Improving Integrity in CS1 Course Using Formative Assessment and Version Control Tools

Abstract

There are many grey areas in the interpretation of academic integrity in the course on Introduction to Programming, commonly known as CS1. Copying, for example, is a method of learning, a method of cheating and a reuse method in professional practice. Many institutions in India publish the code in the lab course manual. The students are expected to practice the programs in the manual and write them in the final examination without looking at the reference code. Many institutions apportion some marks for copying the program from the manual to record books. The system thus, inherently encourages copying. The student listens to the program’s explanation in the lecture, practices the same program in the lab, writes the same program in the record book and again studies the same program for the final examination conducted at the end of the semester. This process facilitates students, to some extent, to understand the concepts. However, a significant disadvantage of this system is that most students do not acquire the ability to write programs for authentic tasks. In the context of very rigid laboratory protocols that exist in CS1 courses across most of the Institutes in India, an additional lab protocol that focuses on students’ integrity can potentially improve the quality of learning. This article presents a method of using technology tools to improve integrity without disturbing the existing system.

Keywords

CS1 integrity programming course

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

L. W.

, & Krathwohl

D. R.

(Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives . Longman.

Bennedsen

, & Caspersen

M. E.

(2019). Failure rates in introductory programming: 12 years later. ACM In roads , 10(2), 30–36.

Bertram Gallant

(2017). Academic integrity as a teaching & learning issue: From theory to practice. Theory into Practice , 56(2), 88–94.

Bjælde

O. E.

, Jørgensen

T. H.

, & Lindberg

A. B.

(2017). Continuous assessment in higher education in Denmark. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift , 12(23), 1–19.

Carroll

J. B.

(1989). The Carroll model: A 25-year retrospective and prospective view. Educational Researcher , 18(1), 26–31.

de Kereki

I. F.

(2017). Detecting academic misconduct in introductory computer science courses [Conference proceedings]. 3rd Conference on Plagiarism Across Europe and Beyond, Czech Republic. https://academicintegrity.eu/conference/proceedings/2017/Kereki_Detecting.pdf

Delacre

, Lakens

, & Leys

(2017). Why psychologists should by default use Welch’s t-test instead of student’s t-test. International Review of Social Psychology , 30(1), 92–101.

Domĺnguez

, Jaime

, Heras

, & Garc´ıa-Izquierdo

F. J.

(2019). The effects of adding non-compulsory exercises to an online learning tool on student performance and code copying. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) , 19(3), 1–22.

Fishman

(2014). The fundamental values of academic integrity . International Center for Academic Integrity, Clemson University.

10.

Glassy

(2006). Using version control to observe student software development processes. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges , 21(3), 99–106.

11.

Halak

, & El-Hajjar

(2016). Plagiarism detection and prevention techniques in engineering education [Conference proceedings]. 2016 11th European Workshop on Microelectronics Education, (EWME), Southampton, United Kingdom.

12.

Heckman

, & King

(2018). Developing software engineering skills using real tools for automated grading [Conference proceedings]. Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Baltimore, MD, USA.

13.

Luxton-Reilly

(2016). Learning to program is easy [Conference proceedings]. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Arequipa, Peru.

14.

Murdock

T. B.

, & Anderman

E. M.

(2006). Motivational perspectives on student cheating: Toward an integrated model of academic dishonesty. Educational Psychologist , 41(3), 129–145.

15.

Pawelczak

(2018). Benefits and drawbacks of source code plagiarism detection in engineering education [Conference proceedings]. 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain.

16.

Pintrich

P. R.

(2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). Elsevier.

17.

Robins

, Rountree

, & Rountree

(2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education , 13(2), 137–172.

18.

Sheard

, Morgan

, Petersen

, Settle

, Sinclair

, Cross

, & Riedesel

(2016). Negotiating the maze of academic integrity in computing education [Conference proceedings]. ITiCSE '16: Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Conference 2016. Arequipa, Peru.

19.

Smith

P. P.

(2005). Techniques of assessment pertinent to computer programming courses. In 38th instruction and computing symposium. University of Wisconsin.

20.

Vihavainen

, Paksula

, & Luukkainen

(2011). Extreme apprenticeship method in teaching programming for beginners [Conference proceedings]. Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Dallas, TX, USA.

21.

Zander

, Eckerdal

, McCartney

, Mostrom

J. E.

, Sanders

, & Thomas

(2019). Copying can be good: How instructors use imitation in teaching programming [Conference proceedings]. Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.