Cited by 262Teaching and Learning ProgrammingSoftware Engineering ResearchEducational Technology and Assessment

Automated Grading and Feedback Tools for Programming Education: A Systematic Review

Open access
Messer, Marcus, Brown, Neil C. C., Kölling, Michael, Shi, Miaojing·2024·ACM Transactions on Computing Education

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

We conducted a systematic literature review on automated grading and feedback tools for programming education. We analysed 121 research papers from 2017 to 2021 inclusive and categorised them based on skills assessed, approach, language paradigm, degree of automation, and evaluation techniques. Most papers assess the correctness of assignments in object-oriented languages. Typically, these tools use a dynamic technique, primarily unit testing, to provide grades and feedback to the students or static analysis techniques to compare a submission with a reference solution or with a set of correct student submissions. However, these techniques’ feedback is often limited to whether the unit tests have passed or failed, the expected and actual output, or how they differ from the reference solution. Furthermore, few tools assess the maintainability, readability, or documentation of the source code, with most using static analysis techniques, such as code quality metrics, in conjunction with grading correctness. Additionally, we found that most tools offered fully automated assessment to allow for near-instantaneous feedback and multiple resubmissions, which can increase student satisfaction and provide them with more opportunities to succeed. In terms of techniques used to evaluate the tools’ performance, most papers primarily use student surveys or compare the automatic assessment tools to grades or feedback provided by human graders. However, because the evaluation dataset is frequently unavailable, it is more difficult to reproduce results and compare tools to a collection of common assignments.

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 · 10.1145/3636515

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • Automated grading tools can enhance student satisfaction by providing near-instantaneous feedback and multiple resubmission opportunities.

    “Messer, Brown [50] extend this by showing that automated grading tools can enhance student satisfaction by providing near-instantaneous feedback and multiple resubmission opportunities [50].”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 183 · Cited by 262

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. B. Kitchenham and S Charters. 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: December 2023.
  2. Marcus Messer. 2022. Automated Grading and Feedback Tools: A Systematic Review. (2022). doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/ VXTF9. · DOI
  3. Susanne Narciss. 2008. Feedback Strategies for Interactive Learning Tasks. Taylor and Francis, 125-143. doi: 10.4324 /9780203880869-13. · DOI
  4. Hsi-Min Chen, Wei-Han Chen, and Chi-Chen Lee. 2018. An automated assessment system for analysis of coding convention violations in java programming assignments*industry 4.0 view project an automated assessment system for analysis of coding convention violations in java programming assignments *. Journal of Information Science and Engineering, 34, 5, 1203-1221.
  5. Chih-Yueh Chou and Yan-Jhih Chen. 2021. Virtual teaching assistant for grading programming assignments: non- dichotomous pattern based program output matching and partial grading approach. In 2021 IEEE 4th International Conference on Knowledge Innovation and Invention (ICKII), 170-175. doi: 10.1109/ICKII51822.2021.9574713. · DOI
  6. Paul Denny, Jacqueline Whalley, and Juho Leinonen. 2021. Promoting early engagement with programming assignments using scheduled automated feedback. In Proceedings of the 23rd Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE '21). Association for Computing Machinery, Virtual, SA, Australia, 88-95. isbn: 9781450389761. doi: 10.1145/3441636.3442309. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Yu Dong, Jingyang Hou, and Xuesong Lu. 2020. An intelligent online judge system for programming training. In Database Systems for Advanced Applications. Yunmook Nah, Bin Cui, Sang-Won Lee, Jeffrey Xu Yu, Yang-Sae Moon, and Steven Euijong Whang, (Eds.) Springer International Publishing, Cham, 785-789. isbn: 978-3-030-59419-0. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-59419-0\_57. · DOI
  8. Julian Jansen, Ana Oprescu, and Magiel Bruntink. 2017. The impact of automated code quality feedback in program- ming education. In Post-proceedings of the Tenth Seminar on Advanced Techniques and Tools for Software Evolution (SATToSE). Vol. 210.
  9. Sagar Parihar, Ziyaan Dadachanji, Praveen Kumar Singh, Rajdeep Das, Amey Karkare, and Arnab Bhattacharya. 2017. Automatic grading and feedback using program repair for introductory programming courses. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE '17). Association for Computing Machinery, Bologna, Italy, 92-97. isbn: 9781450347044. doi: 10.1145/3059009.3059026. · DOI
  10. Chung Keung Poon, Tak-Lam Wong, Chung Man Tang, Jacky Kin Lun Li, Yuen Tak Yu, and Victor Chung Sing Lee. 2018. Automatic assessment via intelligent analysis of students' program output patterns. In Blended Learning. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: December 2023.
  11. Felipe Restrepo-Calle, Jhon J Ramírez-Echeverry, and Fabio A González. 2020. Using an interactive software tool for the formative and summative evaluation in a computer programming course: an experience report. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 22, 3, 174-185.
  12. Kevin Sendjaja, Satrio Adi Rukmono, and Riza Satria Perdana. 2021. Evaluating control-flow graph similarity for grading programming exercises. In 2021 International Conference on Data and Software Engineering (ICoDSE), 1-6. doi: 10.1109/ICoDSE53690.2021.9648464. · DOI
  13. Leo C. Ureel II and Charles Wallace. 2019. Automated critique of early programming antipatterns. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '19). Association for Computing Machinery, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 738-744. isbn: 9781450358903. doi: 10.1145/3287324.3287463. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: December 2023. · DOI
  14. A.6 Publications by Dataset Availability Dataset Availability References Unavailable [76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194] Available [74, 75, 99, 100, 112, 142, 175, 177, 185, 186] On Request [82, 95, 126, 140, 144, 149, 154, 170, 187] , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: December 2023.

Authors
Messer, M., Brown, N. C. C., Kölling, M., & Shi, M.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Tongji University (CN)
Venue
ACM Transactions on Computing Education
Published
2024-02-19
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
1-43
ISSN
1946-6226 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4381586920
Cited by
262
References
183
Citations by year
2026: 113 · 2025: 110 · 2024: 39
FWCI
11.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Transactions on Computing Education (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • EdArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
Keywords
automated grading, automated feedback, programming education, unit testing, static analysis, code quality metrics, object-oriented programming, student satisfaction, tool evaluation, reproducibility

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