Authors : Jiaxing Li; Ilapanda Pavan Kumar; S. Mano Venkat

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 9 - September

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/2hn2nm5h

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26sep984

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Laboratory assessment in programming-oriented engineering courses combines executable artifacts, conceptual understanding, code quality, academic integrity, and submission discipline. Existing virtual laboratories and automated programming assessment tools commonly emphasize execution correctness and immediate feedback, while laboratoryassessment research identifies a continuing need to connect learning objectives with richer assessment evidence. This paper presents LabPulse, a prototype academic virtual laboratory and automated evaluation framework derived from an implemented React/Vite frontend and Express-based backend. The system organizes subjects and experiments, executes student programs through language-specific runner paths, evaluates submissions using a 100-mark multi-factor model, generates heuristic code-quality feedback, evaluates typed viva responses, screens code similarity, and exposes analytics/proctoring/help-request interfaces.

Keywords : Virtual Laboratory, Automated Assessment, Programming Education, Code Evaluation, Viva-Voce, Learning Analytics, Code Similarity, Outcome-Based Education, Engineering Education.

References :

1. K. M. Ala-Mutka, “A survey of automated assessment approaches for programming assignments,” Computer Science Education, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 83–102, 2005, doi: 10.1080/08993400500150747.
2. C. Douce, D. Livingstone, and J. Orwell, “Automatic test-based assessment of programming: A review,” Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, vol. 5, no. 3, Art. no. 4, 2005.
3. P. Ihantola, T. Ahoniemi, V. Karavirta, and O. Seppälä, “Review of recent systems for automatic assessment of programming assignments,” in Proc. 10th Koli Calling Int. Conf. Computing Education Research, 2010, pp. 86–93, doi: 10.1145/1930464.1930480.
4. M. Joy, N. Griffiths, and R. Boyatt, “The BOSS online submission and assessment system,” Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, vol. 5, no. 3, Art. no. 2, 2005, doi: 10.1145/1163405.1163407.
5. H. Keuning, J. Jeuring, and B. Heeren, “A systematic literature review of automated feedback generation for programming exercises,” ACM Transactions on Computing Education, vol. 19, no. 1, Art. no. 3, 2018, doi: 10.1145/3231711.
6. D. Insa, S. Pérez-Rubio, J. Silva, and S. Tamarit, “Semiautomatic generation and assessment of Java exercises in engineering education,” Computer Applications in Engineering Education, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 1034–1050, 2021, doi: 10.1002/cae.22356.
7. B. P. Cipriano, N. Fachada, and P. Alves, “Drop Project: An automatic assessment tool for programming assignments,” SoftwareX, vol. 18, Art. no. 101079, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.softx.2022.101079.
8. M. Messer, N. C. C. Brown, M. Kölling, and M. Shi, “Automated grading and feedback tools for programming education: A systematic review,” ACM Transactions on Computing Education, vol. 24, no. 1, Art. no. 10, 2024, doi: 10.1145/3636515.
9. K. H. Arakawa, A. Turcan, T. Poehlman, and T. Greer, “Towards understanding the effective design of automated formative feedback for programming assignments,” Computer Science Education, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 105–127, 2022, doi: 10.1080/08993408.2020.1860408.
10. [10] S. Nikolic, M. Ros, K. Jovanovic, and Z. Stanisavljevic, “Remote, simulation or traditional engineering teaching laboratory: A systematic literature review of assessment implementations to measure student achievement or learning,” European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 1141–1162, 2021, doi: 10.1080/03043797.2021.1990864.
11. S. M. Reeves and K. J. Crippen, “Virtual laboratories in undergraduate science and engineering courses: A systematic review, 2009–2019,” Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 30, pp. 16–30, 2021.
12. J. Li and W. Liang, “Effectiveness of virtual laboratory in engineering education: A meta-analysis,” PLoS ONE, vol. 19, no. 12, e0316269, 2024, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316269.
13. C. Liu, G.-C. Wang, and H.-F. Wang, “The application of artificial intelligence in engineering education: A systematic review,” IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 17895–17910, 2025, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3532595.
14. C. Romero and S. Ventura, “Educational data mining and learning analytics: An updated survey,” WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 10, no. 3, e1355, 2020, doi: 10.1002/widm.1355.
15. G. Siemens, “Learning analytics: The emergence of a discipline,” American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 57, no. 10, 2013, doi: 10.1177/0002764213498851.
16. L. Prechelt, G. Malpohl, and M. Philippsen, “Finding plagiarisms among a set of programs with JPlag,” Journal of Universal Computer Science, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 1016–1038, 2002, doi: 10.3217/jucs-008-11-1016.
17. S. Schleimer, D. S. Wilkerson, and A. Aiken, “Winnowing: Local algorithms for document fingerprinting,” in Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. Management of Data, 2003, pp. 76–85, doi: 10.1145/872757.872770.
18. K. Frady, “Use of virtual labs to support demand-oriented engineering pedagogy in engineering technology and vocational education training programmes: A systematic review of the literature,” European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 48, no. 3, 2023, doi: 10.1080/03043797.2022.2141610.
19. B. S. Bloom, Ed., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. New York, NY, USA: Longmans, Green, 1956.