CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.CYcs.AIcs.LG2026-07-21

Assessment in Team Problem-Solving Exercises in Computing Education

Valdemar Švábenský, Jan Vykopal, Sukrit Leelaluk, Pavel Čeleda, Fumiya Okubo, Atsushi Shimada

This full paper in the research-to-practice track presents methods for assessing student teams in tabletop exercises (TTXs). TTXs enable learner teams to prepare for workplace tasks and practice crisis responses, such as resolving cybersecurity incidents. While assessment is essential for determining how well teams achieve learning objectives, the complex, open-ended nature of TTXs often leads to delayed or incomplete feedback. TTX learning platforms can record teams' actions and communication; yet, leveraging these data to assess performance is underexplored. To address this gap, we compared two post-TTX team assessment methods -- clustering and large language models (LLMs) -- using an original dataset from 81 participants across two countries. We evaluated these methods against instructor-assigned scores based on standardized rubrics. Clustering grouped teams that approached TTX tasks similarly, enabling instructors to deliver faster, targeted feedback to teams within a cluster. This method was valid and reliable, with low computational requirements. LLMs used the standardized rubrics to assess teams' communication. While GPT-4o frequently disagreed with instructor scores, GPT-5.2 demonstrated considerably lower error. The researched methods have been integrated into INJECT, an open-source TTX learning platform, to support scalability and teaching practice. To encourage community adoption, we publicly share all datasets, software tools, and a full-fledged TTX scenario.

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.CLcs.AIcs.CYcs.LG2026-06-26

Cognitive Episodes in LLM Reasoning Traces Enable Interpretable Human Item Difficulty Prediction

Chenguang Wang, Ming Li, Xinyue Zeng, Zhuochun Li, Hong Jiao, Tianyi Zhou, et al.

Predicting human item difficulty is central to educational assessment, where reliable estimates support fairness and effective test construction. Existing methods often depend on costly human calibration or item-level textual representations, providing limited evidence about the…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.DLcs.AIcs.CYcs.LG2026-07-07

AAAI-26 Dual Submissions: Novel Challenges

Kiri L. Wagstaff, Joydeep Biswas, Erich Merrill, Bo An, Ida Camacho, David J. Crandall, et al.

Dual submissions, in which identical or substantially similar papers are simultaneously submitted to one or more archival venues, without cross-citation or disclosure, are a growing problem for the AAAI Conference and other scientific publication venues. These submissions increas…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CYcs.AIcs.CLcs.LG2026-07-18

A Method for Learning Value Systems in Generative AI

Andrés Holgado-Sánchez, Holger Billhardt, Sascha Ossowski

Value-aware AI systems require explicit computational representations of human values (groundings) and their aggregation into value systems in order to align their decisions with ours. As such representations are difficult to elicit, value learning seeks to infer them by observin…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.LGcs.AIcs.CRcs.CY2026-07-18

Privacy Cost as Equity Input: A Group Fairness Criterion for Differentially Private Machine Learning

Rakshit Naidu

Differential privacy (DP) is increasingly deployed to limit membership inference risk in machine-learning systems. Prior work has shown that DP-SGD can widen accuracy disparities across demographic groups, but this framing treats fairness as a purely outcome-side concern. We argu…

View free PDFSource page