Exploring the Effectiveness of Using LLMs for Automated Assessment of Student Self Explanations in Programming Education

Worked examples are step-by-step solutions to problems in a specific domain, offered to students to acquire domain-specific problem-solving skills. The effectiveness of worked examples could be enhanced by combining them with self-explanations, which ask students to explain rather than passively study each problem-solving step. The main challenge of this approach is assessing the correctness of the student's explanations. In the prevailing approach, student explanations are judged by their semantic similarity to an instructor's or domain expert's explanation. Given recent advances in LLM-based automated scoring, it remains unclear whether semantic similarity methods are still the most effective technique to automatically score textual student responses like essays or code explanations. Comparing these methods also requires quality datasets that offer distinctive features such as balanced class distributions and domain-specific labeled data for automated scoring tasks. In this paper, we present a rigorous comparison between LLMs and semantic similarity used for automated scoring, framed as a binary classification task.

Evaluating the Quality of Code Comments Generated by Large Language Models for Novice Programmers

Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise in generating code comments for novice programmers, but their educational effectiveness remains under-evaluated. This study assesses the instructional quality of code comments produced by GPT-4, GPT-3.5-Turbo, and Llama2, compared to expert-developed comments, focusing on their suitability for novices. Analyzing a dataset of ``easy'' level Java solutions from LeetCode, we find that GPT-4 exhibits comparable quality to expert comments in aspects critical for beginners, such as clarity, beginner-friendliness, concept elucidation, and step-by-step guidance. GPT-4 outperforms Llama2 in discussing complexity (chi-square = 11.40, p = 0.001) and is perceived as significantly more supportive for beginners than GPT-3.5 and Llama2 with Mann-Whitney U-statistics = 300.5 and 322.5, p = 0.0017 and 0.0003). This study highlights the potential of LLMs for generating code comments tailored to novice programmers.

Human-AI Co-Creation of Worked Examples for Programming Classes

Worked examples (solutions to typical programming problems presented as a source code in a certain language and are used to explain the topics from a programming class) are among the most popular types of learning content in programming classes. Most approaches and tools for presenting these examples to students are based on line-by-line explanations of the example code. However, instructors rarely have time to provide line-by-line explanations for a large number of examples typically used in a programming class. In this paper, we explore and assess a human-AI collaboration approach to authoring worked examples for Java programming. We introduce an authoring system for creating Java worked examples that generates a starting version of code explanations and presents it to the instructor to edit if necessary.We also present a study that assesses the quality of explanations created with this approach

Authoring Worked Examples for Java Programming with Human-AI Collaboration

Worked examples (solutions to typical programming problems presented as a source code in a certain language and are used to explain the topics from a programming class) are among the most popular types of learning content in programming classes. Most approaches and tools for presenting these examples to students are based on line-by-line explanations of the example code. However, instructors rarely have time to provide line-by-line explanations for a large number of examples typically used in a programming class. In this paper, we explore and assess a human-AI collaboration approach to authoring worked examples for Java programming. We introduce an authoring system for creating Java worked examples that generates a starting version of code explanations and presents it to the instructor to edit if necessary. We also present a study that assesses the quality of explanations created with this approach.