arXiv subjects

Geoffrey Challen

Publications and source records attributed to Geoffrey Challen.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Implementation of Split Deadlines in a Large CS1 Course

Office hour utilization in computer science courses can spike near deadlines, producing long wait times, frustrated students, and overworked staff. To address this problem, a large CS1 course implemented a split deadlines policy. Students were randomly divided into two groups with staggered release and due dates. Each group had the same amount of time to complete assignments, but the number of students with each due date was reduced by half. Our study evaluates the effectiveness of this policy. We measure office hour utilization and staff efficiency near deadlines, examine the policy's impact on student performance, and investigate student perception of the policy's fairness and effectiveness. Overall we found that the split deadline policy increased office hour efficiency, resulted in no significant difference in performance between groups, and was considered fair and effective by most students. Our experience report includes reflections and student feedback indicating how to implement and further improve similar policies.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Investigating the Presence and Development of Student Instructor Preferences in a Large-Scale CS1 Course

Prior research has established the importance of student instructor preferences and identified various influencing factors. However, the dynamics of how student instructor preferences develop and change are less well understood, due to the limitations of common course structures and reliance on one-time measurements. To bridge this gap, we utilize data from a novel learning platform that provides students with access to instructional content created by multiple instructors. This platform enables the quantification of preference emergence and evolution throughout an entire semester, as students repeatedly select content from different instructors. Examining both initial and final student instructor preferences suggests that preference is a dynamic construct continually shaped by experiences. Furthermore, our analysis of the associations between preferences and student characteristics reveals a nuanced picture: while student attributes did not significantly correlate with initial preferences, substantial differences emerged in final preferences across genders and self-reported prior programming experience. This analysis contributes to the existing body of knowledge by expanding our understanding of student instructor preferences and student-instructor relationships in computer science education. We also provide practical insights that institutions and instructors can draw on when multiple instructors collaborate on a course.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Accelerating Accurate Assignment Authoring Using Solution-Generated Autograders

Students learning to program benefit from access to large numbers of practice problems. Autograders are commonly used to support programming questions by providing quick feedback on submissions. But authoring accurate autograders remains challenging. Autograders are frequently created by enumerating test cases--a tedious process that can produce inaccurate autograders that fail to correctly classify submissions. When authoring accurate autograders is slow, it is difficult to create large banks of practice problems to support beginning programmers. We present solution-generated autograding: a faster, more accurate, and more enjoyable way to create autograders. Our approach leverages a key difference between software testing and autograding: The question author can provide a solution. By starting with a solution, we can eliminate the need to manually enumerate test cases, validate the autograder's accuracy, and evaluate other aspects of submission code quality beyond behavioral correctness. We describe Questioner, an implementation of solution-generated autograding for Java and Kotlin, and share experiences from four years using Questioner to support a large CS1 course: authoring nearly 800 programming questions used by thousands of students to evaluate millions of submissions.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2019

Lessons from Four Years of PHONELAB Experimentation

Over the last four years we have operated a public smartphone platform testbed called PHONELAB. PHONELAB consists of up to several-hundred participants who run an experimental platform image on their primary smartphone. The experimental platform consists of both instrumentation and experimental changes to platform components, including core Android services and Linux. This paper describes the design of the testbed, the process of conducting PHONELAB experiments, and some of the research the testbed has supported. We also offer many lessons learned along the way, almost all of which have been learned the hard way--through trial and a lot of error. We expect our experiences will help those contemplating operating large user-facing testbeds, anyone conducting experiments on smartphones, and many mobile systems researchers.

cs.NI↗

arXiv2018

VeriFi: Model-Driven Runtime Verification Framework for Wireless Protocol Implementations

Validating wireless protocol implementations is challenging. Today's approaches require labor-intensive experimental setup and manual trace investigation, but produce poor coverage and inaccurate and irreproducible results. We present VERIFI, the first systematic sniffer-based, model-guided runtime verification framework for wireless protocol implementations. VERIFI takes a formal model of the protocol being verified as input. To achieve good coverage, it first applies state reachability analysis by applying model checking techniques. It then uses a new PACKETSNIPER component to selectively trigger packet losses required to quickly investigate all reachable protocol states. Our results show that the selective packet jamming allows VERIFI to significantly improve the coverage of protocol states. Finally, VERIFI accommodates uncertainty caused by the sniffer when validating traces, allowing it to provide accurate and reproducible results. By modeling uncertainty, VERIFI highlights likely protocol violations for developers to examine.

cs.NI↗