TY - GEN
T1 - A validated scoring rubric for explain-in-plain-english questions
AU - Chen, Binglin
AU - Azad, Sushmita
AU - Haldar, Rajarshi
AU - West, Matthew
AU - Zilles, Craig
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
PY - 2020/2/26
Y1 - 2020/2/26
N2 - Previous research has identified the ability to read code and understand its high-level purpose as an important developmental skill that is harder to do (for a given piece of code) than executing code in one's head for a given input (code tracing), but easier to do than writing the code. Prior work involving code reading (Explain in plain English) problems, have used a scoring rubric inspired by the SOLO taxonomy, but we found it difficult to employ because it didn't adequately handle the three dimensions of answer quality: correctness, level of abstraction, and ambiguity. In this paper, we describe a 7-point rubric that we developed for scoring student responses to Explain in plain English questions, and we validate this rubric through four means. First, we find that the scale can be reliably applied with with a median Krippendorff's alpha (inter-rater reliability) of 0.775. Second, we report on an experiment to assess the validity of our scale. Third, we find that a survey consisting of 12 code reading questions had a high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.954). Last, we find that our scores for code reading questions in a large enrollment (N = 452) data structures course are correlated (Pearson's R = 0.555) to code writing performance to a similar degree as found in previous work.
AB - Previous research has identified the ability to read code and understand its high-level purpose as an important developmental skill that is harder to do (for a given piece of code) than executing code in one's head for a given input (code tracing), but easier to do than writing the code. Prior work involving code reading (Explain in plain English) problems, have used a scoring rubric inspired by the SOLO taxonomy, but we found it difficult to employ because it didn't adequately handle the three dimensions of answer quality: correctness, level of abstraction, and ambiguity. In this paper, we describe a 7-point rubric that we developed for scoring student responses to Explain in plain English questions, and we validate this rubric through four means. First, we find that the scale can be reliably applied with with a median Krippendorff's alpha (inter-rater reliability) of 0.775. Second, we report on an experiment to assess the validity of our scale. Third, we find that a survey consisting of 12 code reading questions had a high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.954). Last, we find that our scores for code reading questions in a large enrollment (N = 452) data structures course are correlated (Pearson's R = 0.555) to code writing performance to a similar degree as found in previous work.
KW - Code reading
KW - Cs1
KW - Experience report
KW - Reliability
KW - Validity
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85081638251&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85081638251&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1145/3328778.3366879
DO - 10.1145/3328778.3366879
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:85081638251
T3 - SIGCSE 2020 - Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
SP - 563
EP - 569
BT - SIGCSE 2020 - Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
T2 - 51st ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE 2020
Y2 - 11 March 2020 through 14 March 2020
ER -