Pith. sign in

REVIEW

How Beginning Programmers and Code LLMs (Mis)read Each Other

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 2401.15232 v2 pith:P643P6HM submitted 2024-01-26 cs.HC

classification cs.HC
keywords codeeditingpromptstext-to-codebeginningcorrectnessgeneratedlanguage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Generative AI models, specifically large language models (LLMs), have made strides towards the long-standing goal of text-to-code generation. This progress has invited numerous studies of user interaction. However, less is known about the struggles and strategies of non-experts, for whom each step of the text-to-code problem presents challenges: describing their intent in natural language, evaluating the correctness of generated code, and editing prompts when the generated code is incorrect. This paper presents a large-scale controlled study of how 120 beginning coders across three academic institutions approach writing and editing prompts. A novel experimental design allows us to target specific steps in the text-to-code process and reveals that beginners struggle with writing and editing prompts, even for problems at their skill level and when correctness is automatically determined. Our mixed-methods evaluation provides insight into student processes and perceptions with key implications for non-expert Code LLM use within and outside of education.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools