The Impact of Adding Textual Explanations to Next-step Hints in a Novice Programming Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated hints, a powerful feature of many programming environments, have been shown to improve students' performance and learning. New methods for generating these hints use historical data, allowing them to scale easily to new classrooms and contexts. These scalable methods often generate next-step, code hints that suggest a single edit for the student to make to their code. However, while these code hints tell the student what to do, they do not explain why, which can make these hints hard to interpret and decrease students' trust in their helpfulness. In this work, we augmented code hints by adding adaptive, textual explanations in a block-based, novice programming environment. We evaluated their impact in two controlled studies with novice learners to investigate how our results generalize to different populations. We measured the impact of textual explanations on novices' programming performance. We also used quantitative analysis of log data, self-explanation prompts, and frequent feedback surveys to evaluate novices' understanding and perception of the hints throughout the learning process. Our results showed that novices perceived hints with explanations as significantly more relevant and interpretable than those without explanations, and were also better able to connect these hints to their code and the assignment. However, we found little difference in novices' performance. Our results suggest that explanations have the potential to make code hints more useful, but it is unclear whether this translates into better overall performance and learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".