The development of computational thinking is a major topic in K-12 education. Many of these experiences focus on teaching programming using block-based languages. As part of these activities, it is important for students to receive feedback on their assignments. Yet, in practice it may be difficult to provide personalized, objective and consistent feedback. In this context, automatic assessment and grading has become important. While there exist diverse graders for text-based languages, support for block-based programming languages is still scarce. This article presents CodeMaster, a free web application that in a problem-based learning context allows to automatically assess and grade projects programmed with App Inventor and Snap!. It uses a rubric measuring computational thinking based on a static code analysis. Students can use the tool to get feedback to encourage them to improve their programming competencies. It can also be used by teachers for assessing whole classes easing their workload.
The Lithuanian Informatics Olympiad is a problem solving contest for high school students. The work of each contestant is evaluated in terms of several criteria, where each criterion is measured according to its own scale (but the same scale for each contestant). Several jury members are involved in the evaluation. This paper analyses the problem how to calculate the aggregated score for whole submission in the above mentioned situation. The chosen methodology for solving this problem is Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). The outcome of this paper is the score aggregation method proposed to be applied in LitIO developed using MCDA approaches.
The Lithuanian Informatics Olympiads (LitIO) is a problem solving programming contest for students in secondary education. The work of the student to be evaluated is an algorithm designed by the student and implemented as a working program. The current evaluation process involves both automated (for correctness and performance of programs with the given input data) and manual (for programming style, written motivation of an algorithm) grading. However, it is based on tradition and has not been scientifically discussed and motivated. To create an improved and motivated evaluation model, we put together a questionnaire and asked a group of foreign and Lithuanian experts having experience in various informatics contests to respond. We identified two basic directions in the suggested evaluation models and made a choice based on the goals of LitIO. While designing the model in the paper, we reflected on the suggestions and opinions of the experts as much as possible, even if they were not included into the proposed model. The paper presents the final outcome of this work, the proposed evaluation model for the Lithuanian Informatics Olympiads.
The paper describes some possible ways how to improve Olympiads in Informatics. Tasks in Olympiads are small models of programming tasks in software industry and in the limited amount of competition time contestants need to complete several software production phases - coding, testing and debugging. Currently, only coding effort is adequately graded, but grading of other activities may be improved. Ways to involve contestants in overall testing process are investigated and ways to improve solution debugging process are described. Possible scoring schemas are discussed. In International Olympiads tasks with real numbers are quite rare. Possible reasons are investigated and a way how to return such tasks back to competition arena is suggested.