CodeStylist: Supporting Early Undergraduate Programmers with Course-Aware Code Style Feedback

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.00839v1
• Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2026 19:42:49 GMT
• Title: CodeStylist: Supporting Early Undergraduate Programmers with Course-Aware Code Style Feedback
• Abstract summary: CodeStylist is a web application that provides course-standard-aware code style feedback for early undergraduate programming courses.<n>It supports course-specific standards, multi-file submissions, and file- and line-localized explanations intended to guide revision rather than grade correctness.<n>We report a formative expert review with 18 instructional staff from one early undergraduate programming course.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This innovative practice full paper presents CodeStylist, a web application that provides course-standard-aware code style feedback for early undergraduate programming courses. CodeStylist addresses a common instructional gap: students are expected to follow local conventions for naming, formatting, comments, organization, and readability, but feedback on these expectations is often delayed or inconsistent. Unlike generic linters or general-purpose LLM prompts, CodeStylist supports course-specific standards, multi-file submissions, and file- and line-localized explanations intended to guide revision rather than grade correctness. We report a formative expert review with 18 instructional staff from one early undergraduate programming course. Participants explored the prototype using self-selected code artifacts and completed a survey about response quality, anticipated student use, and redesign priorities. Ratings indicated modest perceived utility but limited trust: perceived correctness averaged 60.7%, response helpfulness averaged 3.50/5, response usefulness averaged 3.33/5, and anticipated student learning averaged 2.61/5. Despite these concerns, 17/18 respondents expected students to use the tool primarily for style checking, often at least weekly. Open-ended feedback showed that respondents valued CodeStylist for making implicit course standards more visible, but were concerned about unreliable output, overreliance, and latency or cost. We interpret these findings as evidence that course-aware style feedback is promising as a pre-submission revision aid, but that future versions should combine deterministic rule checks with LLM-generated explanations, rule citations, and stronger verification support.

Related papers

• ActReview: Rebuttal-Guided Training Data and Rubric Rewards for Actionable Peer Review Generation [54.82704239643649]
  We introduce ActReview, a rebuttal-guided post-training framework that connects paper-specific diagnoses to concrete, grounded revision plans.<n>Our central insight is that author rebuttals reveal plausible actions for addressing reviewer concerns and can therefore provide latent supervision for revision-oriented feedback.<n>We also introduce ActReview-Bench, a human-curated benchmark of 1,000 instances for evaluating diagnostic quality and revision usefulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-08T17:30:16Z)
• Beyond the Traceback: Using LLMs for Adaptive Explanations of Programming Errors [52.619793817715326]
  We present a multi-stage crowdsourced study evaluating skill-targeted, LLM-generated Python error messages.<n>We show that while LLM-rewritten messages significantly improved subjective evaluations, these perceived gains did not translate into statistically significant improvements in objective debug performance.<n>This highlights a critical human-AI complementarity gap: explanations that feel better to users do not necessarily make them more effective debuggers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-21T09:14:28Z)
• Guidelines to Prompt Large Language Models for Code Generation: An Empirical Characterization [82.29178197694819]
  We derive and evaluate development-specific prompt optimization guidelines.<n>We use an iterative, test-driven approach to automatically refine code generation prompts.<n>We conduct an assessment with 50 practitioners, who report their usage of the elicited prompt improvement patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T15:01:42Z)
• Reviewing the Reviewer: Elevating Peer Review Quality through LLM-Guided Feedback [75.31379834079648]
  We introduce an LLM-driven framework that decomposes reviews into argumentative segments.<n>We also release LazyReviewPlus, a dataset of 1,309 sentences labeled for lazy thinking and specificity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-17T20:32:18Z)
• A GPT-based Code Review System for Programming Language Learning [0.0]
  This research proposes a system that employs GPT-4 to offer learner-friendly code reviews and minimize the risk of AI-assist cheating. The improved system underwent evaluation by software education experts based on four criteria: strict code correctness checks, response time, lower API call costs, and the quality of code reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-21T12:16:01Z)
• Mining patterns in syntax trees to automate code reviews of student solutions for programming exercises [0.0]
  We introduce ECHO, a machine learning method to automate the reuse of feedback in educational code reviews. Based on annotations from both automated linting tools and human reviewers, we show that ECHO can accurately and quickly predict appropriate feedback annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-26T14:03:19Z)
• AI Teaches the Art of Elegant Coding: Timely, Fair, and Helpful Style Feedback in a Global Course [8.176398354378088]
  We present our experience deploying a novel, real-time style feedback tool in Code in Place, a large-scale online CS1 course. We show that students who received style feedback in real-time were five times more likely to view and engage with their feedback compared to students who received delayed feedback. Those who viewed feedback were more likely to make significant style-related edits to their code, with over 79% of these edits directly incorporating their feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-22T06:45:39Z)
• Take Care of Your Prompt Bias! Investigating and Mitigating Prompt Bias in Factual Knowledge Extraction [56.17020601803071]
  Recent research shows that pre-trained language models (PLMs) suffer from "prompt bias" in factual knowledge extraction. This paper aims to improve the reliability of existing benchmarks by thoroughly investigating and mitigating prompt bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T02:04:35Z)
• Students' Perceptions and Preferences of Generative Artificial Intelligence Feedback for Programming [15.372316943507506]
  We generated automated feedback using the ChatGPT API for four lab assignments in an introductory computer science class. Students perceived the feedback as aligning well with formative feedback guidelines established by Shute. Students generally expected specific and corrective feedback with sufficient code examples, but had diverged opinions on the tone of the feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-17T22:26:53Z)
• An Exploratory Analysis of Feedback Types Used in Online Coding Exercises [0.0]
  This research aims at the identification of feedback types applied by CodingBat, Scratch and Blockly. The study revealed difficulties in identifying clear-cut boundaries between feedback types.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-07T07:52:17Z)
• ProtoTransformer: A Meta-Learning Approach to Providing Student Feedback [54.142719510638614]
  In this paper, we frame the problem of providing feedback as few-shot classification. A meta-learner adapts to give feedback to student code on a new programming question from just a few examples by instructors. Our approach was successfully deployed to deliver feedback to 16,000 student exam-solutions in a programming course offered by a tier 1 university.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-23T22:41:28Z)
• Hierarchical Bi-Directional Self-Attention Networks for Paper Review Rating Recommendation [81.55533657694016]
  We propose a Hierarchical bi-directional self-attention Network framework (HabNet) for paper review rating prediction and recommendation. Specifically, we leverage the hierarchical structure of the paper reviews with three levels of encoders: sentence encoder (level one), intra-review encoder (level two) and inter-review encoder (level three) We are able to identify useful predictors to make the final acceptance decision, as well as to help discover the inconsistency between numerical review ratings and text sentiment conveyed by reviewers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-02T08:07:50Z)
• Code Review in the Classroom [57.300604527924015]
  Young developers in a classroom setting provide a clear picture of the potential favourable and problematic areas of the code review process. Their feedback suggests that the process has been well received with some points to better the process. This paper can be used as guidelines to perform code reviews in the classroom.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-19T06:07:45Z)

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.