Paper detail

A Multicriteria Evaluation for Data-Driven Programming Feedback Systems: Accuracy, Effectiveness, Fallibility, and Students' Response

Data-driven programming feedback systems can help novices to program in the absence of a human tutor. Prior evaluations showed that these systems improve learning in terms of test scores, or task completion efficiency. However, crucial aspects which can impact learning or reveal insights important for future improvement of such systems are ignored in these evaluations. These aspects include inherent fallibility of current state-of-the-art, students' programming behavior in response to correct/incorrect feedback, and effective/ineffective system components. Consequently, a great deal of knowledge is yet to be discovered about such systems. In this paper, we apply a multi-criteria evaluation with 5 criteria on a data-driven feedback system integrated within a block-based novice programming environment. Each criterion in the evaluation reveals a unique pivotal aspect of the system: 1) How accurate the feedback system is; 2) How it guides students throughout programming tasks; 3) How it helps students in task completion; 4) What happens when it goes wrong; and 5) How students respond generally to the system. Our evaluation results showed that the system was helpful to students due to its effective design and feedback representation despite being fallible. However, novices can be negatively impacted by this fallibility due to high reliance and lack of self-evaluation. The negative impacts include increased working time, implementation, or submission of incorrect/partially correct solutions. The evaluation results reinforced the necessity of multi-criteria system evaluations while revealing important insights helpful to ensuring proper usage of data-driven feedback systems, designing fallibility mitigation steps, and driving research for future improvement.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.