Learning Code-Edit Embedding to Model Student Debugging Behavior

Providing effective feedback for programming assignments in computer science education can be challenging: students solve problems by iteratively submitting code, executing it, and using limited feedback from the compiler or the auto-grader to debug. Analyzing student debugging behavior in this process may reveal important insights into their knowledge and inform better personalized support tools. In this work, we propose an encoder-decoder-based model that learns meaningful code-edit embeddings between consecutive student code submissions, to capture their debugging behavior. Our model leverages information on whether a student code submission passes each test case to fine-tune large language models (LLMs) to learn code editing representations. It enables personalized next-step code suggestions that maintain the student's coding style while improving test case correctness. Our model also enables us to analyze student code-editing patterns to uncover common student errors and debugging behaviors, using clustering techniques. Experimental results on a real-world student code submission dataset demonstrate that our model excels at code reconstruction and personalized code suggestion while revealing interesting patterns in student debugging behavior.

Generating Feedback-Ladders for Logical Errors in Programming using Large Language Models

In feedback generation for logical errors in programming assignments, large language model (LLM)-based methods have shown great promise. These methods ask the LLM to generate feedback given the problem statement and a student's (buggy) submission. There are several issues with these types of methods. First, the generated feedback messages are often too direct in revealing the error in the submission and thus diminish valuable opportunities for the student to learn. Second, they do not consider the student's learning context, i.e., their previous submissions, current knowledge, etc. Third, they are not layered since existing methods use a single, shared prompt for all student submissions. In this paper, we explore using LLMs to generate a "feedback-ladder", i.e., multiple levels of feedback for the same problem-submission pair. We evaluate the quality of the generated feedback-ladder via a user study with students, educators, and researchers. We have observed diminishing effectiveness for higher-level feedback and higher-scoring submissions overall in the study. In practice, our method enables teachers to select an appropriate level of feedback to show to a student based on their personal learning context, or in a progressive manner to go more detailed if a higher-level feedback fails to correct the student's error.