Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Explain in Plain Language Questions with Indic Languages: Drawbacks, Affordances, and Opportunities

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.20297 v1 pith:AU3EUHJ3 submitted 2024-09-30 cs.CY

Explain in Plain Language Questions with Indic Languages: Drawbacks, Affordances, and Opportunities

classification cs.CY
keywords codeeiplenglishlanguagestudentscorrectnessevaluateexplain
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Background: Introductory computer science courses use ``Explain in Plain English'' (EiPE) activities to develop and assess students' code comprehension skills, but creating effective autograders for these questions is challenging and limited to English. This is a particular challenge in linguistically diverse countries like India where students may have limited proficiency in English. Methods: We evaluate the efficacy of a recently introduced approach called Code Generation Based Grading (CGBG) in enabling language agnostic ``Explain in Plain Language'' (EiPL) activities. Here students' EiPL responses generate code that is tested for functional equivalence to the original which was being described. Objectives: We initially evaluate the correctness of code generated from correct EiPL responses provided in 10 of India's most commonly spoken languages. To evaluate the effectiveness of the approach in practice, we assess student success and perceptions of EiPL questions in a NPTEL (National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning) course. Results: We find promising results for the correctness of code generated from translations of correct EiPL responses, with most languages achieving a correctness rate of 75% or higher. However, in practice, many students preferred to respond in English due to greater familiarity with English as a technical language, difficulties writing in their native language, and perceptions of the grader being less capable of generating code from prompts in their mother tongue.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Commenting with Copilot: A Taxonomy and Multi-Year Analysis of Student Code-Generation Specifications

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    In four years of Copilot tasks, students wrote mostly natural-language What comments, used more How comments for procedural constructs, and focused effort on verifying output rather than rewriting comments.