An Explainable AI Assistant for Introductory Programming Education: Improving Feedback Reliability with Instructor-AI Collaboration

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.12425v1
• Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 06:35:55 GMT
• Title: An Explainable AI Assistant for Introductory Programming Education: Improving Feedback Reliability with Instructor-AI Collaboration
• Abstract summary: We present an AI-driven classroom assistant that leverages an explainable AI model to analyze student code, map logical errors to instructor-identified misconceptions, and deliver instructor-authored feedback.<n>Results indicate that the assistant can provide accurate, instructor-verified feedback to students while fostering a positive experience.
• Score: 6.172982108802445
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Active learning is widely recognized as an effective approach for improving learning outcomes in introductory programming courses. However, insufficient instructional support often limits students' access to timely, personalized feedback, which is crucial for mastering foundational programming concepts. Although recent advances in AI, particularly large language models, offer scalable opportunities for feedback, concerns about explainability and reliability remain. In this paper, we present an AI-driven classroom assistant that leverages an explainable AI model to analyze student code, map logical errors to instructor-identified misconceptions, and deliver instructor-authored feedback, thereby grounding reliability in instructor-defined pedagogical knowledge. To evaluate the effectiveness of our framework, we conducted an expert evaluation to examine its alignment with instructor-verified feedback and deployed the system in a classroom setting to assess students' perceptions of its usability. Results indicate that the assistant can provide accurate, instructor-verified feedback to students while fostering a positive experience.

Related papers

• Are Agents Ready to Teach? A Multi-Stage Benchmark for Real-World Teaching Workflows [48.61619205237941]
  EduAgentBench is a source-grounded benchmark for evaluating tutor agents across the full scope of teaching work.<n>It contains 150 quality-controlled tasks across three capability surfaces: professional pedagogical judgment, situated multi-turn tutoring, and Canvas-style teaching workflow completion.<n>To our knowledge, EduAgentBench is the first theory-grounded and realistic benchmark for evaluating the holistic teaching capability of tutor agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-14T03:34:25Z)
• Owlgorithm: Supporting Self-Regulated Learning in Competitive Programming through LLM-Driven Reflection [0.0]
  We present an educational platform that supports Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) in competitive programming (CP)<n>Owlgorithm produces context-aware, meta prompts tailored to individual student submissions.<n>Our exploratory assessment of student ratings and TA feedback revealed both promising benefits and notable limitations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-13T05:08:45Z)
• Teaching at Scale: Leveraging AI to Evaluate and Elevate Engineering Education [3.557803321422781]
  This article presents a scalable, AI-supported framework for qualitative student feedback using large language models.<n>The system employs hierarchical summarization, anonymization, and exception handling to extract actionable themes from open-ended comments.<n>We report on its successful deployment across a large college of engineering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-01T20:27:40Z)
• MathTutorBench: A Benchmark for Measuring Open-ended Pedagogical Capabilities of LLM Tutors [82.91830877219822]
  We present MathTutorBench, an open-source benchmark for holistic tutoring model evaluation.<n>MathTutorBench contains datasets and metrics that broadly cover tutor abilities as defined by learning sciences research in dialog-based teaching.<n>We evaluate a wide set of closed- and open-weight models and find that subject expertise, indicated by solving ability, does not immediately translate to good teaching.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T08:43:47Z)
• ReVISE: Learning to Refine at Test-Time via Intrinsic Self-Verification [53.80183105328448]
  Refine via Intrinsic Self-Verification (ReVISE) is an efficient framework that enables LLMs to self-correct their outputs through self-verification.<n>Our experiments on various reasoning tasks demonstrate that ReVISE achieves efficient self-correction and significantly improves reasoning performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T13:50:02Z)
• Personalised Feedback Framework for Online Education Programmes Using Generative AI [0.0]
  This paper presents an alternative feedback framework which extends the capabilities of ChatGPT by integrating embeddings. As part of the study, we proposed and developed a proof of concept solution, achieving an efficacy rate of 90% and 100% for open-ended and multiple-choice questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T22:35:40Z)
• Leveraging Large Language Models for Actionable Course Evaluation Student Feedback to Lecturers [6.161370712594005]
  We have 742 student responses ranging over 75 courses in a Computer Science department. For each course, we synthesise a summary of the course evaluations and actionable items for the instructor. Our work highlights the possibility of using generative AI to produce factual, actionable, and appropriate feedback for teachers in the classroom setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T13:29:55Z)
• Evaluating and Optimizing Educational Content with Large Language Model Judgments [52.33701672559594]
  We use Language Models (LMs) as educational experts to assess the impact of various instructions on learning outcomes. We introduce an instruction optimization approach in which one LM generates instructional materials using the judgments of another LM as a reward function. Human teachers' evaluations of these LM-generated worksheets show a significant alignment between the LM judgments and human teacher preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-05T09:09:15Z)
• Improving the Validity of Automatically Generated Feedback via Reinforcement Learning [46.667783153759636]
  We propose a framework for feedback generation that optimize both correctness and alignment using reinforcement learning (RL)<n>Specifically, we use GPT-4's annotations to create preferences over feedback pairs in an augmented dataset for training via direct preference optimization (DPO)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-02T20:25:50Z)
• PapagAI:Automated Feedback for Reflective Essays [48.4434976446053]
  We present the first open-source automated feedback tool based on didactic theory and implemented as a hybrid AI system. The main objective of our work is to enable better learning outcomes for students and to complement the teaching activities of lecturers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-10T11:05:51Z)
• Using Large Language Models to Provide Explanatory Feedback to Human Tutors [3.2507682694499582]
  We present two approaches for supplying tutors real-time feedback within an online lesson on how to give students effective praise. This work-in-progress demonstrates considerable accuracy in binary classification for corrective feedback of effective, or effort-based. More notably, we introduce progress towards an enhanced approach of providing explanatory feedback using large language model-facilitated named entity recognition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-27T14:19:12Z)
• Modelling Assessment Rubrics through Bayesian Networks: a Pragmatic Approach [40.06500618820166]
  This paper presents an approach to deriving a learner model directly from an assessment rubric. We illustrate how the approach can be applied to automatize the human assessment of an activity developed for testing computational thinking skills.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-07T10:09:12Z)
• Explainable Active Learning (XAL): An Empirical Study of How Local Explanations Impact Annotator Experience [76.9910678786031]
  We propose a novel paradigm of explainable active learning (XAL), by introducing techniques from the recently surging field of explainable AI (XAI) into an Active Learning setting. Our study shows benefits of AI explanation as interfaces for machine teaching--supporting trust calibration and enabling rich forms of teaching feedback, and potential drawbacks--anchoring effect with the model judgment and cognitive workload.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-24T22:52:18Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.