A Self Hosted Version Control Framework for Academic Project Management and Automated Evaluation

References

[1] Kolb DA. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education; 2014.

[2] Radermacher A, Walia G. Investigating the skill gap between graduating students and industry expectations. In: Proc. 45th ACM Tech. Symp. Comput. Sci. Educ; 2014. p. 291–296.

[3] Garousi V, Giray G, Tuzun E, Catal C, Felderer M. Closing the gap between software engineering education and industrial needs. IEEE Software. 2020;37(2):68–77.

[4] Pinto G, Steinmacher I, Gerosa MA. Understanding the challenges of large-scale software engineering courses. IEEE Software. 2019;36(3):66–71.

[5] Keuning H, Jeuring J, Heeren B. A systematic literature review of automated feedback generation for programming exercises. ACM Trans Comput Educ. 2018;19(1):1–43.

[6] Ihantola P, et al. Review of recent systems for automatic assessment of programming assignments. In: Proc. 10th Koli Calling Int. Conf. Comput. Educ. Res; 2010. p. 86–93.

[7] Edwards SH, Perez-Quinones MA. Web-CAT: Automatically grading programming assignments. In: Proc. 13th Annu. Conf. Innov. Technol. Comput. Sci. Educ; 2008. p. 328–328.

[8] Tankard C. What the GDPR means for businesses. Network Security. 2016;2016(6):5–8.

[9] Krutz DE, et al. Enhancing the software engineering curriculum with a professional seminar. In: Proc. 122nd ASEE Annu. Conf. Expo; 2015. p. 1–15.

[10] Zagalsky A, et al. The emergence of GitHub as a collaborative platform for education. In: Proc. 18th ACM Conf. Comput. Supported Cooperative Work; 2015. p. 1906–1917.

[11] Henrick C, Lister P. Learning management system integration patterns for programming courses. Educ Inf Technol. 2017;22(5):2111–2126.

[12] Peveler M, Weiss E, Cutler B. Automatic grading of programming assignments using Submitty. In: Proc. 48th ACM Tech. Symp. Comput. Sci. Educ; 2017. p. 709–709.

[13] Ala-Mutka KM. A survey of automated assessment approaches for programming assignments. Comput Sci Educ. 2005;15(2):83–102.

[14] Reidenberg JR, Schaub FM. Achieving big data privacy in education. Theory Res Educ. 2016;14(3):263–279.

[15] Feliciano J, Storey MA, Zagalsky A. Student experiences using GitHub in software engineering courses. In: Proc. 38th Int. Conf. Softw. Eng. Companion; 2016. p. 422–431.

[16] Murphy C, et al. Retina: Helping students and instructors based on observed programming activities. In: Proc. 40th ACM Tech. Symp. Comput. Sci. Educ; 2009. p. 178–182.

[17] Clifton C, et al. Subversion 101. In: Proc. 38th ACM Tech. Symp. Comput. Sci. Educ; 2007. p. 21–25.

[18] Chacon S, Straub B. Pro Git. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: Apress; 2014.

[19] Reid KL, Wilson GV. Learning by doing: Introducing version control. In: Proc. 36th ACM Tech. Symp. Comput. Sci. Educ; 2005. p. 272–276.

[20] Lawrance J, Jung S, Wiseman C. Git on the cloud in the classroom. In: Proc. 44th ACM Tech. Symp. Comput. Sci. Educ; 2013. p. 639–644.

[21] Hsing C, Gennarelli V. Using GitHub in the classroom predicts student learning outcomes. In: Proc. 50th ACM Tech. Symp. Comput. Sci. Educ; 2019. p. 672–678.

[22] Glassey R. Adopting Git/GitHub within teaching. In: Proc. ACM Conf. Global Comput. Educ; 2019. p. 143–149.

[23] GitHub, Inc. GitHub Classroom. 2024.

[24] GitLab, Inc. GitLab for Education. 2024.

[25] Matthies C, Kowark T, Uflacker M. Agile metrics for a university software engineering course. In: Proc. IEEE Frontiers Educ. Conf; 2016. p. 1–5.

[26] Vasilescu B, et al. Quality and productivity outcomes relating to continuous integration in GitHub. In: Proc. 10th Joint Meeting Foundations Softw. Eng; 2015. p. 805–816.

[27] Gitea. Gitea Documentation. 2024.

[28] Hollingsworth J. Automatic graders for programming classes. Commun ACM. 1960;3(10):528–529.

[29] Piech C, et al. Learning program embeddings to propagate feedback on student code. In: Proc. 32nd Int. Conf. Mach. Learn; 2015. p. 1093–1102.

[30] Edwards SH, Shams Z. Comparing test quality measures for assessing student-written tests. In: Proc. Companion 36th Int. Conf. Softw. Eng; 2014. p. 354–363.

[31] Spacco J, et al. Experiences with Marmoset: Designing and using an advanced submission and testing system. In: Proc. 11th Annu. Conf. Innov. Technol. Comput. Sci. Educ; 2006. p. 13–17.

[32] Edwards SH, et al. CodeWorkout. In: Proc. 24th Annu. Conf. Innov. Technol. Comput. Sci. Educ; 2019. p. 188–194.

[33] Schleimer S, Wilkerson DS, Aiken A. Winnowing: Local algorithms for document fingerprinting. In: Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. Manage. Data; 2003. p. 76–85.

[34] Rivers K, Koedinger KR. Data-driven hint generation in vast solution spaces. Int J Artif Intell Educ. 2017;27(1):37–64.

[35] Watson WR, Watson SL. An argument for clarity: What are learning management systems? TechTrends. 2007;51(2):28–34.

[36] Severance C, Hanss T, Hardin J. IMS learning tools interoperability. Technol. 2010;7(3–4):245–262.

[37] Queiros R, Leal JP. Programming exercises evaluation systems. In: Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Comput. Supported Educ; 2012. p. 83–90.

[38] Alario-Hoyos C, et al. Analysing the impact of built-in and external social tools in a MOOC. IEEE Trans Learn Technol. 2014;7(3):260–266.

[39] Fielding RT. Architectural styles and the design of network-based software architectures [PhD dissertation]. Irvine, CA: Department of Information and Computer Science, University of California; 2000.

[40] Smith J, Chen L. Bridging the gap: Integrating Git-based workflows with institutional learning management systems. J Comput Sci Educ. 2023;34(2):156–178.

[41] Bobrov E, et al. Teaching DevOps: A progressive approach. In: Proc. IEEE/ACM 42nd Int. Conf. Softw. Eng; 2020. p. 1–12.

[42] Christensen HB. Teaching DevOps and cloud computing. In: Proc. 21st Annu. Conf. Innov. Technol. Comput. Sci. Educ; 2016. p. 326–331.

[43] Bruel JM, et al. The role of formalism in system requirements. ACM Comput Surv. 2021;54(5):1–36.

[44] Merkel D. Docker: Lightweight Linux containers for consistent development and deployment. Linux Journal. 2014;2014(239).

[45] De Roure D, Goble C, Stevens R. The design and realisation of the myExperiment virtual research environment. Future Gener Comput Syst. 2009;25(5):561–567.

[46] Rochwerger B, et al. The Reservoir model and architecture for open federated cloud computing. IBM J Res Develop. 2009;53(4):535–545.

[47] OWASP Foundation. OWASP Top Ten 2021. 2021.

[48] Jones M, Bradley J, Sakimura N. JSON Web Token (JWT). IETF RFC 7519; 2015.

[49] Kumar M. PERN stack security best practices. Full Stack Dev J. 2024;12(1):23–41.

[50] Ferraiolo DF, et al. Proposed NIST standard for role-based access control. ACM Trans Inf Syst Security. 2001;4(3):224–274.

[51] Jones H, Soltren JH. Facebook: Threats to privacy [Technical report]. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2005.

[52] Dagger D, et al. Service-oriented e-learning platforms. IEEE Internet Comput. 2007;11(3):28–35.

[53] Microsoft Corporation. Monaco Editor. 2024.

[54] Ali S. Integrating Git webhooks with Node.js backends. Technical Scripting; 2024.

[55] Gupta A. Handling file uploads and environment setup in PERN applications. GeeksforGeeks; 2023.

@article{1724317,
      author = {Dr. Shahnawaz Ansari, Soham Datta, Sudipto Gayen},
      title = {A Self Hosted Version Control Framework for Academic Project Management and Automated Evaluation},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2026},
      volume = {10},
      number = {4},
      pages = {3991-4004},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1724317.pdf},
      abstract = {The management and evaluation of student software projects in academic institutions face significant challenges stemming from fragmented workflows, inadequate progress monitoring, and labor-intensive manual assessment procedures. This paper presents “GiteaForge,” a comprehensive framework that integrates self-hosted version control with automated evaluation capabilities through a unified web portal. Built on the PERN (PostgreSQL, Express.js, React, Node.js) stack and integrated with Gitea server, the system provides real-time progress tracking via Git webhooks, automated repository provisioning, browser-based code editing through Monaco Editor, and one-click execution via dynamically generated environment scripts. A systematic analysis of 40+ existing solutions identifies critical gaps in data sovereignty, workflow integration, and execution automation. The proposed framework addresses these limitations through a novel five-layer architecture implementing role-based access control, webhook-driven analytics, and containerized deployment. Preliminary evaluation with 15 participants suggests a potential reduction of up to 70–85% in assessment preparation time, indicates a possible improvement of ≈95% in progress visibility based on initial observations, and successful deployment on resource-constrained infrastructure. The framework contributes both theoretical foundations through the Academic Project Management Capability Framework (APMCF) and practical system integration steps for institutions seeking regulatory-compliant, self-hosted project management solutions. The system is currently under active development, and results are based on a prototype implementation and limited-scale evaluation.},
      keywords = {academic project management; version control systems; automated assessment; self-hosted infrastructure; PERN stack; DevOps education; Git webhooks; educational technology framework},
      month = {October},
  }