Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 138 references

Designing Conversational AI to Support Think-Aloud Practice in Technical Interview Preparation for CS Students

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Conversational AI can support think-aloud practice in technical interviews, and a 17-participant study yields user-grounded design recommendations for such tools.

desk verdict A credible exploratory user study of AI think-aloud practice for technical interviews, but the unvalidated AI feedback and single-coder analysis keep the design recommendations at hypothesis level. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14418 v1 pith:GD476N7L submitted 2025-07-19 cs.HC cs.AI

Taufiq Daryanto , Sophia Stil , Xiaohan Ding , Daniel Manesh , Sang Won Lee , Tim Lee , Stephanie Lunn , Sarah Rodriguez
show 2 more authors
Chris Brown Eugenia Rho
This is my paper
classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords think-aloudpracticetechnicalinterviewpreparationconversationalAIlargelanguagemodelsuserstudydesignrecommendationshuman-AIcollaborationinclusivecomputingeducation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that conversational AI, particularly voice-based large-language-model interviewers, can create genuine technical interview experiences that support the think-aloud skill at the center of coding interviews. Drawing on a study of 17 computer science students who used a three-feature practice tool, the paper reports that two-way dialogue helped participants articulate complex technical reasoning and that participants valued AI's roles in simulation, feedback, and example learning. The empirical contribution is a set of user-grounded design considerations: promoting social presence in the AI interviewer, providing feedback beyond verbal content analysis, and sourcing think-aloud examples through human-AI crowdsourcing. The paper also discusses how such tools might promote equitable access to interview preparation and surfaces intersectional challenges, such as AI feedback misreading apology speech from a non-native speaker as uncertainty.

What carries the argument

The central object is a web-based, LLM-powered technical interview practice tool whose three features map to the experiential learning cycle: a voice-based interview simulation with turn-taking, AI feedback organized into six think-aloud stages, and AI-generated example dialogues for vicarious learning. The simulation runs on a speech-enabled LLM interviewer that responds to the user's spoken reasoning and code; the feedback feature analyzes the interview transcript; the example feature generates step-by-step dialogues. The study's data are semi-structured interviews analyzed thematically, and the reported claims are the patterns observed across the 17 participants.

What would settle it

If a replication using a different language model backend that is not prone to sycophancy, paired with independent validation of interview fidelity and feedback correctness, produced participants who no longer requested adjustable interviewer personas or third-person feedback framing, the paper's design recommendations would be shown to depend on the specific model rather than on the think-aloud practice context.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, participants perceived that AI simulations could create genuine technical interview experiences, valuing the two-way dialogue that helped them articulate complex technical reasoning in their think-aloud process. From this, participants sought design changes: more social presence from the AI interviewer, feedback that goes beyond analyzing the words spoken to include pacing and non-verbal behavior, and think-aloud example dialogues that are realistic and adjustable, with several suggesting a crowdsourced human-AI collaboration so examples come from real users' simulations. The paper further establishes that AI-assisted practice can lower barriers to interview preparation and that designers must attend to intersectional factors, such as language background and gender, when building feedback systems.

Load-bearing premise

The study assumes that the AI interviewer's behavior, feedback, and example dialogues are realistic and accurate enough that participants' preferences reflect the design space of think-aloud practice rather than artifacts of the particular language model implementation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If LLM-based simulators can create genuine interview experiences, students without access to human mock interviewers get a realistic two-way setting in which to practice articulating their reasoning.
  • Think-aloud feedback should expand beyond transcript analysis to include guidance on balancing time among thinking, talking, and coding, and should be framed from a third-person interviewer perspective to improve trust.
  • AI-generated think-aloud examples are useful as benchmarks, but they must be realistic or customizable; overly perfect examples can discourage learners and cause self-doubt.
  • Adding adjustable interviewer personas, including stricter or less engaged ones, could counter AI sycophancy and prepare candidates for varied interviewer behavior.
  • AI-assisted interview practice tools should be designed with intersectional factors in mind, so that feedback does not penalize non-native speech patterns or compound existing insecurities.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 'too perfect example' finding points to a general calibration problem for LLM-generated teaching exemplars: generating examples at multiple competency levels, including imperfect ones, may support learning better than a single ideal model.
  • The third-person feedback framing result suggests a testable extension: presenting AI feedback as a summary of what real interviewers typically expect may increase trust in other high-stakes communication training domains, such as presentations or negotiation practice.
  • The proposed crowdsourcing pipeline could be operationalized by collecting users' positively scored simulations, anonymizing them, and attaching AI feedback; a follow-up study could measure whether learners find these human-AI examples more relatable and more effective than fully AI-generated ones.
  • The misreading of apology-laden speech as uncertainty implies that feedback prompts should be calibrated to ignore politeness markers, and that calibration could be evaluated by measuring feedback accuracy across speaker groups with different language backgrounds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a qualitative user study (N=17) of CS students using an LLM-based conversational tool for think-aloud practice in technical interview preparation. The tool has three features: a voice-based AI interviewer simulation, AI feedback on six phases of the think-aloud process, and AI-generated example dialogue. Through thematic analysis of post-study semi-structured interviews, the authors derive design recommendations: promoting social presence in the simulated interviewer, providing feedback beyond verbal content (e.g., pauses and time allocation), and enabling human-AI crowdsourced think-aloud examples. The paper also discusses intersectional challenges, equitable access, and a broader human-AI collaboration research direction.

Significance. If the findings hold, the paper contributes a clear, user-grounded set of design considerations for a relatively underexplored application of LLMs to technical interview preparation. The strengths are the concrete system description, full prompts in the appendix, participant demographics, and direct quotations that make the qualitative claims auditable. The paper does not claim to validate the tool's effectiveness, and its stated contribution is user perceptions rather than measured learning outcomes. However, the design recommendations are presented with more confidence than the supporting evidence warrants, particularly because the AI feedback feature is never validated and one headline recommendation rests on a single participant.

major comments (3)
  1. [V-D2, III-B, Appendix A.2] The design implications in V-B and VI-A2 depend on the AI feedback feature being sufficiently accurate for users to form stable preferences about feedback design. The paper never reports any validation of the six-phase feedback against human judgment, and the P3 episode in V-D2 provides direct internal evidence of unreliability: the system interpreted the politeness/discourse marker "sorry" as cognitive uncertainty and reported "You are very unsure," an interpretation P3 explicitly disputed. Since two of the three headline recommendations (feedback beyond verbal content analysis and third-person framing) are derived from participants' reactions to this unvalidated feedback, the paper should either add a validation component (e.g., comparing the AI feedback on the 17 transcripts to human ratings) or explicitly reframe these recommendations as provisional perceptions of a prototype and discuss how feedback errors could shape those perceptions. The Limitations section (VII) does not acknowledge this threat, and the current framing in V-D2 treats the episode primarily as an intersectional insight rather than as a potential correctness failure.
  2. [V-B2] The recommendation that feedback should be framed from a third-person interviewer perspective to improve trust is supported by a single participant (P14). The paper introduces this as a novel design insight, but no corroborating evidence from other participants or triangulation is presented. Given that this recommendation is part of the paper's main design-implication contribution, the authors should either provide converging evidence from additional participants or explicitly state that this is a single-participant observation that needs further study.
  3. [IV-C] The thematic analysis section reports that the first author conducted initial inductive coding, that codes were reviewed and discussed with another author, and that the first author then applied the refined codes to all transcripts. No codebook, code definitions, or inter-rater reliability or consensus procedure is reported. This is not necessarily disqualifying for a qualitative perception study, but the absence of any audit trail makes it difficult to assess whether themes such as "social presence," "trust in framing," and "feedback beyond verbal content" were applied consistently across the 17 interviews. At minimum, the authors should include the final codebook in an appendix and describe how coding disagreements were resolved.
minor comments (4)
  1. [V-D2, Table I] The text in V-D2 describes P3 as "Middle Eastern/North African," while Table I lists P3's race/ethnicity as "Middle Eastern." Please use consistent terminology throughout.
  2. [Appendix A.2] The feedback prompt is shown with escaped JSON and underscores (e.g., "i n i t i a l ˙ i d e a t i o n"), which is difficult to read. Consider presenting the prompt in a clean verbatim form or as a code block.
  3. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract states that "limited research explores user perceptions" of conversational AI for think-aloud practice, but the related work cites many interview simulation systems. The unique contribution is the focus on think-aloud and the specific design considerations; consider sharpening the gap statement to avoid seeming to ignore prior interview-simulation work.
  4. [VII] The limitations section mentions sample composition and the absence of a longitudinal study, but it does not mention the lack of validation of the AI-generated feedback or the AI-generated example dialogues. Adding this point would align the limitations with the major concerns above.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports an empirical user-perception study whose design recommendations are grounded in participant interviews, not in fitted parameters or self-citation chains.

full rationale

This paper is a qualitative HCI user study, and its contributions are participant-derived design considerations rather than predicted quantities derived from an input model. There is no equation, fitted parameter, or claimed first-principles result that is later 'predicted' from the same data. The tool's three features (simulation, feedback, examples) are prototype artifacts used to elicit user perceptions, and the findings are reported as perceptions, not as validated outcomes of the system. The six think-aloud phases are an explicit design input, and participant appreciation of step-by-step feedback is presented as user preference evidence rather than as a validation of the taxonomy. The P3 episode, in which AI feedback interpreted 'sorry' as uncertainty, is reported as an observed system behavior and used to motivate an intersectional design discussion; this could indicate a feedback-accuracy or validity threat, but it is not circular because the paper does not use the feedback output as evidence for a derived conclusion. Self-citations, including Conversate [12] and related prior work by co-authors, appear only in related-work and contextual statements, and none carries a load-bearing argument such as a uniqueness theorem or an imported ansatz. The limitations section acknowledges sample and longitudinal constraints but not feedback validation; this is a completeness or correctness concern, not circularity. Overall, the derivation chain, such as it is, is self-contained as an empirical study, and no step reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities. The study's conclusions rest on the domain assumptions above, typical of qualitative HCI work, plus the usual assumption that participants answered truthfully.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Think-aloud is a critical and learnable skill for technical interview performance.
    Used to motivate the entire study (Introduction, Related Work II-A); not tested by the study, only cited from prior literature.
  • domain assumption A voice-based LLM mock interview is a sufficiently realistic proxy for a real technical interview to elicit valid user perceptions.
    Section III and IV assume the tool's simulation, feedback, and examples produce experiences worth judging; no independent validation of tool quality is provided.
  • domain assumption Self-reported preferences from 17 students at one university generalize to other CS students and job candidates.
    The paper draws design implications and equity claims from this sample (Sections V and VI) while acknowledging limited representativeness in Section VII.
  • domain assumption Thematic analysis by a primary coder with a second-author review yields reliable themes.
    Section IV-C describes a single primary coder applying codes after discussion; no inter-rater reliability or codebook is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Designing Conversational AI to Support Think-Aloud Practice in Technical Interview Preparation for CS Students." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GD476N7L

@misc{pith2026250714418,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Designing Conversational AI to Support Think-Aloud Practice in Technical Interview Preparation for CS Students},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GD476N7L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14418}
}
read the original abstract

One challenge in technical interviews is the think-aloud process, where candidates verbalize their thought processes while solving coding tasks. Despite its importance, opportunities for structured practice remain limited. Conversational AI offers potential assistance, but limited research explores user perceptions of its role in think-aloud practice. To address this gap, we conducted a study with 17 participants using an LLM-based technical interview practice tool. Participants valued AI's role in simulation, feedback, and learning from generated examples. Key design recommendations include promoting social presence in conversational AI for technical interview simulation, providing feedback beyond verbal content analysis, and enabling crowdsourced think-aloud examples through human-AI collaboration. Beyond feature design, we examined broader considerations, including intersectional challenges and potential strategies to address them, how AI-driven interview preparation could promote equitable learning in computing careers, and the need to rethink AI's role in interview practice by suggesting a research direction that integrates human-AI collaboration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14418 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Technical Interview Simulation . AI-facilitated mock interview tool that simulates a technical interview experience through (A) voice-based natural conversation. The interaction flow mimics an actual technical interview, beginning with the AI interviewer asking questions, followed by user responses. During this interaction, users can type code in an (B) integrated editor while verbally think-aloud explaining their t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. AI Feedback on Think-Aloud Practice . Providing (B) feedback on users’ think-aloud performance based on the interview simulation (A) transcript. ence [44] in technical interviews by replicating the dynamic interaction between a candidate and an interviewer, where the candidate is expected to think aloud during the interview. Leveraging OpenAI’s GPT-4o-mini, along with text-to￾speech and speech-to-text models, we pro… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. AI-Generated Think-Aloud Example Dialogue . Providing (A) AI-generated dialogues that model thinking aloud during a technical interview for each (B) coding problem. The goal is to help users learn from examples relevant to their current task and better articulate their thought processes. The feature also includes a step-by-step (C) code solution alongside the dialogue, with each utterance displayed sequentially and … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Computer and Information Technology Occupations,

    Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, “Computer and Information Technology Occupations,” 2024, accessed: 2024-11-06. [Online]. Available: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/ computer-and-information-technology/home.htm

    2024

  2. [2]

    The tech-talk balance: what technical interviewers expect from technical candidates,

    D. Ford, T. Barik, L. Rand-Pickett, and C. Parnin, “The tech-talk balance: what technical interviewers expect from technical candidates,” in 2017 IEEE/ACM 10th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 43–48

    2017

  3. [3]

    Hiring is broken: What do de- velopers say about technical interviews?

    M. Behroozi, C. Parnin, and T. Barik, “Hiring is broken: What do de- velopers say about technical interviews?” in 2019 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–9

    2019

  4. [4]

    Aziz, T.-H

    A. Aziz, T.-H. Lee, and A. Prakash, Elements of Programming Inter- views in Java: The Insider’s Guide . EPI, 2012

    2012

  5. [5]

    G. L. McDowell, Cracking the coding interview . Iland Ebook, 2013

    2013

  6. [6]

    Asynchronous technical interviews: Reducing the effect of supervised think-aloud on com- munication ability,

    M. Behroozi, C. Parnin, and C. Brown, “Asynchronous technical interviews: Reducing the effect of supervised think-aloud on com- munication ability,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering , 2022, pp. 294–305

    2022

  7. [7]

    Does stress impact technical interview performance?

    M. Behroozi, S. Shirolkar, T. Barik, and C. Parnin, “Does stress impact technical interview performance?” in Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering , 2020, pp. 481–492

    2020

  8. [8]

    Need for change: How interview preparation and the hiring process in computing can be made more equitable,

    S. J. Lunn, E. Zerbe, and M. S. Ross, “Need for change: How interview preparation and the hiring process in computing can be made more equitable,” in 2022 CoNECD (Collaborative Network for Engineering & Computing Diversity) , 2022

    2022

Show all 138 references
  1. [9]

    Leetcode,

    LeetCode, “Leetcode,” https://leetcode.com/

  2. [10]

    Hackerrank

    HackerRank, “Hackerrank.”

  3. [11]

    Virtual aivantage: Leveraging large language models for enhanced vr interview preparation among underrepresented professionals in comput- ing,

    S. J. Ajri, D. Nguyen, S. Agarwal, A. K. R. Padala, and C. Yildirim, “Virtual aivantage: Leveraging large language models for enhanced vr interview preparation among underrepresented professionals in comput- ing,” in Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Mobile a...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Conversate: Supporting reflective learning in interview practice through interactive simulation and dialogic feedback,

    T. Daryanto, X. Ding, L. T. Wilhelm, S. Stil, K. M. Knutsen, and E. H. Rho, “Conversate: Supporting reflective learning in interview practice through interactive simulation and dialogic feedback,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05570, 2024

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Using large language models to detect self-regulated learning in think-aloud proto- cols,

    J. Zhang, C. Borchers, V . Aleven, and R. S. Baker, “Using large language models to detect self-regulated learning in think-aloud proto- cols,” in Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Educa- tional Data Mining (EDM) , 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Re- hearsal: Simulating conflict to teach conflict resolution,

    O. Shaikh, V . E. Chai, M. Gelfand, D. Yang, and M. S. Bernstein, “Re- hearsal: Simulating conflict to teach conflict resolution,” in Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2024, pp. 1–20

    2024

  7. [15]

    Generative ai for professional communication training in intercultural contexts: where are we now and where are we heading?

    D. W. Dai, S. Suzuki, and G. Chen, “Generative ai for professional communication training in intercultural contexts: where are we now and where are we heading?” Applied Linguistics Review , no. 0, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    The role of artificial intelligence (ai) in developing english language learner’s communication skills,

    R. Rusmiyanto, N. Huriati, N. Fitriani, N. K. Tyas, A. Rofi’i, and M. N. Sari, “The role of artificial intelligence (ai) in developing english language learner’s communication skills,”Journal on Education, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 750–757, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Artificial intelligence support- ing the training of communication skills in the education of health care professions: scoping review,

    T. Stamer, J. Steinh ¨auser, and K. Fl¨agel, “Artificial intelligence support- ing the training of communication skills in the education of health care professions: scoping review,” Journal of Medical Internet Research , vol. 25, p. e43311, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    The impact of ai on communication skills training oppor- tunities and challenges,

    L. Agrawal, P. Lanjewar, S. Deshpande, P. Jawarkar, V . Gaur, and A. Dive, “The impact of ai on communication skills training oppor- tunities and challenges,” Nanotechnology Perceptions, pp. 1167–1173, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Artificial intelligence in virtual reality simulation for interprofessional communication training: mixed method study,

    S. Y . Liaw, J. Z. Tan, S. Lim, W. Zhou, J. Yap, R. Ratan, S. L. Ooi, S. J. Wong, B. Seah, and W. L. Chua, “Artificial intelligence in virtual reality simulation for interprofessional communication training: mixed method study,” Nurse education today , vol. 122, p. 105718, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    A virtual counseling application using artificial intelligence for communi- cation skills training in nursing education: development study,

    S. Shorey, E. Ang, J. Yap, E. D. Ng, S. T. Lau, and C. K. Chui, “A virtual counseling application using artificial intelligence for communi- cation skills training in nursing education: development study,” Journal of medical Internet research , vol. 21, no. 10, p. e14658, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Mach: My automated conversation coach,

    M. Hoque, M. Courgeon, J.-C. Martin, B. Mutlu, and R. W. Picard, “Mach: My automated conversation coach,” in Proceedings of the 2013 ACM international joint conference on Pervasive and ubiquitous computing, 2013, pp. 697–706

    2013

  14. [22]

    The tardis framework: Intelligent virtual agents for social coaching in job interviews,

    K. Anderson, E. Andr ´e, T. Baur, S. Bernardini, M. Chollet, E. Chrys- safidou, I. Damian, C. Ennis, A. Egges, P. Gebhard, H. Jones, M. Ochs, C. Pelachaud, K. Porayska-Pomsta, P. Rizzo, and N. Sabouret, “The tardis framework: Intelligent virtual agents for social coaching in j...

    2013

  15. [23]

    Job interviewer android with elaborate follow- up question generation,

    K. Inoue, K. Hara, D. Lala, K. Yamamoto, S. Nakamura, K. Takanashi, and T. Kawahara, “Job interviewer android with elaborate follow- up question generation,” in Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction , 2020, pp. 324–332

    2020

  16. [24]

    Automatic multimodal assessment of soft skills in social interactions: a review,

    S. Rasipuram and D. B. Jayagopi, “Automatic multimodal assessment of soft skills in social interactions: a review,” Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 79, no. 19-20, pp. 13 037–13 060, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Automated anal- ysis and prediction of job interview performance,

    I. Naim, M. I. Tanveer, D. Gildea, and M. E. Hoque, “Automated anal- ysis and prediction of job interview performance,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 191–204, 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    An AI mock- interview platform for interview performance analysis,

    Y .-C. Chou, F. R. Wongso, C.-Y . Chao, and H.-Y . Yu, “An AI mock- interview platform for interview performance analysis,” in 2022 10th International Conference on Information and Education Technology (ICIET). IEEE, Apr. 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Automatic assessment of communication skill in real-world job interviews: A comparative study using deep learning and domain adaptation

    J. H. Thakkar, C. Thomas, and D. B. Jayagopi, “Automatic assessment of communication skill in real-world job interviews: A comparative study using deep learning and domain adaptation.” in Proceedings of the Fourteenth Indian Conference on Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Pr...

    2023

  20. [28]

    Ezinterviewer: To improve job interview performance with mock interview generator,

    M. Li, X. Chen, W. Liao, Y . Song, T. Zhang, D. Zhao, and R. Yan, “Ezinterviewer: To improve job interview performance with mock interview generator,” 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Aptico: Ai-powered interview preparation,

    Aptico, “Aptico: Ai-powered interview preparation,” 2024, accessed: 2024-11-10. [Online]. Available: https://www.aptico.xyz/

    2024

  22. [30]

    Ask the users: a case study of leveraging user-centered design for designing just-in-time adaptive interventions (jitais),

    K. S. Kabir, S. A. Kenfield, E. L. Van Blarigan, J. M. Chan, and J. Wiese, “Ask the users: a case study of leveraging user-centered design for designing just-in-time adaptive interventions (jitais),” Pro- ceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Tech...

    2022

  23. [31]

    Educational expertise: Faculty insights on preparing computing students to navigate technical interviews,

    S. J. Lunn, E. Dillon, and Z. A. Sadid, “Educational expertise: Faculty insights on preparing computing students to navigate technical interviews,” in 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Efficacy and benefits of virtual mock interviews: Analysing student perceptions of digital employment prepa- rations,

    L. Wilkie and J. Rosendale, “Efficacy and benefits of virtual mock interviews: Analysing student perceptions of digital employment prepa- rations,” Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, vol. 21, no. 1, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Mock interviews — practice live with faang interviewers,

    IGotAnOffer, “Mock interviews — practice live with faang interviewers,” 2024, [Accessed: 17-Dec-2024]. [Online]. Available: https://igotanoffer.com/en/mock-interviews

    2024

  26. [34]

    How do software en- gineering candidates prepare for technical interviews?

    B. Bell, T. Thomas, S. W. Lee, and C. Brown, “How do software en- gineering candidates prepare for technical interviews?” in Companion Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering , 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Exploring the role of ai assistants in computer science education: Methods, implications, and instructor perspectives,

    T. Wang, D. V . D´ıaz, C. Brown, and Y . Chen, “Exploring the role of ai assistants in computer science education: Methods, implications, and instructor perspectives,” in 2023 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 92–102

    2023

  28. [36]

    Coding with ai: How are tools like chatgpt being used by students in foundational programming courses,

    A. Ghimire and J. Edwards, “Coding with ai: How are tools like chatgpt being used by students in foundational programming courses,” in International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education . Springer, 2024, pp. 259–267

    2024

  29. [37]

    Six opportunities for scientists and engineers to learn programming using ai tools such as chatgpt,

    P. J. Guo, “Six opportunities for scientists and engineers to learn programming using ai tools such as chatgpt,” Computing in Science & Engineering, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 73–78, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Automatic generation of programming exercises and code explanations using large language models,

    S. Sarsa, P. Denny, A. Hellas, and J. Leinonen, “Automatic generation of programming exercises and code explanations using large language models,” in Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research-Volume 1 , 2022, pp. 27–43

    2022

  31. [39]

    Programming is hard-or at least it used to be: Educational opportunities and challenges of ai code generation,

    B. A. Becker, P. Denny, J. Finnie-Ansley, A. Luxton-Reilly, J. Prather, and E. A. Santos, “Programming is hard-or at least it used to be: Educational opportunities and challenges of ai code generation,” in Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Edu...

    2023

  32. [40]

    Teach ai how to code: Using large language models as teachable agents for programming education,

    H. Jin, S. Lee, H. Shin, and J. Kim, “Teach ai how to code: Using large language models as teachable agents for programming education,” in Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2024, pp. 1–28

    2024

  33. [41]

    How to teach program- ming in the ai era? using llms as a teachable agent for debugging,

    Q. Ma, H. Shen, K. Koedinger, and S. T. Wu, “How to teach program- ming in the ai era? using llms as a teachable agent for debugging,” in International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education . Springer, 2024, pp. 265–279

    2024

  34. [42]

    What you say= what you want? teaching humans to articulate requirements for llms,

    Q. Ma, W. Peng, H. Shen, K. Koedinger, and T. Wu, “What you say= what you want? teaching humans to articulate requirements for llms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08775 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Exploring student interactions with ai in programming training,

    G. Fenu, R. Galici, M. Marras, and D. Reforgiato, “Exploring student interactions with ai in programming training,” in Adjunct Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, 2024, pp. 555–560

    2024

  36. [44]

    D. A. Kolb, Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT press, 2014

    2014

  37. [45]

    The experiential learning theory of career development,

    D. A. Kolb and M. S. Plovnick, “The experiential learning theory of career development,” 1974

    1974

  38. [46]

    Exploring an experiential learning project through kolb’s learning theory using a qualitative research method,

    C. K. Y . Chan, “Exploring an experiential learning project through kolb’s learning theory using a qualitative research method,” European Journal of Engineering Education , vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 405–415, 2012

    2012

  39. [47]

    Experiential learning: Past and present,

    L. H. Lewis and C. J. Williams, “Experiential learning: Past and present,” New directions for adult and continuing education , vol. 1994, no. 62, pp. 5–16, 1994

    1994

  40. [48]

    Experiential learning–a systematic review and revision of kolb’s model,

    T. H. Morris, “Experiential learning–a systematic review and revision of kolb’s model,” Interactive learning environments, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 1064–1077, 2020

    2020

  41. [49]

    Rethinking hci education: teaching interactive comput- ing concepts based on the experiential learning paradigm,

    ˇZ. Obrenovi´c, “Rethinking hci education: teaching interactive comput- ing concepts based on the experiential learning paradigm,” interactions, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 66–70, 2012

    2012

  42. [50]

    Is it possible for young students to learn the ai-steam application with experiential learning?

    T.-C. Hsu, H. Abelson, N. Lao, and S.-C. Chen, “Is it possible for young students to learn the ai-steam application with experiential learning?” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 19, p. 11114, 2021

    2021

  43. [51]

    Enhancing human- computer interaction and user experience education through a hybrid approach to experiential learning,

    A. B. Talone, P. Basavaraj, and P. J. Wisniewski, “Enhancing human- computer interaction and user experience education through a hybrid approach to experiential learning,” in Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education , 2017, pp. 83–88

    2017

  44. [52]

    Reducing the ux skill gap through ex- periential learning: Description and initial assessment of collabora- tive learning of usability experiences program,

    A. Girouard and J. Kang, “Reducing the ux skill gap through ex- periential learning: Description and initial assessment of collabora- tive learning of usability experiences program,” in Human-Computer Interaction–INTERACT 2021: 18th IFIP TC 13 International Confer- ence, Bari,...

    2021

  45. [53]

    Springer, 2021, pp. 481–500

    2021

  46. [54]

    Developing self-learning competence for students based on learning theories combined with the support of ai chatbot in teaching,

    V . T. Lan and N. M. Giam, “Developing self-learning competence for students based on learning theories combined with the support of ai chatbot in teaching,” Int. J. Curr. Sci. Res. Rev , vol. 7, pp. 1240–1246, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    Enhancing reflective thinking in stem education through experiential learning: The role of generative ai as a learning aid,

    C.-J. Lin, H.-Y . Lee, W.-S. Wang, Y .-M. Huang, and T.-T. Wu, “Enhancing reflective thinking in stem education through experiential learning: The role of generative ai as a learning aid,” Education and Information Technologies, pp. 1–23, 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    Umpire interview strategy,

    CodePath, “Umpire interview strategy,” https://guides.codepath.com/ compsci/UMPIRE-Interview-Strategy, 2024, accessed: 2024-10-07

    2024

  49. [57]

    Eyes on, hands on: Vicarious observational learning as an enhancement of direct experience,

    J. D. Hoover, R. C. Giambatista, and L. Y . Belkin, “Eyes on, hands on: Vicarious observational learning as an enhancement of direct experience,” Academy of Management Learning & Education , vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 591–608, 2012

    2012

  50. [58]

    Bandura, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory

    A. Bandura, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986

    1986

  51. [59]

    Learning negotiation skills: Four models of knowledge creation and transfer,

    J. Nadler, L. Thompson, and L. V . Boven, “Learning negotiation skills: Four models of knowledge creation and transfer,”Management Science, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 529–540, 2003

    2003

  52. [60]

    Vicarious learning: A review of the literature,

    D. Roberts, “Vicarious learning: A review of the literature,” Nurse Education in practice , vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 13–16, 2010

    2010

  53. [61]

    Let the llms talk: Simulating human-to-human conversational qa via zero-shot llm-to-llm interactions,

    Z. Abbasiantaeb, Y . Yuan, E. Kanoulas, and M. Aliannejadi, “Let the llms talk: Simulating human-to-human conversational qa via zero-shot llm-to-llm interactions,” in Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining , 2024, pp. 8–17

    2024

  54. [62]

    Debugging hiring: What went right and what went wrong in the technical interview pro- cess,

    M. Behroozi, S. Shirolkar, T. Barik, and C. Parnin, “Debugging hiring: What went right and what went wrong in the technical interview pro- cess,” in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society , 2020, pp. 71–80

    2020

  55. [63]

    VueJS, 2024, https://vuejs.org/

    2024

  56. [64]

    Flask, 2024, https://flask.palletsprojects.com/

    2024

  57. [65]

    OpenAI, 2024, https://openai.com/index/ gpt-4o-mini-advancing-cost-efficient-intelligence/

    2024

  58. [66]

    Chatbot arena,

    LMSYS, “Chatbot arena,” 2024, accessed: 2024-11-10. [Online]. Available: https://lmarena.ai/

    2024

  59. [67]

    Web speech api,

    Mozilla Developer Network (MDN), “Web speech api,” 2024, accessed: 2024-11-10. [Online]. Available: https://developer.mozilla. org/en-US/docs/Web/API/

    2024

  60. [68]

    OpenAI, 2024, https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides

    2024

  61. [69]

    Thematic analysis: A practical guide,

    V . Braun and V . Clarke, “Thematic analysis: A practical guide,” SAGE publications Ltd, 2021

    2021

  62. [70]

    Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be (com) ing a knowing researcher,

    ——, “Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be (com) ing a knowing researcher,”International journal of transgender health , vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2023

    2023

  63. [71]

    Improving social presence in human-agent interaction,

    A. Pereira, R. Prada, and A. Paiva, “Improving social presence in human-agent interaction,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems , 2014, pp. 1449–1458

    2014

  64. [72]

    As time goes by: Long-term evaluation of social presence in robotic companions,

    I. Leite, C. Martinho, A. Pereira, and A. Paiva, “As time goes by: Long-term evaluation of social presence in robotic companions,” in RO-MAN 2009-the 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication . IEEE, 2009, pp. 669–674

    2009

  65. [73]

    Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria,

    F. Biocca, C. Harms, and J. K. Burgoon, “Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria,” Presence: Teleoperators & virtual environments , vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 456–480, 2003

    2003

  66. [74]

    Explaining the wait: How justifying chatbot response delays impact user trust,

    Z. Zhang, K. Tsiakas, and C. Schneegass, “Explaining the wait: How justifying chatbot response delays impact user trust,” in Proceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) , 2024, pp. 1–16

    2024

  67. [75]

    Social presence: Conceptualization and measurement,

    K. Kreijns, K. Xu, and J. Weidlich, “Social presence: Conceptualization and measurement,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 139–170, 2022

    2022

  68. [76]

    Criteria and scope conditions for a theory and measure of social presence,

    F. Biocca, J. Burgoon, C. Harms, M. Stoner et al., “Criteria and scope conditions for a theory and measure of social presence,” Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments, vol. 10, no. 01, p. 2001, 2001

    2001

  69. [77]

    The networked minds measure of social presence: Pilot test of the factor structure and concurrent valid- ity,

    F. Biocca, C. Harms, and J. Gregg, “The networked minds measure of social presence: Pilot test of the factor structure and concurrent valid- ity,” in 4th annual international workshop on presence, Philadelphia, PA, 2001, pp. 1–9

    2001

  70. [78]

    Turn-taking in conversational systems and human-robot interaction: a review,

    G. Skantze, “Turn-taking in conversational systems and human-robot interaction: a review,” Computer Speech & Language , vol. 67, p. 101178, 2021

    2021

  71. [79]

    At the heart of it all: The concept of presence,

    M. Lombard, “At the heart of it all: The concept of presence,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , vol. 3, no. 2, 1997

    1997

  72. [80]

    Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment,

    C. N. Gunawardena and F. J. Zittle, “Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment,” American journal of distance education, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 8–26, 1997

    1997

  73. [81]

    Reflective practicum: A framework of sensitising concepts to design for transformative reflection,

    P. Slov ´ak, C. Frauenberger, and G. Fitzpatrick, “Reflective practicum: A framework of sensitising concepts to design for transformative reflection,” in Proceedings of the 2017 chi conference on human factors in computing systems , 2017, pp. 2696–2707

    2017

  74. [82]

    Discovering lan- guage model behaviors with model-written evaluations,

    E. Perez, S. Ringer, K. Luko ˇsi¯ut˙e, K. Nguyen, E. Chen, S. Heiner, C. Pettit, C. Olsson, S. Kundu, S. Kadavath et al. , “Discovering lan- guage model behaviors with model-written evaluations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09251, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Trustllm: Trustworthiness in large language models,

    Y . Huang, L. Sun, H. Wang, S. Wu, Q. Zhang, Y . Li, C. Gao, Y . Huang, W. Lyu, Y . Zhang et al., “Trustllm: Trustworthiness in large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05561 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Virtual customer service agents: Using social presence and personalization to shape online service encounters,

    T. Verhagen, J. V . Nes, F. Feldberg, and W. Dolen, “Virtual customer service agents: Using social presence and personalization to shape online service encounters,” J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. , vol. 19, pp. 529–545, 2014

    2014

  77. [85]

    Effects of emotional expressiveness on voice chatbot interactions,

    Q. Zhu, A. Chau, M. Cohn, K.-H. Liang, H.-C. Wang, G. Zellou, and Z. Yu, “Effects of emotional expressiveness on voice chatbot interactions,” in Proceedings of the 4th conference on conversational user interfaces (CUI) , 2022, pp. 1–11

    2022

  78. [86]

    Simple synthetic data reduces sycophancy in large language models,

    J. Wei, D. Huang, Y . Lu, D. Zhou, and Q. V . Le, “Simple synthetic data reduces sycophancy in large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03958, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Piece: Pro- tagonist identification and event chronology extraction for enhanced timeline summarization,

    T.-H. Hsu, L.-H. Chin, Y .-H. Huang, and Y .-S. Chen, “Piece: Pro- tagonist identification and event chronology extraction for enhanced timeline summarization,” in Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , 2024, pp. 870–879

    2024

  80. [88]

    Trustworthy llms: A survey and guide- line for evaluating large language models’ alignment,

    Y . Liu, Y . Yao, J.-F. Ton, X. Zhang, R. G. H. Cheng, Y . Klochkov, M. F. Taufiq, and H. Li, “Trustworthy llms: A survey and guide- line for evaluating large language models’ alignment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.05374, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Countering misinformation in private messaging groups: Insights from a fact-checking chatbot,

    T.-H. Lee and S. R. Fussell, “Countering misinformation in private messaging groups: Insights from a fact-checking chatbot,” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , vol. 9, no. GROUP, pp. 1–30, 2025

    2025

  82. [90]

    Lessons learned from four computing education crowdsourcing systems,

    N. Pirttinen, P. Denny, A. Hellas, and J. Leinonen, “Lessons learned from four computing education crowdsourcing systems,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 22 982–22 992, 2023

    2023

  83. [91]

    Fostering students’ participation in creating educational content through crowdsourcing,

    A. Z. Suhonjic, M. Despotovi ´c-Zraki´c, A. Labus, Z. Bogdanovi ´c, and D. Barac, “Fostering students’ participation in creating educational content through crowdsourcing,” Interactive Learning Environments , vol. 27, pp. 72 – 85, 2019

    2019

  84. [92]

    Autonomous crowdsourcing through human-machine collaborative learning,

    A. Abad, M. Nabi, and A. Moschitti, “Autonomous crowdsourcing through human-machine collaborative learning,” Proceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Devel- opment in Information Retrieval , 2017

    2017

  85. [93]

    Vivid: Human-ai collaborative authoring of vicarious dialogues from lecture videos,

    S. Choi, H. Lee, Y . Lee, and J. Kim, “Vivid: Human-ai collaborative authoring of vicarious dialogues from lecture videos,” in Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2024, pp. 1–26

    2024

  86. [94]

    A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions,

    L. Huang, W. Yu, W. Ma, W. Zhong, Z. Feng, H. Wang, Q. Chen, W. Peng, X. Feng, B. Qin et al. , “A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems , 2023

    2023

  87. [95]

    Improving asyn- chronous interview interaction with follow-up question generation,

    P. Rao SB, M. Agnihotri, and D. Babu Jayagopi, “Improving asyn- chronous interview interaction with follow-up question generation,” International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intel- ligence, 2021

    2021

  88. [96]

    Collaborative intelligence: Humans and ai are joining forces,

    H. J. Wilson and P. R. Daugherty, “Collaborative intelligence: Humans and ai are joining forces,” Harvard Business Review , vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 114–123, 2018

    2018

  89. [97]

    Learning design to support student- ai collaboration: Perspectives of leading teachers for ai in education,

    J. Kim, H. Lee, and Y . H. Cho, “Learning design to support student- ai collaboration: Perspectives of leading teachers for ai in education,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 6069–6104, 2022

    2022

  90. [98]

    Effect of confidence and explanation on accuracy and trust calibration in ai-assisted decision making,

    Y . Zhang, Q. V . Liao, and R. K. Bellamy, “Effect of confidence and explanation on accuracy and trust calibration in ai-assisted decision making,” in Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, account- ability, and transparency, 2020, pp. 295–305

    2020

  91. [99]

    The effects of anxiety and preparation on performance in technical interviews for hbcu computer science majors,

    P. Hall Jr and K. Gosha, “The effects of anxiety and preparation on performance in technical interviews for hbcu computer science majors,” in Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGMIS Conference on Computers and People Research, 2018, pp. 64–69

    2018

  92. [100]

    Intersectionality in the narratives of black women in computing through the education and workforce pipeline,

    R. Yamaguchi and J. D. Burge, “Intersectionality in the narratives of black women in computing through the education and workforce pipeline,” Journal for Multicultural Education , 2019

    2019

  93. [101]

    Additional evidence for the prevalence of the impostor phenomenon in computing,

    A. Zavaleta Bernuy, A. Ly, B. Harrington, M. Liut, A. Petersen, S. Sharmin, and L. Zhang, “Additional evidence for the prevalence of the impostor phenomenon in computing,” in Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education-Volume 1, 2022, pp. 654–660

    2022

  94. [102]

    Career-related peer mentoring: can it help with student development?

    J. C. Weaver, C. D. Bertelsen, and G. R. Dendinger, “Career-related peer mentoring: can it help with student development?” Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning , vol. 29, pp. 238 – 256, 2021

    2021

  95. [103]

    Ai companions for lonely individu- als and the role of social presence,

    K. Merrill, J. Kim, and C. Collins, “Ai companions for lonely individu- als and the role of social presence,” Communication Research Reports, vol. 39, pp. 93 – 103, 2022

    2022

  96. [104]

    Mediated social support for distress reduction: Ai chatbots vs. human,

    J. Meng, M. Rheu, Y . Zhang, Y . Dai, and W. Peng, “Mediated social support for distress reduction: Ai chatbots vs. human,” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , vol. 7, pp. 1 – 25, 2023

    2023

  97. [105]

    White supremacy culture,

    T. Okun and K. Jones, “White supremacy culture,” Dismantling racism: A workbook for social change groups , 2000

    2000

  98. [106]

    You’re hired! a phenomenographic study of undergraduate students’ pathways to job attainment in com- puting,

    S. J. Lunn, E. Zerbe, and M. Ross, “You’re hired! a phenomenographic study of undergraduate students’ pathways to job attainment in com- puting,” ACM Transactions on Computing Education , vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 1–29, 2024

    2024

  99. [107]

    Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color,

    K. W. Crenshaw, “Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color,” in The public nature of private violence. Routledge, 2013, pp. 93–118

    2013

  100. [108]

    Holmes, Women, Men and Politeness

    J. Holmes, Women, Men and Politeness . Longman, 1995

    1995

  101. [109]

    The medium is the message: politeness strategies in men’s and women’s voice mail messages,

    P. Hobbs, “The medium is the message: politeness strategies in men’s and women’s voice mail messages,” Journal of Pragmatics , vol. 35, pp. 243–262, 2003

    2003

  102. [110]

    The problems encountered by non-english department students in speaking english,

    Y . G. Tantri, F. N. Romadlon, and A. D. Nurcahyo, “The problems encountered by non-english department students in speaking english,” International Journal of Research in Education , 2023

    2023

  103. [111]

    The under-representation of women in information tech- nology and computing in the middle east: A perspective from jordan,

    L. Khreisat, “The under-representation of women in information tech- nology and computing in the middle east: A perspective from jordan,” Technology in Society, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 287–294, 2009

    2009

  104. [112]

    Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (stem): Liberating women in the middle east

    S. I. Islam, “Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (stem): Liberating women in the middle east.” World Journal of Education , vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 94–104, 2019

    2019

  105. [113]

    When ignoring negative feedback is functional: Presenting a model of motivated feedback disengagement,

    F. Grundmann, S. Scheibe, and K. Epstude, “When ignoring negative feedback is functional: Presenting a model of motivated feedback disengagement,” Current Directions in Psychological Science , vol. 30, pp. 3 – 10, 2020

    2020

  106. [114]

    Gender biases in (inter) action: The role of interviewers’ and applicants’ implicit and explicit stereotypes in predicting women’s job interview outcomes,

    I. M. Latu, M. S. Mast, and T. L. Stewart, “Gender biases in (inter) action: The role of interviewers’ and applicants’ implicit and explicit stereotypes in predicting women’s job interview outcomes,”Psychology of Women Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 539–552, 2015

    2015

  107. [115]

    Implicit sources of bias in employment interview judg- ments and decisions,

    S. L. S. Purkiss, P. L. Perrew ´e, T. L. Gillespie, B. T. Mayes, and G. R. Ferris, “Implicit sources of bias in employment interview judg- ments and decisions,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 101, no. 2, pp. 152–167, 2006. APPENDIX A. Prompts

    2006

  108. [116]

    Your goal is to assess the candidate’s problem-solving skills, coding ability, and communication

    Prompts for Interview Simulation: a) Prompt for the First Interviewer Message: You are a hiring manager conducting a coding interview. Your goal is to assess the candidate’s problem-solving skills, coding ability, and communication. Begin by greeting the candidate and presenti...

  109. [117]

    Understanding: The candidate may ask clarifying ques- tions to ensure they fully understand the problem and may propose an initial test case to demonstrate their understanding of the requirements

  110. [118]

    Initial Ideation: The candidate will brainstorm initial ideas on how to solve the problem

  111. [119]

    Idea Justification: The candidate will justify their ap- proach, explaining why the chosen solution is suitable

  112. [120]

    Implementation: The candidate will code the solution while thinking aloud to describe their thought process

  113. [121]

    Review (Dry Run): After coding, the candidate will dry- run their code with a test case, walking through the logic step by step

  114. [122]

    Throughout the interview: • Prompt the candidate to think aloud and explain their reasoning at each step

    Evaluation: The candidate will evaluate their solution, discussing possible optimizations, edge cases, and any necessary improvements. Throughout the interview: • Prompt the candidate to think aloud and explain their reasoning at each step. • Ask follow-up questions to gauge t...

  115. [123]

    Based on the transcript provided below, please give detailed feedback on the interviewee’s performance, focusing on the following six aspects

    Prompt for AI-Feedback: I have a transcript of a coding interview where the interviewee is required to think aloud while solving a problem. Based on the transcript provided below, please give detailed feedback on the interviewee’s performance, focusing on the following six asp...

  116. [124]

    Did they fully grasp the require- ments? Were there missed opportunities to seek more clarity?

    Understanding: Evaluate whether the interviewee cor- rectly expressed their understanding of the question by asking relevant clarifying questions and illustrating with a sample test case. Did they fully grasp the require- ments? Were there missed opportunities to seek more clarity?

  117. [125]

    It is acceptable if candidates start with a brute-force solution and then op- timize their ideas gradually

    Initial Ideation: Assess how the interviewee brain- stormed initial ideas and solutions. It is acceptable if candidates start with a brute-force solution and then op- timize their ideas gradually. Did they consider multiple approaches or stick with a single idea? Did they clea...

  118. [126]

    Did they explain why their approach was suitable or compare it to alternative so- lutions? Were they able to defend their choice of data structures, algorithms, or logic?

    Idea Justification: Evaluate how well the interviewee justified their solution and walk through their solution before implementing it. Did they explain why their approach was suitable or compare it to alternative so- lutions? Were they able to defend their choice of data struc...

  119. [127]

    Was their reasoning easy to follow? Were there gaps in their explanation or places where communication became unclear?

    Implementation: Provide feedback on how well the interviewee communicated their thought process while coding. Was their reasoning easy to follow? Were there gaps in their explanation or places where communication became unclear?

  120. [128]

    Did they clearly explain the flow of execution, identify potential issues, or spot logical errors?

    Review (Dry Run): Analyze how the interviewee per- formed a dry run of their code with a test case. Did they clearly explain the flow of execution, identify potential issues, or spot logical errors?

  121. [129]

    Did they discuss possible optimizations or improvements? If the interviewee did not perform a phase, note that it was not done

    Evaluation: Provide feedback on how the interviewee evaluated their solution after coding. Did they discuss possible optimizations or improvements? If the interviewee did not perform a phase, note that it was not done. Make sure your feedback is constructive and that you ignor...

  122. [130]

    The simu- lation should include explanations of best practices based on the example provided

    Prompt for AI-Generated Example Dialogue: Simulate a realistic coding interview between an interviewer and an interviewee focused on solving the given problem. The simu- lation should include explanations of best practices based on the example provided. When writing the code, ...

  123. [131]

    • The interviewee may ask clarifying questions to ensure a full understanding of the problem

    Understanding: • The interviewer introduces the problem and pro- vides examples. • The interviewee may ask clarifying questions to ensure a full understanding of the problem. • The interviewee may propose an initial test case to demonstrate their understanding of the require- ments

  124. [132]

    Initial Ideation: • The interviewee brainstorms initial ideas on how to solve the problem

  125. [133]

    • The interviewee explains the walkthrough of the solution

    Idea Justification: • The interviewee justifies their chosen approach, explaining why it is suitable for the problem. • The interviewee explains the walkthrough of the solution

  126. [134]

    • The interviewer may ask the interviewee to consider different cases, such as empty inputs or edge sce- narios

    Implementation: • The interviewee writes the code to solve the prob- lem, explaining their logic as they go. • The interviewer may ask the interviewee to consider different cases, such as empty inputs or edge sce- narios

  127. [135]

    • The interviewee considers additional test cases to ensure robustness

    Review (Dry Run): • After coding, the interviewee dry-runs their code with provided examples, walking through the logic step by step. • The interviewee considers additional test cases to ensure robustness

  128. [136]

    • The interviewer provides feedback on the solution, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement

    Evaluation: • The interviewee evaluates their solution, discussing possible optimizations, edge cases, and any neces- sary improvements. • The interviewer provides feedback on the solution, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement. • The interviewee reflects on their p...

  129. [137]

    Intersection of Two Arrays: Given two integer arrays nums1 and nums2, return an array of their intersection

    Problem 1. Intersection of Two Arrays: Given two integer arrays nums1 and nums2, return an array of their intersection. Each element in the result must appear as many times as it shows in both arrays, and you may return the result in any order. a) Example 1: Input: nums1 = [1,...

  130. [138]

    Two Sum: Given an array of integer nums and an integer target, return indices of the two numbers such that they add up to the target

    Problem 2. Two Sum: Given an array of integer nums and an integer target, return indices of the two numbers such that they add up to the target. You cannot use the same element twice. You can return the answer in any order. a) Example 1: Input: nums = [2,7,11,15], target = 9 O...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.