Do Hints Enhance Learning in Programming Exercises? Exploring Students' Problem-Solving and Interactions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asking for help (help-seeking) is a recognized and effective problem-solving strategy. This study investigates students' interaction with on-demand hints (automated hints requested by students) and assesses their impact on learning progress. We conducted an A/B experiment in a third-year computer science database course, offering hints for selected SQL problems with different hint designs. We collected data on students' code submissions, grades, and hint requests, and we administered a survey to gather feedback and gauge student perception of the hints. Many students accessed hints immediately without attempting the problem first, often requesting multiple hints in quick succession. While students perceived the hints to be valuable, we did not detect an impact on student problem-solving. These insights could inform future studies on the possible impact of students' attitudes toward hints, and how different types of hints might impact uptake and perception of hints.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it