Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3649217.3653574acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiticseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Desirable Characteristics for AI Teaching Assistants in Programming Education

Published: 03 July 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Providing timely and personalized feedback to large numbers of students is a long-standing challenge in programming courses. Relying on human teaching assistants (TAs) has been extensively studied, revealing a number of potential shortcomings. These include inequitable access for students with low confidence when needing support, as well as situations where TAs provide direct solutions without helping students to develop their own problem-solving skills. With the advent of powerful large language models (LLMs), digital teaching assistants configured for programming contexts have emerged as an appealing and scalable way to provide instant, equitable, round-the-clock support. Although digital TAs can provide a variety of help for programming tasks, from high-level problem solving advice to direct solution generation, the effectiveness of such tools depends on their ability to promote meaningful learning experiences. If students find the guardrails implemented in digital TAs too constraining, or if other expectations are not met, they may seek assistance in ways that do not help them learn. Thus, it is essential to identify the features that students believe make digital teaching assistants valuable. We deployed an LLM-powered digital assistant in an introductory programming course and collected student feedback (n=813) on the characteristics of the tool they perceived to be most important. Our results highlight that students value such tools for their ability to provide instant, engaging support, particularly during peak times such as before assessment deadlines. They also expressed a strong preference for features that enable them to retain autonomy in their learning journey, such as scaffolding that helps to guide them through problem-solving steps rather than simply being shown direct solutions.

References

[1]
Tapio Auvinen. 2015. Harmful Study Habits in Online Learning Environments with Automatic Assessment. In 2015 International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering. IEEE, 50--57.
[2]
Rishabh Balse, Bharath Valaboju, Shreya Singhal, Jayakrishnan Madathil Warriem, and Prajish Prasad. 2023. Investigating the Potential of GPT-3 in Providing Feedback for Programming Assessments. In Proc of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in CS Education V. 1 (Turku, Finland) (ITiCSE 2023). ACM, NY, USA, 292--298. https://doi.org/10.1145/3587102.3588852
[3]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, Vol. 3, 2 (2006), 77--101.
[4]
Bei Chen, Fengji Zhang, Anh Nguyen, Daoguang Zan, Zeqi Lin, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. CodeT: Code Generation with Generated Tests. http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.10397 arXiv:2207.10397 [cs].
[5]
Paul Denny, Viraj Kumar, and Nasser Giacaman. 2023. Conversing with Copilot: Exploring Prompt Engineering for Solving CS1 Problems Using Natural Language. In Proc of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on CS Education V. 1. ACM, Toronto ON Canada, 1136--1142. https://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569823
[6]
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. 2024. Computing Education in the Era of Generative AI. Commun. ACM, Vol. 67, 2 (Jan 2024), 56--67. https://doi.org/10.1145/3624720
[7]
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 Proceedings of the 24th Australasian Computing Education Conference. 10--19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3511861.3511863
[8]
Arto Hellas, Juho Leinonen, Sami Sarsa, Charles Koutcheme, Lilja Kujanp"a"a, and Juha Sorva. 2023. Exploring the Responses of Large Language Models to Beginner Programmers' Help Requests. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1 (Chicago, IL, USA) (ICER '23). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 93--105. https://doi.org/10.1145/3568813.3600139
[9]
Irene Hou, Owen Man, Sophia Mettille, Sebastian Gutierrez, Kenneth Angelikas, and Stephen MacNeil. 2024 a. More Robots are Coming: Large Multimodal Models (ChatGPT) can Solve Visually Diverse Images of Parsons Problems. In Proc 26th Australasian Comp Ed Conf (Sydney, Australia) (ACE '24). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 29--38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3636243.3636247
[10]
Irene Hou, Sophia Mettille, Owen Man, Zhuo Li, Cynthia Zastudil, and Stephen MacNeil. 2024 b. The Effects of Generative AI on Computing Students' Help-Seeking Preferences. In Proc 26th Australasian Comp Ed Conf (Sydney, Australia) (ACE '24). ACM, NY, USA, 39--48. https://doi.org/10.1145/3636243.3636248
[11]
Ziheng Huang, Kexin Quan, Joel Chan, and Stephen MacNeil. 2023. CausalMapper: Challenging designers to think in systems with Causal Maps and Large Language Model. In Proc of the 15th Conf on Creativity and Cog. ACM, 325--329.
[12]
Breanna Jury, Angela Lorusso, Juho Leinonen, Paul Denny, and Andrew Luxton-Reilly. 2024. Evaluating LLM-generated Worked Examples in an Introductory Programming Course. In Proc 26th Australasian Comp Ed Conf (Sydney, Australia) (ACE '24). ACM, NY, USA, 77--86. https://doi.org/10.1145/3636243.3636252
[13]
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. In Proc of the 2023 CHI Conf on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI '23). ACM, NY, USA, Article 455, bibinfonumpages23 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580919
[14]
Markus Krause, Tom Garncarz, JiaoJiao Song, Elizabeth M Gerber, Brian P Bailey, and Steven P Dow. 2017. Critique style guide: Improving crowdsourced design feedback with a natural language model. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 4627--4639.
[15]
Sophia Krause-Levy, Rachel S. Lim, Ismael Villegas Molina, Yingjun Cao, and Leo Porter. 2022. An Exploration of Student-Tutor Interactions in Computing. In Proc of the 27th ACM Conf on Innovation and Tech in CS Education Vol. 1 (Dublin, Ireland) (ITiCSE '22). ACM, NY, USA, 435--441. https://doi.org/10.1145/3502718.3524786
[16]
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. In Proc of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in CS Education V. 1 (Turku, Finland) (ITiCSE 2023). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 124--130. https://doi.org/10.1145/3587102.3588785
[17]
Mark Liffiton, Brad E Sheese, Jaromir Savelka, and Paul Denny. 2024. CodeHelp: Using Large Language Models with Guardrails for Scalable Support in Programming Classes. In Proc of the 23rd Koli Calling International Conference on Comp Ed Research (Koli, Finland) (Koli Calling '23). ACM, NY, USA, Article 8, bibinfonumpages11 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3631802.3631830
[18]
Rachel S. Lim, Sophia Krause-Levy, Ismael Villegas Molina, and Leo Porter. 2023. Student Expectations of Tutors in Computing Courses. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (Toronto, Canada) (SIGCSE 2023). ACM, NY, USA, 437--443. https://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569766
[19]
Stephen Macneil, Paul Denny, Andrew Tran, Juho Leinonen, Seth Bernstein, Arto Hellas, Sami Sarsa, and Joanne Kim. 2024. Decoding Logic Errors: A Comparative Study on Bug Detection by Students and Large Language Models. In Proc 26th Australasian Comp Ed Conf (Sydney, Australia) (ACE '24). ACM, NY, USA, 11--18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3636243.3636245
[20]
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 of the 54th ACM Tech Sym on CS Education V. 1 (SIGCSE 2023). ACM, NY, USA, 931--937. https://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569785
[21]
Julia M Markel and Philip J Guo. 2021. Inside the Mind of a CS Undergraduate TA: A firsthand account of undergraduate peer tutoring in computer labs. In Proc of the 52nd ACM Tech Symposium on CS Education. 502--508.
[22]
Nhan Nguyen and Sarah Nadi. 2022. An empirical evaluation of GitHub copilot's code suggestions. In Proc of the 19th Int. Conf. on Mining Software Repositories. ACM, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, 1--5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3524842.3528470
[23]
Changhoon Oh, Jungwoo Song, Jinhan Choi, Seonghyeon Kim, Sungwoo Lee, and Bongwon Suh. 2018. I Lead, You Help but Only with Enough Details: Understanding User Experience of Co-Creation with Artificial Intelligence. In Proc of the 2018 CHI Conf on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal, Canada) (CHI '18). ACM, NY, USA, 1--13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174223
[24]
Zachary A. Pardos and Shreya Bhandari. 2023. Learning gain differences between ChatGPT and human tutor generated algebra hints. arxiv: 2302.06871 [cs.CY]
[25]
James Prather, Paul Denny, Juho Leinonen, Brett A. Becker, Ibrahim Albluwi, Michelle Craig, et al. 2023 a. The Robots Are Here: Navigating the Generative AI Revolution in Computing Education. In Proc of the 2023 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in CS Education (Turku, Finland) (ITiCSE-WGR '23). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 108--159. https://doi.org/10.1145/3623762.3633499
[26]
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 b. “It's Weird That it Knows What I Want”: Usability and Interactions with Copilot for Novice Programmers. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., Vol. 31, 1, Article 4 (Nov 2023), bibinfonumpages31 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3617367
[27]
Emma Riese, Madeleine Lorras, Martin Ukrop, and Tomávs Effenberger. 2021. Challenges Faced by Teaching Assistants in Computer Science Education Across Europe. In Proc 26th ACM Conf on Inn and Tech in CS Ed (Virtual Event, Germany) (ITiCSE '21). ACM, NY, USA, 547--553. https://doi.org/10.1145/3430665.3456304
[28]
Sami Sarsa, Paul Denny, Arto Hellas, and Juho Leinonen. 2022. Automatic Generation of Programming Exercises and Code Explanations Using Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research V. 1. ACM, Lugano and Virtual Event Switzerland, 27--43. https://doi.org/10.1145/3501385.3543957
[29]
Jaromir Savelka, Arav Agarwal, Marshall An, Chris Bogart, and Majd Sakr. 2023 a. Thrilled by Your Progress! Large Language Models (GPT-4) No Longer Struggle to Pass Assessments in Higher Education Programming Courses. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research V.1 (ICER 2023). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3568813.3600142
[30]
Jaromir Savelka, Arav Agarwal, Christopher Bogart, Yifan Song, and Majd Sakr. 2023 b. Can Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT) Pass Assessments in Higher Education Programming Courses?. In Proc of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in CS Education V. 1 (Turku, Finland) (ITiCSE 2023). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 117--123. https://doi.org/10.1145/3587102.3588792
[31]
Judy Sheard, Angela Carbone, and Martin Dick. 2003. Determination of factors which impact on IT students' propensity to cheat. In Proceedings of the Fifth Australasian Conference on Computing Education - Volume 20 (Adelaide, Australia) (ACE '03). Australian Computer Society, Inc., AUS, 119--126.
[32]
Judy Sheard, Paul Denny, Arto Hellas, Juho Leinonen, Lauri Malmi, and Simon. 2024. Instructor Perceptions of AI Code Generation Tools - A Multi-Institutional Interview Study. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (Portland, OR, USA) (SIGCSE 2024). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1223--1229. https://doi.org/10.1145/3626252.3630880
[33]
Aaron J. Smith, Kristy Elizabeth Boyer, Jeffrey Forbes, Sarah Heckman, and Ketan Mayer-Patel. 2017a. My Digital Hand: A Tool for Scaling Up One-to-One Peer Teaching in Support of Computer Science Learning. In Proc of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on CS Education (Seattle, Washington, USA) (SIGCSE '17). ACM, NY, USA, 549--554. https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017800
[34]
Margaret Smith, Yujie Chen, Rachel Berndtson, Kristen M Burson, and Whitney Griffin. 2017b. “Office Hours Are Kind of Weird”: Reclaiming a Resource to Foster Student-Faculty Interaction. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, Vol. 12 (2017), 14--29.
[35]
Andrew Tran, Kenneth Angelikas, Egi Rama, Chiku Okechukwu, David H Smith, and Stephen MacNeil. 2023. Generating Multiple Choice Questions for Computing Courses Using Large Language Models. In 2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE Computer Society, 1--8.
[36]
Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, Emily Reif, and Daphne Ippolito. 2022. Wordcraft: story writing with large language models. In 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 841--852.
[37]
Cynthia Zastudil, Magdalena Rogalska, Christine Kapp, Jennifer Vaughn, and Stephen MacNeil. 2023. Generative AI in Computing Education: Perspectives of Students and Instructors. In 2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE Computer Society, 1--9.

Index Terms

  1. Desirable Characteristics for AI Teaching Assistants in Programming Education

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ITiCSE 2024: Proceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1
      July 2024
      776 pages
      ISBN:9798400706004
      DOI:10.1145/3649217
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

      Sponsors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 03 July 2024

      Check for updates

      Badges

      • Best Paper

      Author Tags

      1. ai tutors
      2. automated tutors
      3. digital tas
      4. feedback
      5. llms

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Conference

      ITiCSE 2024
      Sponsor:

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate 552 of 1,613 submissions, 34%

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • 0
        Total Citations
      • 417
        Total Downloads
      • Downloads (Last 12 months)417
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)217
      Reflects downloads up to 21 Sep 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      View Options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Get Access

      Login options

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media