Timeline for Grading programming exercises: the quality vs. originality paradox
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 7, 2022 at 21:55 | vote | accept | Erel Segal-Halevi | ||
| Jan 12, 2022 at 12:02 | comment | added | Fureeish |
"After all, in the real world, collaboration is expected and the quality of the product is paramount. In an educational environment, it is the learning that is paramount, not the product. Students don't always understand that you didn't ask them to do something because you want the result. After all, you could have produced it yourself much more easily." - I really wish StackOverflow would understand that. There are quite a few good quality questions which explain that OP can't use feature X and SO generally goes crazy about how dumb teachers are for forbidding using particular tools.
|
|
| Jan 12, 2022 at 10:59 | comment | added | Erel Segal-Halevi | I do not want to forbid collaboration altogether. I just want to reward students who did a larger effort to solve the exercise on their own. The idea of "extensions" seems very useful. I can design an exercise with 80% "fixed part" (e.g. write a binary tree class) and 20% "variable part" (e.g. write a function that prints out the tree in a nice format). Since 'nice' format is subjective, I can expect to have more originality (of course, the variable part cannot be graded automatically, only during the interview). | |
| Jan 11, 2022 at 20:55 | history | edited | Buffy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 617 characters in body
|
| Jan 11, 2022 at 20:08 | history | answered | Buffy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |