When Does Scaffolding Provide Too Much Assistance? A Code-Tracing Tutor Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When students are first learning to program, they not only have to learn to write programs, but also how to trace them. Code tracing involves stepping through a program step-by-step, which helps to predict the output of the program and identify bugs. Students routinely struggle with this activity, as evidenced by prior work and our own experiences in the classroom. To address this, we designed a Code Tracing (CT)-Tutor. We varied the level of assistance provided in the tutor, based on (1) the interface scaffolding available during code tracing, and (2) instructional order, operationalized by when examples were provided, either before or after the corresponding problem was solved. We collected data by having participants use the tutor to solve code tracing problems ( N = 97) and analyzed both learning outcomes and process data obtained by extracting features of interest from the log files. We used a multi-layered approach for the analysis, including standard inferential statistics and unsupervised learning to cluster students by their behaviors in the tutor. The results show that the optimal level of assistance for code tracing falls in the middle of the assistance spectrum included in the tutor, but also that there are individual differences in terms of optimal assistance for subgroups of individuals. Based on these results, we outline opportunities for future work around personalizing instruction for code tracing.
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 | 0.014 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".