The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Automatic graders for programming classes
Open accessAbstract
Fifteen months ago the first version of an “automatic grader” was tried with a group of twenty students taking a formal course in programming. The first group of twenty programs took only five minutes on the computer (an IBM 650). With such a satisfactory beginning, the grader was then used for the entire course with this group of students and have been used at Rensselaer ever since. For all exercises, the average time spent on the computer has run from half a minute to a minute for each student. In general only an eighth as much computer time is required when the grader is used as is required when each student is expected to run his own program, probably less than a third as much staff time, and considerably less student time. The grader easily justifies itself on economic grounds. It accomplishes more than savings in time and money; it makes possible the teaching of programming to large numbers of students. This spring we had 80 students taking a full semester course in programming; over 120 are expected next spring. We could not accommodate such numbers without the use of the grader. Even though the grader makes the teaching of programming to large numbers of students possible and economically feasible, a most serious question remains, how well did the students learn? After fifteen months, our experience leads us to believe that students learn programming not only as well but probably better than they did under the method we did use—laboratory groups of four or five students. They are not as skilled in machine operation, however, since they get only a brief introduction to it late in the course. After learning programming, very little time is needed for each student to become at least an adequate machine operator. Students seem to like the grader and are not reluctant to suggest improvements!
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Automatic test-based assessment of programming: A review
Douce, C., Livingstone, D., & Orwell, J. (2005) · Journal on Educational Resources in Computing · doi:10.1145/1163405.1163409 · Cited by 416
Automated Grading and Feedback Tools for Programming Education: A Systematic Review
Messer, M., Brown, N. C. C., Kölling, M., & Shi, M. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Computing Education · doi:10.1145/3636515 · Cited by 262
Metacognitive Difficulties Faced by Novice Programmers in Automated Assessment Tools
Prather, J., Pettit, R., McMurry, K., Peters, A., Homer, J., & Cohen, M. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research · doi:10.1145/3230977.3230981 · Cited by 129
Assessing student perceptions and use of instructor versus AI ‐generated feedback
Er, E., Akçapınar, G., Bayazıt, A., Noroozi, O., & Banihashem, S. K. (2025) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13558 · Cited by 114
An AI-Based System for Formative and Summative Assessment in Data Science Courses
Vittorini, P., Menini, S., & Tonelli, S. (2021) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-020-00230-2 · Cited by 105
Metadata
- Authors
- Hollingsworth, J.
- Venue
- Communications of the ACM
- Published
- 1960-10
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 528-529
- ISSN
- 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7317
- OpenAlex
- W2010775113
- Cited by
- 230
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Automatic graders for programming classes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/367415.367422
- The paper
- Hollingsworth, J. (1960). Automatic graders for programming classes. Communications of the ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/367415.367422
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.