[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3568813.3600139acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicerConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Exploring the Responses of Large Language Models to Beginner Programmers’ Help Requests

Published: 10 September 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Background and Context: Over the past year, large language models (LLMs) have taken the world by storm. In computing education, like in other walks of life, many opportunities and threats have emerged as a consequence.
Objectives: In this article, we explore such opportunities and threats in a specific area: responding to student programmers’ help requests. More specifically, we assess how good LLMs are at identifying issues in problematic code that students request help on.
Method: We collected a sample of help requests and code from an online programming course. We then prompted two different LLMs (OpenAI Codex and GPT-3.5) to identify and explain the issues in the students’ code and assessed the LLM-generated answers both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Findings: GPT-3.5 outperforms Codex in most respects. Both LLMs frequently find at least one actual issue in each student program (GPT-3.5 in 90% of the cases). Neither LLM excels at finding all the issues (GPT-3.5 finding them 57% of the time). False positives are common (40% chance for GPT-3.5). The advice that the LLMs provide on the issues is often sensible. The LLMs perform better on issues involving program logic rather than on output formatting. Model solutions are frequently provided even when the LLM is prompted not to. LLM responses to prompts in a non-English language are only slightly worse than responses to English prompts.
Implications: Our results continue to highlight the utility of LLMs in programming education. At the same time, the results highlight the unreliability of LLMs: LLMs make some of the same mistakes that students do, perhaps especially when formatting output as required by automated assessment systems. Our study informs teachers interested in using LLMs as well as future efforts to customize LLMs for the needs of programming education.

References

[1]
Alireza Ahadi, Raymond Lister, Heikki Haapala, and Arto Vihavainen. 2015. Exploring machine learning methods to automatically identify students in need of assistance. In Proceedings of the eleventh annual international conference on international computing education research. 121–130.
[2]
Kirsti M Ala-Mutka. 2005. A survey of automated assessment approaches for programming assignments. Computer science education 15, 2 (2005), 83–102.
[3]
Amjad Altadmri and Neil CC Brown. 2015. 37 million compilations: Investigating novice programming mistakes in large-scale student data. In Proc. of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 522–527.
[4]
Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473 (2014).
[5]
Brett A Becker. 2016. A new metric to quantify repeated compiler errors for novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 296–301.
[6]
Brett A. Becker, Paul Denny, James Finnie-Ansley, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, James Prather, and Eddie Antonio Santos. 2022. Programming Is Hard – Or at Least It Used to Be: Educational Opportunities And Challenges of AI Code Generation.
[7]
Brett A Becker, Paul Denny, Raymond Pettit, Durell Bouchard, Dennis J Bouvier, Brian Harrington, Amir Kamil, Amey Karkare, Chris McDonald, Peter-Michael Osera, 2019. Compiler error messages considered unhelpful: The landscape of text-based programming error message research. Proceedings of the working group reports on innovation and technology in computer science education (2019), 177–210.
[8]
Gary D Borich Borich. 2005. Educational psychology: A contemporary approach.
[9]
Neil CC Brown and Amjad Altadmri. 2014. Investigating novice programming mistakes: Educator beliefs vs. student data. In Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on International computing education research. 43–50.
[10]
Neil CC Brown and Amjad Altadmri. 2017. Novice Java programming mistakes: Large-scale data vs. educator beliefs. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 17, 2 (2017), 1–21.
[11]
Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 1877–1901.
[12]
Ruth Butler. 1998. Determinants of help seeking: Relations between perceived reasons for classroom help-avoidance and help-seeking behaviors in an experimental context.J. of Educ. Psychology 90, 4 (1998).
[13]
Adam S Carter, Christopher D Hundhausen, and Olusola Adesope. 2015. The normalized programming state model: Predicting student performance in computing courses based on programming behavior. In Proceedings of the eleventh annual international conference on international computing education research. 141–150.
[14]
Paul Denny, Viraj Kumar, and Nasser Giacaman. 2022. Conversing with Copilot: Exploring Prompt Engineering for Solving CS1 Problems Using Natural Language.
[15]
Paul Denny, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Ewan Tempero. 2012. All Syntax Errors Are Not Equal. In Proc. of the 17th ACM Annual Conf. on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Haifa, Israel) (ITiCSE ’12). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1145/2325296.2325318
[16]
Paul Denny, James Prather, Brett A Becker, James Finnie-Ansley, Arto Hellas, Juho Leinonen, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Brent N Reeves, Eddie Antonio Santos, and Sami Sarsa. 2023. Computing Education in the Era of Generative AI. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02608 (2023).
[17]
Paul Denny, James Prather, Brett A. Becker, Catherine Mooney, John Homer, Zachary C Albrecht, and Garrett B. Powell. 2021. On Designing Programming Error Messages for Novices: Readability and Its Constituent Factors. In Proc. of the 2021 CHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,USA, Article 55, 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445696
[18]
Paul Denny, Sami Sarsa, Arto Hellas, and Juho Leinonen. 2022. Robosourcing Educational Resources–Leveraging Large Language Models for Learnersourcing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.04715 (2022).
[19]
Christopher Douce, David Livingstone, and James Orwell. 2005. Automatic test-based assessment of programming: A review. J. on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC) 5, 3 (2005), 4.
[20]
Thomas Dy and Ma Mercedes Rodrigo. 2010. A detector for non-literal Java errors. In Proc. of the 10th Koli Calling Int. Conf. on Computing Education Research. ACM, 118–122.
[21]
Andrew Ettles, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Paul Denny. 2018. Common Logic Errors Made by Novice Programmers. In Proc. of the 20th Australasian Computing Education Conf. (Brisbane, Queensland, Australia) (ACE ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1145/3160489.3160493
[22]
James Finnie-Ansley, Paul Denny, Brett A. Becker, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and James Prather. 2022. The Robots Are Coming: Exploring the Implications of OpenAI Codex on Introductory Programming. In Australasian Computing Education Conf.ACM, 10–19.
[23]
James Finnie-Ansley, Paul Denny, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Eddie Antonio Santos, James Prather, and Brett A Becker. 2023. My AI Wants to Know if This Will Be on the Exam: Testing OpenAI’s Codex on CS2 Programming Exercises. In Proceedings of the 25th Australasian Computing Education Conference. 97–104.
[24]
Elena L Glassman, Jeremy Scott, Rishabh Singh, Philip J Guo, and Robert C Miller. 2015. OverCode: Visualizing variation in student solutions to programming problems at scale. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 22, 2 (2015), 1–35.
[25]
Andrew Head, Elena Glassman, Gustavo Soares, Ryo Suzuki, Lucas Figueredo, Loris D’Antoni, and Björn Hartmann. 2017. Writing reusable code feedback at scale with mixed-initiative program synthesis. In Proceedings of the Fourth (2017) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale. 89–98.
[26]
Arto Hellas, Juho Leinonen, and Petri Ihantola. 2017. Plagiarism in take-home exams: help-seeking, collaboration, and systematic cheating. In Proc. of the 2017 ACM conf. on innovation and technology in computer science education. 238–243.
[27]
Andrew D Hilton, Genevieve M Lipp, and Susan H Rodger. 2019. Translation from Problem to Code in Seven Steps. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Global Computing Education. 78–84.
[28]
Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural computation 9, 8 (1997), 1735–1780.
[29]
Petri Ihantola, Tuukka Ahoniemi, Ville Karavirta, and Otto Seppälä. 2010. Review of recent systems for automatic assessment of programming assignments. In Proc. of the 10th Koli calling int. conf. on computing education research. 86–93.
[30]
Petri Ihantola, Juha Sorva, and Arto Vihavainen. 2014. Automatically detectable indicators of programming assignment difficulty. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Information technology education. 33–38.
[31]
Petri Ihantola, Arto Vihavainen, Alireza Ahadi, Matthew Butler, Jürgen Börstler, Stephen H Edwards, Essi Isohanni, Ari Korhonen, Andrew Petersen, Kelly Rivers, 2015. Educational data mining and learning analytics in programming: Literature review and case studies. In Proc. of the 2015 ITiCSE on Working Group Reports. ACM, 41–63.
[32]
Matthew C Jadud. 2005. A first look at novice compilation behaviour using BlueJ. Computer Science Education 15, 1 (2005), 25–40.
[33]
Matthew C Jadud. 2006. Methods and tools for exploring novice compilation behaviour. In Proceedings of the second international workshop on Computing education research. 73–84.
[34]
Johan Jeuring, Hieke Keuning, Samiha Marwan, Dennis Bouvier, Cruz Izu, Natalie Kiesler, Teemu Lehtinen, Dominic Lohr, Andrew Peterson, and Sami Sarsa. 2022. Towards Giving Timely Formative Feedback and Hints to Novice Programmers. In Proceedings of the 2022 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education(ITiCSE-WGR ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 95–115. https://doi.org/10.1145/3571785.3574124
[35]
Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Yejin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2022. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. Comput. Surveys (2022).
[36]
W. Lewis Johnson, Elliot Soloway, Benjamin Cutler, and Steven Draper. 1983. Bug Catalogue: I. Technical Report. Yale University, YaleU/CSD/RR #286.
[37]
Slava Kalyuga. 2007. Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational psychology review 19 (2007), 509–539.
[38]
Stuart A Karabenick. 2004. Perceived achievement goal structure and college student help seeking.J of educational psychology 96, 3 (2004).
[39]
Majeed Kazemitabaar, Justin Chow, Carl Ka To Ma, Barbara J Ericson, David Weintrop, and Tovi Grossman. 2023. Studying the effect of AI Code Generators on Supporting Novice Learners in Introductory Programming. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07427 (2023).
[40]
Hieke Keuning, Johan Jeuring, and Bastiaan Heeren. 2018. A systematic literature review of automated feedback generation for programming exercises. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 19, 1 (2018), 1–43.
[41]
Teemu Koivisto and Arto Hellas. 2022. Evaluating CodeClusters for Effectively Providing Feedback on Code Submissions. In 2022 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, 1–9.
[42]
Juho Leinonen, Francisco Enrique Vicente Castro, and Arto Hellas. 2022. Time-on-Task Metrics for Predicting Performance. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1. 871–877.
[43]
Juho Leinonen, Paul Denny, Stephen MacNeil, Sami Sarsa, Seth Bernstein, Joanne Kim, Andrew Tran, and Arto Hellas. 2023. Comparing Code Explanations Created by Students and Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03938 (2023).
[44]
Juho Leinonen, Paul Denny, and Jacqueline Whalley. 2022. A Comparison of Immediate and Scheduled Feedback in Introductory Programming Projects. In Proc. of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (Providence, RI, USA) (SIGCSE 2022). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 885–891. https://doi.org/10.1145/3478431.3499372
[45]
Juho Leinonen, Arto Hellas, Sami Sarsa, Brent Reeves, Paul Denny, James Prather, and Brett A Becker. 2023. Using large language models to enhance programming error messages. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1. 563–569.
[46]
Juho Leinonen, Leo Leppänen, Petri Ihantola, and Arto Hellas. 2017. Comparison of Time Metrics in Programming. In Proc. of the 2017 ACM Conf. on Int. Computing Education Research (Tacoma, Washington, USA) (ICER ’17). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1145/3105726.3106181
[47]
Leo Leppänen, Arto Hellas, and Juho Leinonen. 2022. Piloting Natural Language Generation for Personalized Progress Feedback. In 2022 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, 1–8.
[48]
Soohyun Nam Liao, Sander Valstar, Kevin Thai, Christine Alvarado, Daniel Zingaro, William G Griswold, and Leo Porter. 2019. Behaviors of higher and lower performing students in CS1. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 196–202.
[49]
Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2023. Pre-train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. Comput. Surveys 55, 9 (2023), 1–35.
[50]
Dastyni Loksa, Amy J Ko, Will Jernigan, Alannah Oleson, Christopher J Mendez, and Margaret M Burnett. 2016. Programming, problem solving, and self-awareness: Effects of explicit guidance. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1449–1461.
[51]
Stephen MacNeil, Andrew Tran, Arto Hellas, Joanne Kim, Sami Sarsa, Paul Denny, Seth Bernstein, and Juho Leinonen. 2023. Experiences from Using Code Explanations Generated by Large Language Models in a Web Software Development E-Book. In Proc. SIGCSE’23. ACM, 6 pages.
[52]
Stephen MacNeil, Andrew Tran, Juho Leinonen, Paul Denny, Joanne Kim, Arto Hellas, Seth Bernstein, and Sami Sarsa. 2023. Automatically Generating CS Learning Materials with Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2 (Toronto ON, Canada) (SIGCSE 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1176. https://doi.org/10.1145/3545947.3569630
[53]
Stephen MacNeil, Andrew Tran, Dan Mogil, Seth Bernstein, Erin Ross, and Ziheng Huang. 2022. Generating Diverse Code Explanations Using the GPT-3 Large Language Model. In Proc. of the 2022 ACM Conf. on Int. Computing Education Research - Volume 2. ACM, 37–39.
[54]
Ye Mao. 2019. One minute is enough: Early prediction of student success and event-level difficulty during novice programming tasks. In In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM 2019).
[55]
Samiha Marwan, Ge Gao, Susan Fisk, Thomas W Price, and Tiffany Barnes. 2020. Adaptive immediate feedback can improve novice programming engagement and intention to persist in computer science. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM conference on international computing education research. 194–203.
[56]
Davin McCall and Michael Kölling. 2014. Meaningful categorisation of novice programmer errors. In 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conf. (FIE) Proc. IEEE, 1–8.
[57]
Davin McCall and Michael Kölling. 2019. A new look at novice programmer errors. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 19, 4 (2019), 1–30.
[58]
Silvia Muller, Monica Babes-Vroman, Mary Emenike, and Thu D Nguyen. 2020. Exploring Novice Programmers’ Homework Practices: Initial Observations of Information Seeking Behaviors. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education.
[59]
Moin Nadeem, Anna Bethke, and Siva Reddy. 2020. StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09456 (2020).
[60]
Matti Nelimarkka and Arto Hellas. 2018. Social help-seeking strategies in a programming MOOC. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 116–121.
[61]
Andy Nguyen, Christopher Piech, Jonathan Huang, and Leonidas Guibas. 2014. Codewebs: scalable homework search for massive open online programming courses. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World wide web. 491–502.
[62]
Henrik Nygren, Juho Leinonen, and Arto Hellas. 2019. Non-restricted Access to Model Solutions: A Good Idea?. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 44–50.
[63]
Henrik Nygren, Juho Leinonen, Nea Pirttinen, Antti Leinonen, and Arto Hellas. 2019. Experimenting with model solutions as a support mechanism. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on United Kingdom & Ireland Computing Education Research. 1–7.
[64]
Daniel FO Onah, Jane Sinclair, and Russell Boyatt. 2014. Dropout rates of massive open online courses: behavioural patterns. EDULEARN14 proceedings (2014), 5825–5834.
[65]
OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 Technical Report. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774 arxiv:2303.08774 [cs]
[66]
Claudia Ott, Anthony Robins, and Kerry Shephard. 2016. Translating principles of effective feedback for students into the CS1 context. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 16, 1 (2016), 1–27.
[67]
Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02155 (2022).
[68]
José Carlos Paiva, José Paulo Leal, and Álvaro Figueira. 2022. Automated Assessment in Computer Science Education: A State-of-the-Art Review. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) (2022).
[69]
Andrew Petersen, Jaime Spacco, and Arto Vihavainen. 2015. An exploration of error quotient in multiple contexts. In Proceedings of the 15th Koli Calling Conference on Computing Education Research. 77–86.
[70]
James Prather, Raymond Pettit, Brett A Becker, Paul Denny, Dastyni Loksa, Alani Peters, Zachary Albrecht, and Krista Masci. 2019. First things first: Providing metacognitive scaffolding for interpreting problem prompts. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM technical symposium on computer science education. 531–537.
[71]
James Prather, Brent N Reeves, Paul Denny, Brett A Becker, Juho Leinonen, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Garrett Powell, James Finnie-Ansley, and Eddie Antonio Santos. 2023. "It’s Weird That it Knows What I Want": Usability and Interactions with Copilot for Novice Programmers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02491 (2023).
[72]
Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, Ilya Sutskever, 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. (2018).
[73]
Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog 1, 8 (2019), 9.
[74]
Allison M Ryan, Margaret H Gheen, and Carol Midgley. 1998. Why do some students avoid asking for help? An examination of the interplay among students’ academic efficacy, teachers’ social–emotional role, and the classroom goal structure.J. of educational psychology 90, 3 (1998).
[75]
Allison M Ryan, Paul R Pintrich, and Carol Midgley. 2001. Avoiding seeking help in the classroom: Who and why?Educational Psychology Review 13, 2 (2001), 93–114.
[76]
Sami Sarsa, Paul Denny, Arto Hellas, and Juho Leinonen. 2022. Automatic Generation of Programming Exercises and Code Explanations Using Large Language Models. In Proc. of the 2022 ACM Conf. on Int. Computing Education Research - Volume 1. ACM, 27–43.
[77]
Sami Sarsa, Jesper Pettersson, and Arto Hellas. 2022. How to Help to Ask for Help? Help Request Prompt Structure Influence on Help Request Quantity and Course Retention. In 2022 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, 1–9.
[78]
Daniel Seamark and Lynne Gabriel. 2018. Barriers to support: a qualitative exploration into the help-seeking and avoidance factors of young adults. British J. of Guidance & Counselling 46, 1 (2018).
[79]
Otto Seppälä, Petri Ihantola, Essi Isohanni, Juha Sorva, and Arto Vihavainen. 2015. Do we know how difficult the rainfall problem is?. In Proc. of the 15th Koli Calling Conf. on Computing Education Research. 87–96.
[80]
Rebecca Smith and Scott Rixner. 2019. The error landscape: Characterizing the mistakes of novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM technical symposium on computer science education. 538–544.
[81]
Elliot Soloway, Jeffrey G. Bonar, and Kate Ehrlich. 1983. Cognitive strategies and looping constructs: An empirical study. Commun. ACM 26, 11 (1983), 853–860. https://doi.org/10.1145/182.358436
[82]
Elliot Soloway, Kate Ehrlich, Jeffrey G. Bonar, and Judith Greenspan. 1982. What do novices know about programming? In Directions in Human–Computer Interactions, Albert Badre and Ben Shneiderman (Eds.). Vol. 6. Ablex Publishing, 27–54.
[83]
James C Spohrer and Elliot Soloway. 1986. Novice mistakes: Are the folk wisdoms correct?Commun. ACM 29, 7 (1986), 624–632.
[84]
Priyan Vaithilingam, Tianyi Zhang, and Elena L Glassman. 2022. Expectation vs. Experience: Evaluating the Usability of Code Generation Tools Powered by Large Language Models. In CHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts. 1–7.
[85]
Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017).
[86]
Arto Vihavainen, Juha Helminen, and Petri Ihantola. 2014. How novices tackle their first lines of code in an ide: Analysis of programming session traces. In Proceedings of the 14th koli calling international conference on computing education research. 109–116.
[87]
Arto Vihavainen, Craig S Miller, and Amber Settle. 2015. Benefits of self-explanation in introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 284–289.
[88]
Christopher Watson, Frederick WB Li, and Jamie L Godwin. 2013. Predicting performance in an introductory programming course by logging and analyzing student programming behavior. In 2013 IEEE 13th international conference on advanced learning technologies. IEEE, 319–323.
[89]
Michel Wermelinger. 2023. Using GitHub Copilot to Solve Simple Programming Problems. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (Toronto ON, Canada) (SIGCSE 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569830

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
ICER '23: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1
August 2023
520 pages
ISBN:9781450399760
DOI:10.1145/3568813
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 10 September 2023

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. CS1
  2. GPT
  3. OpenAI Codex
  4. automatic feedback
  5. help seeking
  6. introductory programming education
  7. large language models
  8. student questions

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Funding Sources

  • Ulla Tuominen Foundation

Conference

ICER 2023

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 189 of 803 submissions, 24%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)1,302
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)186
Reflects downloads up to 12 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Applications of Large Language Models in PathologyBioengineering10.3390/bioengineering1104034211:4(342)Online publication date: 31-Mar-2024
  • (2024)Configuring a GPTs Chatbot to Generate Educational Contents for Programming Novice LearnersThe Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education10.32431/kace.2024.27.4.01627:4(211-224)Online publication date: 31-Jul-2024
  • (2024)ChatGPT-generated help produces learning gains equivalent to human tutor-authored help on mathematics skillsPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.030401319:5(e0304013)Online publication date: 24-May-2024
  • (2024)Risk management strategy for generative AI in computing education: how to handle the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats?International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education10.1186/s41239-024-00494-x21:1Online publication date: 11-Dec-2024
  • (2024)Student-AI Interaction: A Case Study of CS1 studentsProceedings of the 24th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3699538.3699567(1-13)Online publication date: 12-Nov-2024
  • (2024)Propagating Large Language Models Programming FeedbackProceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale10.1145/3657604.3664665(366-370)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2024
  • (2024)Comparing Feedback from Large Language Models and Instructors: Teaching Computer Science at ScaleProceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale10.1145/3657604.3664660(335-339)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2024
  • (2024)Combining LLM-Generated and Test-Based Feedback in a MOOC for ProgrammingProceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale10.1145/3657604.3662040(177-187)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2024
  • (2024)CFlow: Supporting Semantic Flow Analysis of Students' Code in Programming Problems at ScaleProceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale10.1145/3657604.3662025(188-199)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2024
  • (2024)CourseAssist: Pedagogically Appropriate AI Tutor for Computer Science EducationProceedings of the 2024 on ACM Virtual Global Computing Education Conference V. 210.1145/3649409.3691094(310-311)Online publication date: 5-Dec-2024
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media