publish 2016_SIGSCE_poster

.gitignore

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+.DS_Store
+
+*.aux
+*.lof
+*.log
+*.lot
+*.fls
+*.out
+*.toc
+*.fmt
+
+*.synctex
+*.synctex.gz

2016_SIGCSE_poster_wong_et_al/source/Poster.tex

@@ -0,0 +1,255 @@
+%% Use the hmcposter class with the clinic document-class option.
+\documentclass[thesis]{hmcposter}
+\usepackage{graphicx}
+\usepackage{natbib}
+\usepackage{booktabs}
+\usepackage{subfig}
+\usepackage{amsmath}
+\usepackage{textcomp}
+\usepackage{url}
+
+\usepackage{verbatim}
+
+%% For a Clinic poster, there is no author (the author is the team).
+
+%% Project Year.
+%% The year is provided using the \year command.
+\posteryear{2016}
+
+%% Project Title.
+%% The title of the poster should probably be the name of your
+%% Clinic project.
+%\title{User Experience and Feedback on the RPI Homework Submission Server}
+\title{User Experience and Feedback on the\\
+\vspace{-0.1in}
+RPI Homework Submission Server}
+%\author{Andrea Wong, Beverly Sihsobhon, Melissa Lindquist, Matt Peveler, Barbara Cutler, 
+%Samuel Breese, Eric Tran, Joe Jung, Ben Shaw}
+\author{Andrea Wong, Beverly Sihsobhon, Melissa Lindquist, Matthew Peveler, Barbara Cutler, \\
+\vspace{-0.7in}
+Samuel Breese, Eric Tran, Joe Jung, Ben Shaw}
+
+%%somehow cram names of the people going in under the title
+
+%% Sponsor's Logo.
+%% The name (base name only; no extension) of an image file with
+%% the sponsor's logo.  Ideally, you'll have a PDF version that is
+%% resolution-independent.  If not, you'll need a high-resolution
+%% PNG file to allow us to print it at a large size without the
+%% image becoming blurred.
+\classlogo{lgplogo2cm}
+
+%% Optional -- if your sponsor's logo looks too small or too big,
+%% you can adjust its width with the \sponsorlogowidth command.
+%% (The height of the logo image is automatically adjusted to
+%% preserve the image's aspect ratio.)
+%%
+%% Note that the argument must be a TeX length; for example, 3in,
+%% 5cm, 120pt, etc.  The default width is 2in.
+\classlogowidth{2in}
+
+
+%% Optional -- if your sponsor is hot about their intellectual
+%% property and insists on having a copyright statement on the
+%% poster, you can use the \copyrightholder command to supply a
+%% name for a copyright holder for your poster.
+% \copyrightholder{Sponsoring Corporation, Inc.}
+
+\raggedcolumns
+
+%% Define the \BibTeX command, used in our example document.
+\providecommand{\bibtex}{{\rmfamily B\kern-.05em%
+    \textsc{i\kern-.025em b}\kern-.08em%
+    T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}}
+
+
+\pagestyle{fancy}
+
+\begin{document}
+
+\begin{poster}
+
+\section{1. Introduction}
+% Note that we're not labeling sections because you shouldn't be
+% doing a lot of referring back and forth in your poster---let the
+% interested folks read your thesis or Clinic report, or ask
+% questions.
+
+The Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) Homework Submission Server
+is an ongoing project of the Rensselaer Center for Open Source
+Software (RCOS). The system collects, compiles, and automatically
+grades the programming homeworks for students in our introductory,
+sophomore, and upper division computer science classes.  Our research
+has found that an electronic submission server is the preferred way
+for students to submit their coding homeworks because it provides
+immediate feedback about the correctness of their code and ensures
+fair and consistent grading across all students in the course.
+
+\begin{center}
+\includegraphics[width=12in]{HSS_prog_lang}
+\end{center}
+
+\begin{center}
+    \includegraphics[width=12in]{PartialCredit}
+\end{center}
+
+
+
+
+\columnbreak
+
+\section{2. System Features}%
+
+
+\begin{itemize}
+    \item Website for students to submit assignments and view results
+    \item Automated testing and grading with immediate feedback
+    \item View TA grade and comments on each homework
+    \item Ability to make multiple submissions to the same homework
+    \item Server accepts single file, zip file, or SVN repository submissions
+    \item Highlight differences in the output produced by student's code \\ vs. the expected output
+\end{itemize}
+
+\begin{center}
+\includegraphics[width=5.8in]{CompilationError}%
+\hfill
+\includegraphics[width=5.8in]{AllCorrect}%
+\end{center}
+
+
+
+
+ \begin{itemize}   
+    \item Instructors create and configure assignments for grading \\ and
+customize their ``late day'' policy
+    \item Website for TAs to view and grade student submissions
+    \item Reduces manual TA grading - TAs do not have to manually  \\ download, build, compile, \& test submissions
+    \item TAs do not have to track administrative details concerning \\ assignments (late day penalties, extensions for illness, etc.)
+    \item TAs provide grades and written feedback on software quality of student homework submissions 
+    \item TAs enter lab checkpoints, quiz, and test grades to the database
+\end{itemize}
+
+    \begin{center}
+        \includegraphics[width=12in]{tagrading_screenshot}
+    \end{center}
+
+
+\columnbreak
+
+\section{3. Performance \& Robustness}%
+    \begin{itemize}
+        \item Multiple submissions and immediate feedback allow for an \\ interactive learning environment
+        \item Ensures consistency and fairness in grading for students
+        \item Little to no down time of server
+        \item Runs multiple homeworks in parallel for efficient grading
+        \item Server is robust - some numbers:
+          \begin{itemize}
+            \item 7 active courses 
+            \item 14 weeks of server logs
+            \item dozens of instructors \& TAs
+            \item more than 1,500 students
+            \item over 77,000 total submissions
+    \end{itemize}
+    \end{itemize}
+
+\begin{center}
+\includegraphics[width=12in]{avg_sub_wait_time}
+\end{center}
+
+\begin{center}
+\includegraphics[width=12in]{stacked_bar_graph}
+%\includegraphics[width=12in]{loadperclass}
+\end{center}
+
+\columnbreak
+
+\section{4. Survey of Students}%
+%%graphs of the responses to survey questions
+%%graphs of the advantages/disadvantages from survey
+\begin{itemize}
+    \item In mid Fall 2015, we surveyed students and TAs of the three largest courses using the server
+    \item We received $\sim$400 responses from approximately 850 students
+\end{itemize}
+
+\begin{comment}
+  Also received some points of criticism including:
+    \begin{enumerate}
+        \item "My code runs on my machine but not on the server!"
+        \item How picky the server is about whitespace when comparing student and expected output
+        \item Students thought run-time/compiler error messages were confusing or not helpful
+    \end{enumerate}
+\end{comment}
+
+
+\begin{center}
+\includegraphics[width=11in]{Advantages}
+\label{fig:advantages}
+
+\vspace{0.1in}
+
+\includegraphics[width=11in]{Disadvantages}
+\label{fig:disadvantages}
+\end{center}
+
+\vspace{-0.2in}
+
+\section{5. Security}
+    \begin{itemize}
+        \item Database access done through the \textit{PDO library} which protects against malicious and malformed inputs
+        \item 
+
+Instructor configures appropriate \textit{resource limits} (GNU Linux {\tt rlimit}) to
+{\em sandbox} testing of electronically-submitted student code and prevent issues like infinite loops, runaway output, and \\ excessive use of other system resources 
+
+        \item Before running the student code, we switch from a privileged \\ system user to an untrusted user using GNU Linux {\tt setresuid}
+        \item Careful design of file and directory permissions and database access maintains confidentiality of student work and grades
+        \item Uses {\em secure computing mode} (GNU Linux {\tt seccomp}) to prevent use of sockets, fork, and other unnecessary system calls by student code
+    \end{itemize}
+
+\columnbreak
+
+\section{6. Open Source Software}
+    \begin{itemize}
+        \item Advantages over proprietary software: \\
+Free to use, no subscription required, no third-party data collection
+        \item Open source can be more reliable than closed source software
+        \item User interface can be improved and customized
+        \item Community helps maintain codebase
+        \item Improved security:  More people can study and test the software to find bugs and security vulnerabilities
+    \end{itemize}
+
+\section{7. History of the Project}%
+\begin{itemize}
+    \item Fall 2012: TA grading website started by TAs (closed source)
+    \item January 2014: RCOS students begin development of new system
+    \item Fall 2014: Rollout to first course (Data Structures)
+    \item Fall 2015: TA grading website made open source 
+    \item Used by: Computer Science I, Data Structures, Foundations of \\
+          Computer Science, Principles of Software, Programming \\ 
+          Languages, Operating Systems, Interactive Visualization, \\
+          Advanced Computer Graphics, Computational Vision, \\
+          Distributed Systems, and Database Systems
+\end{itemize}
+
+\section{8. Ongoing Work}%
+\begin{itemize}
+    \item Improve error and warning messages given to students
+    \item Improve partial credit awarded for minor whitespace differences
+    \item Generate and display submission statistics to the students
+    \item Continued penetration testing and security improvements
+    \item Improve the individual student summary grades table 
+    \item Add pdf and image viewer for TA grading
+    \item Expand system to additional courses in our department, to
+      other departments at RPI, and to other universities
+\end{itemize}
+
+\section{9. Acknowledgments}
+\begin{itemize}
+    \item Red Hat Software
+    \item Rensselaer Center for Open Source (RCOS)
+    \item  \url{https://github.com/RCOS-Grading-Server/HWserver}
+\end{itemize}
+
+\end{poster}
+
+\end{document}