REVIEW 3 cited by
Can LLMs Identify Gaps and Misconceptions in Students' Code Explanations?
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
This paper investigates various approaches using Large Language Models (LLMs) to identify gaps and misconceptions in students' self-explanations of specific instructional material, in our case explanations of code examples. This research is a part of our larger effort to automate the assessment of students' freely generated responses, focusing specifically on their self-explanations of code examples during activities related to code comprehension. In this work, we experiment with zero-shot prompting, Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), and preference alignment of LLMs to identify gaps in students' self-explanation. With simple prompting, GPT-4 consistently outperformed LLaMA3 and Mistral in identifying gaps and misconceptions, as confirmed by human evaluations. Additionally, our results suggest that fine-tuned large language models are more effective at identifying gaps in students' explanations compared to zero-shot and few-shot prompting techniques. Furthermore, our findings show that the preference optimization approach using Odds Ratio Preference Optimization (ORPO) outperforms SFT in identifying gaps and misconceptions in students' code explanations.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Understanding Student Perceptions, Mistakes, and Debugging Approaches when Solving Natural Language Programming Tasks
Novices solving dialogue-based Prompt Problems omit key specification details and recover mainly by clarifying intent, not by tracing generated code or tests.
-
Taxonomy-Targeted Error Generation for Quantitative Reasoning
A generation-then-judge LLM pipeline can produce taxonomy-targeted synthetic wrong answers for quantitative questions, though targeted errors are harder than free-form ones and real-student validity is untested.
-
Interleaving Natural Language Prompting with Code Editing for Solving Programming Tasks with Generative AI Models
In a three-day introductory programming lab, students mostly prompt an LLM for initial code, then apply short manual edits after failed executions; editing rises with task difficulty and falls with student competence.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.