arXiv subjects

Max Fowler

Publications and source records attributed to Max Fowler.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Consistently Good vs. Occasionally Great: A Rubric for Open-Ended Feedback Quality from Humans and Machines

Providing high-quality feedback on student work is essential for learning, yet delivering such feedback at scale remains challenging. In this paper, we focus on feedback for open-ended short answer questions in introductory programming, with the goal of nudging students toward success on reattempts without revealing the correct answer. We develop a five-criteria rubric grounded in educational literature for evaluating feedback quality: (1) acknowledging correct portions of the student answer, (2) identifying at least one flaw (if present), (3) providing actionable guidance for improvement, (4) maintaining appropriate concealment of the answer, and (5) using an appropriate conversational tone. Using this rubric, we compare feedback generated by a frontier LLM (OpenAI o1) to feedback from nine teaching assistants across 90 student responses, with three researchers and an LLM independently scoring all feedback. Our results show that while one TA often produced the best feedback, the LLM demonstrated consistently higher average performance than TAs, as evaluated by humans. However, we also uncover significant self-preference bias when using LLMs to evaluate feedback quality: the LLM systematically rated its own outputs higher than human experts did. This bias, which research suggests persists even in cross-model evaluation, raises important methodological concerns for researchers employing LLM-based evaluation. We provide detailed characterization of both TA and LLM performance, analyze sources of variance in TA feedback quality, and discuss implications for deploying LLM-generated feedback in educational settings.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

The Effect of Transparency on Students' Perceptions of AI Graders

The development of effective autograders is key for scaling assessment and feedback. While NLP based autograding systems for open-ended response questions have been found to be beneficial for providing immediate feedback, autograders are not always liked, understood, or trusted by students. Our research tested the effect of transparency on students' attitudes towards autograders. Transparent autograders increased students' perceptions of autograder accuracy and willingness to discuss autograders in survey comments, but did not improve other related attitudes -- such as willingness to be graded by them on a test -- relative to the control without transparency. However, this lack of impact may be due to higher measured student trust towards autograders in this study than in prior work in the field. We briefly discuss possible reasons for this trend.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Generating Planning Feedback for Open-Ended Programming Exercises with LLMs

To complete an open-ended programming exercise, students need to both plan a high-level solution and implement it using the appropriate syntax. However, these problems are often autograded on the correctness of the final submission through test cases, and students cannot get feedback on their planning process. Large language models (LLM) may be able to generate this feedback by detecting the overall code structure even for submissions with syntax errors. To this end, we propose an approach that detects which high-level goals and patterns (i.e. programming plans) exist in a student program with LLMs. We show that both the full GPT-4o model and a small variant (GPT-4o-mini) can detect these plans with remarkable accuracy, outperforming baselines inspired by conventional approaches to code analysis. We further show that the smaller, cost-effective variant (GPT-4o-mini) achieves results on par with state-of-the-art (GPT-4o) after fine-tuning, creating promising implications for smaller models for real-time grading. These smaller models can be incorporated into autograders for open-ended code-writing exercises to provide feedback for students' implicit planning skills, even when their program is syntactically incorrect. Furthermore, LLMs may be useful in providing feedback for problems in other domains where students start with a set of high-level solution steps and iteratively compute the output, such as math and physics problems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

ReDefining Code Comprehension: Function Naming as a Mechanism for Evaluating Code Comprehension

"Explain in Plain English" (EiPE) questions are widely used to assess code comprehension skills but are challenging to grade automatically. Recent approaches like Code Generation Based Grading (CGBG) leverage large language models (LLMs) to generate code from student explanations and validate its equivalence to the original code using unit tests. However, this approach does not differentiate between high-level, purpose-focused responses and low-level, implementation-focused ones, limiting its effectiveness in assessing comprehension level. We propose a modified approach where students generate function names, emphasizing the function's purpose over implementation details. We evaluate this method in an introductory programming course and analyze it using Item Response Theory (IRT) to understand its effectiveness as exam items and its alignment with traditional EiPE grading standards. We also publish this work as an open source Python package for autograding EiPE questions, providing a scalable solution for adoption.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Counting the Trees in the Forest: Evaluating Prompt Segmentation for Classifying Code Comprehension Level

Reading and understanding code are fundamental skills for novice programmers, and especially important with the growing prevalence of AI-generated code and the need to evaluate its accuracy and reliability. ``Explain in Plain English'' questions are a widely used approach for assessing code comprehension, but providing automated feedback, particularly on comprehension levels, is a challenging task. This paper introduces a novel method for automatically assessing the comprehension level of responses to ``Explain in Plain English'' questions. Central to this is the ability to distinguish between two response types: multi-structural, where students describe the code line-by-line, and relational, where they explain the code's overall purpose. Using a Large Language Model (LLM) to segment both the student's description and the code, we aim to determine whether the student describes each line individually (many segments) or the code as a whole (fewer segments). We evaluate this approach's effectiveness by comparing segmentation results with human classifications, achieving substantial agreement. We conclude with how this approach, which we release as an open source Python package, could be used as a formative feedback mechanism.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Mining Hierarchies with Conviction: Constructing the CS1 Skill Hierarchy with Pairwise Comparisons over Skill Distributions

Background and Context: Some skills taught in introductory programming courses are categorized into 1) explaining code, 2) arranging lines of code in correct sequence, 3) tracing through the execution of a program, and 4) writing code from scratch. Objective: Knowing if a programming skill is a prerequisite to another would benefit teachers in properly planning the course and structuring the order in which they present activities relating to new content. Prior attempts to establish a skill hierarchy have suffered from methodological issues. Method: In this study, we used the conviction measure from association rule mining to perform pair-wise comparisons of five skills: Write, Trace, Reverse trace, Sequence, and Explain code. We used the data from four exams with more than 600 participants where students solved programming assignments of different skills for several programming topics. Findings: Our findings matched the previous finding that tracing is a prerequisite for students to learn to write code. Contradicting the previous claims, our analysis showed that using the mean threshold writing code is a prerequisite to explaining code. However, there is no clear relationship when we change the threshold to the median. Unlike prior work, we did not find a clear prerequisite relationship between sequencing code and writing or explaining code. Implications: Our research can help instructors by systematically arranging the skills students exercise when encountering a new topic. The goal is to help instructors properly teach and assess programming in a fashion most effective for learning by leveraging the relationship between skills.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Explaining Code with a Purpose: An Integrated Approach for Developing Code Comprehension and Prompting Skills

Reading, understanding and explaining code have traditionally been important skills for novices learning programming. As large language models (LLMs) become prevalent, these foundational skills are more important than ever given the increasing need to understand and evaluate model-generated code. Brand new skills are also needed, such as the ability to formulate clear prompts that can elicit intended code from an LLM. Thus, there is great interest in integrating pedagogical approaches for the development of both traditional coding competencies and the novel skills required to interact with LLMs. One effective way to develop and assess code comprehension ability is with ``Explain in plain English'' (EiPE) questions, where students succinctly explain the purpose of a fragment of code. However, grading EiPE questions has always been difficult given the subjective nature of evaluating written explanations and this has stifled their uptake. In this paper, we explore a natural synergy between EiPE questions and code-generating LLMs to overcome this limitation. We propose using an LLM to generate code based on students' responses to EiPE questions -- not only enabling EiPE responses to be assessed automatically, but helping students develop essential code comprehension and prompt crafting skills in parallel. We investigate this idea in an introductory programming course and report student success in creating effective prompts for solving EiPE questions. We also examine student perceptions of this activity and how it influences their views on the use of LLMs for aiding and assessing learning.

cs.HC↗