Cited by 11Teaching and Learning ProgrammingEducational Technology and AssessmentSoftware Engineering Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Smart generation of code tracing questions for assessment in introductory programming

Stankov, Emil, Jovanov, Mile, Madevska Bogdanova, Ana·2023·Computer Applications in Engineering Education

Abstract

Teaching programming is a challenging activity nowadays, especially in introductory programming courses, which are typically massively attended. Writing functional programs is a cognitive skill, which many students, novices in programming, find it difficult to master. It is equally challenging to assess this ability of students. Research has shown that students need to learn how to read and understand, before they can learn to write programs. Code tracing questions are a suitable way to assess the knowledge of semantics of programming constructs (understanding what programs do). However, when designing these types of questions, teachers need to be aware of the complexity of the code and must always try to create questions with code snippets of same or similar complexity, especially when preparing different versions of the same test (for large student groups). In this paper we propose a new model for smart automatic generation of code tracing questions. The model uses a suitable source code metric to measure the code complexity, and to enable generation of questions containing code snippets of consistent complexity. We also introduce CodeCPP: a newly developed Moodle plugin, which is an implementation of the proposed model. The evaluation of CodeCPP, through a year‐long use of the system in teaching programming as well as feedback from selected teachers with many years of experience in teaching programming courses, shows positive and promising results. The system utilization confirms that the application of the proposed model enables a fair and objective knowledge assessment. Furthermore, the feedback provided by teachers and students is highly positive.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cae.22567

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. 10.1145/3088245 · DOI
  2. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018, Assessing and responding to the growth of computer science undergraduate enrollments
  3. Sprinthall R. C., 1998, Educational psychology: A developmental approach
  4. 10.1080/08993400500150747 · DOI
  5. 10.1145/971300.971375 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1145/1709424.1709460 · DOI
  7. 10.15837/ijccc.2011.4.2094 · DOI
  8. 10.1145/1041624.1041673 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1080/08993408.2010.509097 · DOI
  10. K.Cunningham S.Blanchard B.Ericson andM.Guzidal Using tracing and sketching to solve programming problems: Replicating and extending an analysis of what students draw Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’17) 2017 pp.164–172.https://doi.org/10.1145/3105726.3106190 · DOI
  11. C.Izu C.Schulte A.Aggarwal Q.Cutts R.Duran M.Gutica B.Heinemann E.Kraemer V.Lonati C.Mirolo andR.Weeda Fostering program comprehension in novice programmers—learning activities and learning trajectories Proceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE – WGR ’19) 2019 27–52.https://doi.org/10.1145/3344429.3372501 · DOI
  12. A. N.Kumar Solving code‐tracing problems and its effect on code‐writing skills pertaining to program semantics Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’15) 2015 pp.314–319.https://doi.org/10.1145/2729094.2742587 · DOI
  13. M.Lopez J.Whalley P.Robbins andR.Lister Relationships between reading tracing and writing skills in introductory programming Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ’08) 2008 pp.101–112.https://doi.org/10.1145/1404520.1404531 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Bloom B. S., 1956, Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook I: Cognitive domain
  15. 10.1007/s40593-019-00186-y · DOI · Paper page
  16. A. W.Rhodes K.Bower andP.Bancroft Managing large class assessment Proceedings of the 6th Australasian Conference on Computing Education vol. 30 Australian Computer Society Darlinghurst Australia 2004 pp.285–289.
  17. 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00363.x · DOI
  18. 10.1145/1163405.1163411 · DOI
  19. M.Jovanov B.Kostadinov andE.Stankov A new design of a system for contest management and grading in informatics competitions Web Proceedings of the ICT Innovations Conference2010 pp.87–96. https://proceedings.ictinnovations.org/2010/paper/255/a-new-design-of-a-system-for-contest-management-and-grading-in-informatics-competitions
  20. Maggiolo S., 2012, Introducing CMS: A contest management system, J. Olymp. in Inform, 6, 86
  21. 10.1145/1595496.1562930 · DOI
  22. 10.1017/9781316480748 · DOI
  23. A.Thomas T.Stopera P.Frank‐Bolton andR.Simha.Stochastic tree‐based generation of program‐tracing practice questions Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education 2019 pp.91–97.https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287492 · DOI
  24. N.SinghalandA. N.Kumar Facilitating problem‐solving on nested selection statements using C/C++ Proceedings of the 30th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference vol. 1 IEEE 2000 pp.T4C/1‐T4C/6.https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2000.897662 · DOI
  25. G.DancikandA. N.Kumar A tutor for counter‐controlled loop concepts and its evaluation Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Frontiers in Education Conference vol. 1 IEEE 2003 pp.T3C–7.https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2003.1263331 · DOI
  26. 10.1145/544414.544464 · DOI
  27. D.Traynor S.Bergin andJ.Paul Gibson Automated assessment in CS1 Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education vol. 52 Australian Computer Society Darlinghurst Australia 2006 pp.223–228.
  28. D. M.Hoffman M.Lu andT.Pelton A web‐based generation and delivery system for active code reading Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’11) 2011 pp.483–488.https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953301 · DOI
  29. 10.1145/331795.331843 · DOI
  30. 10.1145/343048.343157 · DOI
  31. 10.1145/1163405.1163412 · DOI
  32. 10.1145/1151954.1067522 · DOI
  33. I.‐H.Hsiao P.Brusilovsky andS.Sosnovsky Web‐based parameterized questions for object‐oriented programming Proceedings of E‐Learn 2008—the World Conference on E‐Learning in Corporate Government Healthcare and Higher Education (C.Bonk M.Lee andT.Reynolds eds.) Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) San Diego CA USA 2008 pp.3728–3735.
  34. L.ZavalaandB.Mendoza On the use of semantic‐based AIG to automatically generate programming exercises Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education 2018 pp.14–19.https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159608 · DOI
  35. 10.24032/ijeacs/0101/03 · DOI
  36. Chitti Babu P., 2013, Software complexity metrics: A survey, Int. J. Adv. Res. in Comp. Sci. and Soft. Eng, 3, 1359
  37. 10.7763/IJCCE.2013.V2.154 · DOI
  38. E.Stankov A.Madevska Bogdanova B.Ilijoski andM.Jovanov A survey on software complexity metrics in the context of their application in educational environment Proceedings of the 12th annual International Technology Education and Development Conference (INTED 2018) IATED 2018 pp.9395–9404.https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2018.2325 · DOI
  39. E.Stankov M.Jovanov K.Gjorgjiev andA.Madevska Bogdanova A new tool for calculation of a new source code metric Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Informatics and Information Technology (CiiT 2015) 2015 25–30.
  40. E.Stankov M.Jovanov andA.Madevska Bogdanova Improved approach for measuring complexity of code snippets for introductory programming tasks Proceedings of the 10th annual International Conference of Education Research and Innovation (ICERI 2017) IATED 2017 5892–5899.https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2017.1549 · DOI
  41. 10.4018/jssci.2009040103 · DOI
  42. Hill P., 2017, Academic LMS market share: A view across four global regions, e‐Literate
  43. 10.1145/155360.155580 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 11

Metadata

Authors
Stankov, E., Jovanov, M., & Madevska Bogdanova, A.
Affiliations
  • Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje (MK)
  • Faculty of Computer Science and Engineering Ss. Cyril and Methodius University Skopje Macedonia
Corresponding author
Stankov, Emil
Venue
Computer Applications in Engineering Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-09-19
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
5-25
ISSN
  • 1061-3773 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0542
OpenAlex
W4296448535
Cited by
11
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3
FWCI
2.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Computer Applications in Engineering Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
Keywords
automatic question generation, introductory programming, programming assessment, code complexity metrics, source code metrics, Moodle plugin, novice programmers, test fairness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Smart generation of code tracing questions for assessment in introductory programming. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cae.22567
The paper
Stankov, E., Jovanov, M., & Madevska Bogdanova, A. (2023). Smart generation of code tracing questions for assessment in introductory programming. Computer Applications in Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22567