This program is tentative and subject to change.

Manually grading free response questions remains a persistent challenge in education. While such questions offer valuable opportunities for student learning and critical thinking, their evaluation often requires substantial time and effort from instructors or teaching assistants. In addition to the grading workload, open-ended responses are susceptible to inconsistencies in scoring and may reflect unclear expectations, both of which can undermine the effectiveness and fairness of the assessment process.

To address these challenges, we employed an AI-based grading system integrated in PrairieLearn to automatically evaluate student submissions to free response questions using a predefined set of rubric items. This approach not only streamlines the grading process but also enables direct comparison between AI-generated rubric applications and human judgments, providing insight into alignment and potential discrepancies. These discrepancies provided valuable insight, allowing us to iteratively revise and clarify the rubric items. Our experiences with using the AI grading system across several computing courses suggest that even experienced educators face difficulties articulating rubrics that are both specific and interpretable. We furthermore argue that more attention should be given to the iterative development and evaluation of rubrics.

This program is tentative and subject to change.

Thu 19 Feb

Displayed time zone: Central Time (US & Canada) change

10:40 - 12:00
Automated Content Generation and GradingPapers at Meeting Room 105
10:40
20m
Talk
AI-Supported Grading and Rubric Refinement for Free Response Questions
Papers
Victor Zhao University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Max Fowler University of Illinois, Yael Gertner University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Seth Poulsen Utah State University, Matthew West University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign , Mariana Silva University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
11:00
20m
Talk
Creating Exercises with Generative AI for Teaching Introductory Secure Programming: Are We There Yet?
Papers
Leo St. Amour Virginia Tech, Eli Tilevich Virginia Tech
11:20
20m
Talk
Improving LLM-Generated Educational Content: A Case Study on Prototyping, Prompt Engineering, and Evaluating a Tool for Generating Programming Problems for Data Science
Papers
Jiaen Yu University of California, San Diego, Ylesia Wu UC San Diego, Gabriel Cha University of California San Diego, Ayush Shah University of California San Diego, Sam Lau University of California at San Diego
11:40
20m
Talk
Measuring Students’ Perceptions of an Autograded Scaffolding Tool for Students Performing at All Levels in an Algorithms Class
Papers
Yael Gertner University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Brad Solomon University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Hongxuan Chen University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Eliot Robson University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Carl Evans University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Jeff Erickson University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign