-
Comparison of Three Programming Error Measures for Explaining Variability in CS1 Grades
Authors:
Valdemar Švábenský,
Maciej Pankiewicz,
Jiayi Zhang,
Elizabeth B. Cloude,
Ryan S. Baker,
Eric Fouh
Abstract:
Programming courses can be challenging for first year university students, especially for those without prior coding experience. Students initially struggle with code syntax, but as more advanced topics are introduced across a semester, the difficulty in learning to program shifts to learning computational thinking (e.g., debugging strategies). This study examined the relationships between student…
▽ More
Programming courses can be challenging for first year university students, especially for those without prior coding experience. Students initially struggle with code syntax, but as more advanced topics are introduced across a semester, the difficulty in learning to program shifts to learning computational thinking (e.g., debugging strategies). This study examined the relationships between students' rate of programming errors and their grades on two exams. Using an online integrated development environment, data were collected from 280 students in a Java programming course. The course had two parts. The first focused on introductory procedural programming and culminated with exam 1, while the second part covered more complex topics and object-oriented programming and ended with exam 2. To measure students' programming abilities, 51095 code snapshots were collected from students while they completed assignments that were autograded based on unit tests. Compiler and runtime errors were extracted from the snapshots, and three measures -- Error Count, Error Quotient and Repeated Error Density -- were explored to identify the best measure explaining variability in exam grades. Models utilizing Error Quotient outperformed the models using the other two measures, in terms of the explained variability in grades and Bayesian Information Criterion. Compiler errors were significant predictors of exam 1 grades but not exam 2 grades; only runtime errors significantly predicted exam 2 grades. The findings indicate that leveraging Error Quotient with multiple error types (compiler and runtime) may be a better measure of students' introductory programming abilities, though still not explaining most of the observed variability.
△ Less
Submitted 8 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
Navigating Compiler Errors with AI Assistance -- A Study of GPT Hints in an Introductory Programming Course
Authors:
Maciej Pankiewicz,
Ryan S. Baker
Abstract:
We examined the efficacy of AI-assisted learning in an introductory programming course at the university level by using a GPT-4 model to generate personalized hints for compiler errors within a platform for automated assessment of programming assignments. The control group had no access to GPT hints. In the experimental condition GPT hints were provided when a compiler error was detected, for the…
▽ More
We examined the efficacy of AI-assisted learning in an introductory programming course at the university level by using a GPT-4 model to generate personalized hints for compiler errors within a platform for automated assessment of programming assignments. The control group had no access to GPT hints. In the experimental condition GPT hints were provided when a compiler error was detected, for the first half of the problems in each module. For the latter half of the module, hints were disabled. Students highly rated the usefulness of GPT hints. In affect surveys, the experimental group reported significantly higher levels of focus and lower levels of confrustion (confusion and frustration) than the control group. For the six most commonly occurring error types we observed mixed results in terms of performance when access to GPT hints was enabled for the experimental group. However, in the absence of GPT hints, the experimental group's performance surpassed the control group for five out of the six error types.
△ Less
Submitted 19 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
Large Language Models (GPT) for automating feedback on programming assignments
Authors:
Maciej Pankiewicz,
Ryan S. Baker
Abstract:
Addressing the challenge of generating personalized feedback for programming assignments is demanding due to several factors, like the complexity of code syntax or different ways to correctly solve a task. In this experimental study, we automated the process of feedback generation by employing OpenAI's GPT-3.5 model to generate personalized hints for students solving programming assignments on an…
▽ More
Addressing the challenge of generating personalized feedback for programming assignments is demanding due to several factors, like the complexity of code syntax or different ways to correctly solve a task. In this experimental study, we automated the process of feedback generation by employing OpenAI's GPT-3.5 model to generate personalized hints for students solving programming assignments on an automated assessment platform. Students rated the usefulness of GPT-generated hints positively. The experimental group (with GPT hints enabled) relied less on the platform's regular feedback but performed better in terms of percentage of successful submissions across consecutive attempts for tasks, where GPT hints were enabled. For tasks where the GPT feedback was made unavailable, the experimental group needed significantly less time to solve assignments. Furthermore, when GPT hints were unavailable, students in the experimental condition were initially less likely to solve the assignment correctly. This suggests potential over-reliance on GPT-generated feedback. However, students in the experimental condition were able to correct reasonably rapidly, reaching the same percentage correct after seven submission attempts. The availability of GPT hints did not significantly impact students' affective state.
△ Less
Submitted 30 June, 2023;
originally announced July 2023.
