. In NIPS Workshop on Data Driven Education, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. J. Baxter. A bayesian/information theoretic model of learning to learn via multiple task sampling. Machine Learning, 28(1):7--39, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. J. Bernstein, A. Van Moere, and J. Cheng. Validating automated speaking tests. Language Testing, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. M. Birenbaum and K. K. Tatsuoka. Open-ended versus multiple-choice response formats-it does make a difference for diagnostic purposes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11(4):385--395, 1987.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. H. M. Breland. The direct assessment of writing skill: A measurement review. ETS Research Report Series, 1983(2):i--23, 1983.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. J. Burstein, L. Braden-Harder, M. Chodorow, S. Hua, B. Kaplan, K. Kukich, C. Lu, J. Nolan, D. Rock, and S. Wolff. Computer analysis of essay content for automated score prediction: A prototype automated scoring system for gmat analytical writing assessment essays. ETS Research Report Series, 1998(1):i--67, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. C.-C. Chang and C.-J. Lin. Libsvm: a library for support vector machines. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 2(3):27, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. H. Daume III and D. Marcu. Domain adaptation for statistical classifiers. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, pages 101--126, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. E. L. Glassman, J. Scott, R. Singh, P. J. Guo, and R. C. Miller. Overcode: Visualizing variation in student solutions to programming problems at scale. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 22(2):7, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. J. Huang, C. Piech, A. Nguyen, and L. Guibas. Syntactic and functional variability of a million code submissions in a machine learning mooc. In AIED 2013 Workshops Proceedings Volume, page 25. Citeseer, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. A. S. Lan, D. Vats, A. E. Waters, and R. G. Baraniuk. Mathematical language processing: Automatic grading and feedback for open response mathematical questions. In Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale, pages 167--176. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. N. Meinshausen and P. Bühlmann. Stability selection. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 72(4):417--473, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. L. Pappano. The year of the mooc. The New York Times (Accessed: 2016--2--2).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, et al. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12:2825--2830, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. K. Rivers and K. R. Koedinger. Automatic generation of programming feedback: A data-driven approach. In The First Workshop on AI-supported Education for Computer Science (AIEDCS 2013), page 50, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. V. Shashidhar, N. Pandey, and V. Aggarwal. Automatic spontaneous speech grading: A novel feature derivation technique using the crowd. In Proceedings of the Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics. ACL, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. V. Shashidhar, N. Pandey, and V. Aggarwal. Spoken english grading: Machine learning with crowd intelligence. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 2089--2097. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. R. Singh, S. Gulwani, and A. Solar-Lezama. Automated feedback generation for introductory programming assignments. In ACM SIGPLAN Notices, volume 48, pages 15--26. ACM, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. V. Southavilay, K. Yacef, P. Reimann, and R. A. Calvo. Analysis of collaborative writing processes using revision maps and probabilistic topic models. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, pages 38--47. ACM, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. S. Srikant and V. Aggarwal. A system to grade computer programming skills using machine learning. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 1887--1896. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. S. Thrun. Is learning the n-th thing any easier than learning the first? Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 640--646, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. C. Vleuten, G. Norman, and E. Graaff. Pitfalls in the pursuit of objectivity: issues of reliability. Medical education, 25(2):110--118, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Question Independent Grading using Machine Learning: The Case of Computer Program Grading

                  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