An AI-based Approach for Grading Students’ Collaboration
Abstract
Soft skills (such as communication and collaboration) are rarely addressed in programming courses, mostly because they are difficult to teach, assess, and grade. A quantitative, modular, AI-based approach for assessing and grading students' collaboration has been examined in this article. The pedagogical underpinning of the approach includes a pedagogical framework and a quantitative soft skill assessment rubric, which have been adapted and used in an extracurricular Java programming course. The objective was to identify pros and cons of using different AI methods within this approach when it comes to assessing and grading collaboration in group programming projects. More specifically, fuzzy rules and several machine learning methods (ML onward) have been examined to see which one would yield the best results regarding performance, interpretability/explainability of recommendations, and feasibility/practicality. The data used for training and testing span four academic years, and the results suggest that almost all of the examined AI methods, when used within the proposed AI-based approach, can provide adequate grading recommendations as long as teachers cover other aspects of the assessment not covered by the rubrics: code quality, plagiarism, and project completion. The fuzzy-rule-based method requires time and effort to be spent on (manual) creation and tuning of fuzzy rules and sets, whereas the examined ML methods require lesser initial investments but do need historical…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
AI provides more efficient search results on websites to aid assessment and grading.
“For example, AI provides more efficient search results on websites to aid assessment and grading (Tomić et al., 2022).”
From The Future of Artificial Intelligence in Special Education Technology (2023) · cites this paper as Tomić et al., 2022
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Artificial intelligence in teaching and teacher professional development: A systematic review
Tan, X., Cheng, G., & Ling, M. H. (2025) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100355 · Cited by 420 · see citing works
The Future of Artificial Intelligence in Special Education Technology
Marino, M. T., Vasquez, E., Dieker, L., Basham, J., & Blackorby, J. (2023) · Journal of Special Education Technology · doi:10.1177/01626434231165977 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
Higher Education's Generative Artificial Intelligence Paradox: The Meaning of Chatbot Mania
Rudolph, J., Mohamed Ismail, F. M., & Popenici, S. (2024) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/54fs5e77 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
- Authors
- Tomić, B. B., Kijevčanin, A. D., Ševarac, Z. V., & Jovanović, J. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Belgrade (RS)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies
- Published
- 2023-06-01
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 292-305
- ISSN
- 1939-1382 (ISSN-L)
- 2372-0050
- OpenAlex
- W4312698874
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 4
- FWCI
- 5.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies (publishedVersion)
- Repository of the University of Belgrade Faculty of Organizational Sciences (RFOS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Keywords
- soft skills, programming education, assessment rubrics, Java programming course
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