remarks — A DSL for marking student work

When judging student performance, it is useful to have both small, composable, quantitative judgements, and qualitative remarks. This makes both spreadsheets and mere text-files ill-suited for marking student work. Although org-mode can solve this problem to a great extent, it becomes a heavy tool in the light of having to mark hundreds of students in a distributed fashion. With org-mode, everything is in one file, while global, intra-student statistics are not needed until all the students have been fully marked.

Design Goals

1. One, or several, human-readable/editable file(s) per student.
2. git-friendly file format.
3. Export options to spreadsheet-formats.
4. Synchronization options with Dropbox and/or Google Drive.

Goal 4 is not necessarily related to remarks, but is related to marking student work with external examiners, who are not always willing to use more explicit version-control systems, such as git.

Status

There is:

• a parser;
• a (basic) validator; and
• a pretty printer.

These can be invoked using remarks parse, remarks check, and remarks show, respectively.

See Issues for a roadmap. Feel free to add or fix a couple issues.

Installation

remarks is on Hackage, so you can just use Cabal:

$ cabal install remarks

You can also clone this repository and use Stack:

$ stack build
$ stack install

Syntax

A .mrk file is a list of judgements.

A judgement starts with a header mark (a sequence of #), a title (followed by a :), given points (followed by /), and maximum points (followed by a line break). The number of # determines the depth of the header, and every file must start at depth 1, but may have multiple depth 1 judgements. Headings may be arbitrarily nested, but must sum up correctly. For instance, here is a file containing only quantitative remarks:

# Theory: 27/50
## Question 1: 10/10
## Question 2: 10/20
## Question 3: 7/20
# Practice: 35/50
## Task 1: 20/25
## Task 2: 15/25

The header of a judgement may be followed by qualitative remarks. Remarks begin with an indent (two spaces), and a mood mark:

• * for neutral/structural remarks;
• + for positive remarks;
• - for negative remarks;
• ? for impartial remarks.

Impartial remarks are good for judgements where the mood is left to be judged by a higher authority. For instance, when a teaching assistant is uncertain, and would like to let the teacher decide, or the solution cannot be used to make a judgement about this point.

Structural remarks are good for listing things to look for. For instance, a (template) judgement for an operating systems exercise might look something like this:

## T1: /15

### Formal requirements: /5
  * Has code
  * Has XML in a reloadable/testable form
  * Has an explanation

### Quality assessment: /10
  * Understands semaphores
  * Understands deadlocks
  * Understands starvation
  * Avoids deadlocks
  * Avoids starvation
  * Avoids race conditions
  * Has a good degree of multiprogramming
  * Solves the problem

### Bonus: +0
  * Has an accompanying implementation / simulation

Once filled in by a teaching assistant, this may look something like this:

## T1: 9/15

### Formal requirements: 5/5
  * Has code
    + Yes.
  * Has XML in a reloadable/testable form
    + Yes.
  * Has an explanation
    + Yes.

### Quality assessment: 2/10
  * Understands semaphores
    - Seems to treat them as counters. Report doesn't talk about procuring or
      vacating at all.
    - Checks semaphore value directly.
    - Seems to have mixed up procure and vacate.
  * Understands deadlocks
    - If more than 5 cars arrive, then only 5 cars will be allowed to drive
      through, and everything will then deadlock.
  * Understands starvation
    ? Seems to, but this is hard to judge.
  * Avoids deadlocks
    ? See above.
  * Avoids starvation
    ? Can't judge this.
  * Avoids race conditions
    - Uses a busy loop in attempt to synchronize.
    - There is a race condition after the busy loop.
  * Has a good degree of multiprogramming
    + It's a ticket system, so it could be okay.
  * Solves the problem
    + In a complicated way, but yes.

### Bonus: +2
  * Has an accompanying implementation / simulation
    + Yes!

Bonus-judgements must have the title Bonus, but they don't have to be there if you don't like them. The presence of bonus judgments also allows points to sum up to more than the given maximum. This is regarded as a feature.

Points and Sums

You do not need to manually enter sums. Points are only required for the bottom-most judgements. Given the template above you can do a remarks check to check if all necessary points have been given. This makes a "pointless" template a rather useful starting point for grading.

Points can be integers or half-points, that is, the number may end in .5. Please note, .5 is exactly representable in an IEEE-754 (the internal representation of points), so no numerical imprecision occurs when dealing with half-points. Maximum points may only be integers (the internal representation of maximum points is still an IEEE-754 double to avoid numerical conversions).

Files and Directories

The file-format is kept "git-friendly" by keeping it comprehensible in plain-text, and allowing for independent marking by splitting the remarks for a student into multiple files.

The simplest setup is to have one .mrk file per student (e.g. basic.mrk).

To support more exotic setups, remarks can also work with directories:

• If supplied with a directory path, remarks looks for files ending in .mrk inside that directory, and comprehends the files as above, in lexicographic filename order (e.g., directory-with-mrk-files).

• If there exists a directory <basename> for any <basename>.mrk, <basename> is recursively searched for further .mrk files. Their contents is appended, in lexicographic filename order, to the last top-level judgement of <basename>.mrk mixed-directory).

See the organization samples for some examples of how judgements may be structured using files and directories.

├── basic.mrk
├── directory-with-mrk-files
│   ├── 01-theory.mrk
│   └── 02-practice.mrk
└── mixed-directory
    ├── 01-theory.mrk
    ├── 02-practice
    │   ├── Task1.mrk
    │   └── Task2.mrk
    └── 02-practice.mrk

basic.mrk, directory-with-mrk-files, and mixed-directory all parse to the same judgements. In particular, the output from the following remarks commands is identical:

$ cd samples/organization/
$ remarks parse basic.mrk
$ remarks parse directory-with-mrk-files
$ remarks parse mixed-directory