Beyond verbal self‐explanations: Student annotations of a code‐tracing solution produced by <scp>ChatGPT</scp>
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
Abstract ChatGPT is a generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) that can produce a variety of outputs, including solutions to problems. Prior research shows that for students to learn from instructional content, they need to actively process the content. To date, existing research has focused on student explanations expressed in words (either spoken or written). Thus, less is known about other forms of expression, such as ones involving spatial elements (eg, flowcharts, drawings). Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, there is not yet work on how students annotate solutions produced by ChatGPT. The study was conducted in the context of a first‐year programming tutorial focused on loops and code tracing. Code tracing is a fundamental programming skill that involves simulating at a high level the actions a computer takes when it executes a program. The students annotated a printed‐out code trace produced by ChatGPT using the strategy of their choice. Our goal was to describe the visual and verbal strategies students used to annotate the ChatGPT trace as well as how strategies relate to annotation quality, and so we used an observational study design with a single condition. Annotation strategies ranged from words‐only strategies to visual representations like flowcharts. As annotation quality increased, the proportions of strategies used changed, suggesting that some strategies may facilitate the production of quality annotations. In particular, the proportion of words‐only and flowchart strategies increased as quality increased; in the top quality quartile, there was a similar proportion of each but with slightly more flowcharts. Practitioner notes What is already known about this topic When students study instructional materials, they need to actively and constructively interact with the materials in order to learn effectively. Much of the research showing this has examined only verbal student output. In addition to verbal strategies involving only words, strategies including visual elements are also beneficial. For instance, when students are asked to predict a program's output by simulating the steps the computer takes when executing the program, they use representations like tables and/or visual elements to organise their work. These strategies are positively associated with tracing performance. To date, research has focused on how students study instructional materials produced by humans, rather than Large Language Models. What this paper adds We provide insights into the annotation strategies novice programmers from non‐traditional computer science backgrounds use to annotate a ChatGPT solution showing a code trace of a computer program. We identified six strategies; while the words‐only strategy was the most common overall, students used a variety of annotation types, including ones with visual and spatial elements (eg, flowcharts, outlines, lists). As annotation quality increased, the proportions of strategies used changed, suggesting that some strategies may facilitate the production of quality annotations. In particular, the proportion of words‐only and flowchart strategies increased as quality increased; in the top quality quartile, there was a similar proportion of each (with slightly more flowcharts). We integrate several existing frameworks to propose a qualitative method for comparing annotation quality across annotation modalities (verbal, sketched). Implications for practice and/or policy We provide insight into one way instructors could use ChatGPT in a first‐year programming class, that is, use ChatGPT to produce code‐tracing solutions and scaffold student processing of these solutions through annotation activities. We provide evidence that students annotate ChatGPT solutions using a variety of strategies, including ones with visual elements; of the students who provided demographics, the vast majority reported no prior experience.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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