Students' Perceptions and Preferences of Generative Artificial Intelligence Feedback for Programming

AI-generated keywords: Artificial intelligence Large language models Automated feedback Educational settings ChatGPT

AI-generated Key Points

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

  • Study by Zhang et al. (2023) focuses on using large language models (LLMs), specifically ChatGPT, for automating feedback in educational settings
  • Research aimed to address three key questions:
  • How do students perceive LLM-generated feedback in terms of its formative nature?
  • What are the advantages of feedback prompts that include students' code versus those that do not?
  • What suggestions do students have for enhancing AI-generated feedback?
  • Automated feedback generated using ChatGPT API for four lab assignments in a CS1 class
  • Students viewed AI-generated feedback as aligning well with established formative feedback guidelines
  • Preference among students for feedback that incorporated their own code into the LLM prompt due to specificity, clarity, and corrective nature
  • Students generally expected specific and corrective feedback with ample code examples but had varying opinions on the tone of the feedback provided by ChatGPT
  • Findings demonstrate ChatGPT's effectiveness in generating Java programming assignment feedback perceived as formative by students
  • Research highlights potential of AI-driven tools like ChatGPT in educational settings and identifies improvements needed to enhance AI-generated feedback for student learning outcomes
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Zhengdong Zhang, Zihan Dong, Yang Shi, Noboru Matsuda, Thomas Price, Dongkuan Xu

Abstract: The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI), specifically large language models (LLMs), has opened opportunities for various educational applications. This paper explored the feasibility of utilizing ChatGPT, one of the most popular LLMs, for automating feedback for Java programming assignments in an introductory computer science (CS1) class. Specifically, this study focused on three questions: 1) To what extent do students view LLM-generated feedback as formative? 2) How do students see the comparative affordances of feedback prompts that include their code, vs. those that exclude it? 3) What enhancements do students suggest for improving AI-generated feedback? To address these questions, we generated automated feedback using the ChatGPT API for four lab assignments in the CS1 class. The survey results revealed that students perceived the feedback as aligning well with formative feedback guidelines established by Shute. Additionally, students showed a clear preference for feedback generated by including the students' code as part of the LLM prompt, and our thematic study indicated that the preference was mainly attributed to the specificity, clarity, and corrective nature of the feedback. Moreover, this study found that students generally expected specific and corrective feedback with sufficient code examples, but had diverged opinions on the tone of the feedback. This study demonstrated that ChatGPT could generate Java programming assignment feedback that students perceived as formative. It also offered insights into the specific improvements that would make the ChatGPT-generated feedback useful for students.

Submitted to arXiv on 17 Dec. 2023

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2312.11567v1

This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

The study conducted by Zhang et al. (2023) explores the use of artificial intelligence, specifically large language models (LLMs), for automating feedback in educational settings. The researchers focused on ChatGPT, a popular LLM, to provide feedback for Java programming assignments in a CS1 class. Their research aimed to address three key questions: 1) How do students perceive LLM-generated feedback in terms of its formative nature? 2) What are the comparative advantages of feedback prompts that include students' code versus those that do not? 3) What suggestions do students have for enhancing AI-generated feedback? To answer these questions, automated feedback was generated using the ChatGPT API for four lab assignments within the CS1 class. The results from surveys indicated that students viewed the AI-generated feedback as aligning well with established formative feedback guidelines. There was also a clear preference among students for feedback that incorporated their own code into the LLM prompt due to its specificity, clarity, and corrective nature. Additionally, the study revealed that students generally expected specific and corrective feedback with ample code examples but had varying opinions on the tone of the feedback provided by ChatGPT. Overall, the findings demonstrated that ChatGPT could effectively generate Java programming assignment feedback perceived as formative by students. This research not only showcases the potential of AI-driven tools like ChatGPT in educational settings but also sheds light on specific improvements necessary to enhance the utility of AI-generated feedback for student learning outcomes. By exploring students' perceptions and preferences regarding generative artificial intelligence feedback for programming assignments, this study contributes valuable insights to further optimize AI applications in educational contexts.
Created on 06 Sep. 2024

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.