Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Oversight in Action: Experiences with Instructor-Moderated LLM Responses in an Online Discussion Forum

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An instructor-moderated LLM bot can cut the effort of answering student questions on course forums, a deployment in a second-year programming course suggests.

desk verdict Solid practitioner report on an instructor-moderated LLM forum bot; the workload claim is plausible but rests on edit counts and one interview, and the 'student reception' line overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09048 v1 pith:QIIGL3L4 submitted 2024-12-12 cs.CY

Shuying Qiao , Paul Denny , Nasser Giacaman This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CY
keywords LargelanguagemodelsLLMsdiscussionforumsinstructor-in-the-loopsoftwareengineeringeducationchatbotscomputing
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 reports on AIDA, an instructor-in-the-loop discussion-forum bot that drafts answers to student questions for a human instructor to review, edit, and approve. The authors deployed it in a second-year object-oriented programming course and found that the instructor used it for 95 of 253 forum posts, usually editing drafts lightly or not at all, and reported in an end-of-course interview that AIDA increased productivity and alleviated workload. The paper argues that asynchronous forums make instructor oversight of LLM-generated content feasible, and that this oversight addresses over-reliance and quality concerns better than fully automated bots. If this holds, instructor-moderated AI drafting could reduce teaching staff burden in large computing courses while keeping a human accountable for what students see.

What carries the argument

The central object is AIDA, an instructor-in-the-loop discussion-forum module built on retrieval-augmented generation: student questions are matched against an embedding database of course materials and archived forum Q&A, and the LLM drafts an answer from the retrieved context plus optional instructor instructions. The instructor triggers this through hashtag prompts typed into the forum comment box—#reply to draft, #help to search contexts, #prev and #related to attach archived posts or course materials, and #anon to publish under an anonymous peer identity—so the human review step is structurally unavoidable before anything reaches students.

What would settle it

Run the same instructor through matched forum questions in two conditions—drafting from scratch versus editing AIDA drafts—and record time per response; the paper's workload claim is contradicted if editing time is not clearly lower than composing time.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that an LLM bot placed under instructor moderation can handle the bulk of forum-answering work in a computing course while keeping the instructor accountable for every published word. Across the first six weeks, the instructor used the bot to draft 95 responses; most adopted drafts required fewer than ten edits, and the instructor reported that generated answers were generally high quality and that AIDA increased productivity. The authors argue that because forums are asynchronous, instructor oversight of AI-generated content is practical and pedagogically appropriate, and that this instructor-in-the-loop pattern alleviates workload without sacrificing oversight.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that light editing effort and a single instructor's positive self-report are enough to show workload relief, without any baseline measurement of how long responding to forum posts took before AIDA or without it; if editing drafts takes about as long as writing replies from scratch, the central workload claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Course instructors can answer a larger fraction of forum questions in the same time, because the LLM offloads drafting and the instructor concentrates on review and tailoring.
  • Asynchronous course forums become a natural home for instructor-in-the-loop AI, since the delay between question and answer leaves room for human approval.
  • Previously taught materials and archived Q&A become reusable assets that ground future responses, reducing repetitive answers to questions already covered in handouts.
  • The anonymous-peer publishing mode could change forum dynamics by encouraging students to interact with what appears to be a fellow student, though the paper does not measure this effect.
  • The pattern extends beyond computing to any course with a question-heavy forum and a corpus of course-specific resources, as long as an instructor is willing to review drafts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A stronger evaluation would compare response times or instructor effort against a non-AIDA period; the paper's edit counts and interview cannot distinguish true time savings from a motivated instructor's perception.
  • The anonymous-peer mode raises a consent and trust issue the paper leaves unresolved: students were told an AI module existed but could not tell which replies were AI-generated, so repeated use could erode the very openness it aims to create.
  • The gap between frequent #help use (34%) and less frequent #prev/#related incorporation (16%) hints that instructors may use retrieval mainly to locate relevant material themselves, suggesting the interface could surface context more selectively.
  • The approach's main scaling risk is not generation quality but context selection; the instructor's reported difficulty choosing among retrieved contexts suggests that better ranking or automated selection would matter more than a stronger LLM.
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 presents AIDA, an instructor-moderated LLM-based assistant integrated into an Ed Discussion forum for a second-year object-oriented programming course. AIDA retrieves relevant course material and archived posts to draft answers, which the instructor can edit, approve, and post either as the instructor or anonymously. The evaluation covers the first six weeks of a 12-week course: 95 instructor-selected forum posts, logged prompt hashtag usage, textual edit counts of adopted drafts, three worked examples, and a single end-of-course instructor interview. The authors report that most drafts required few edits, that the instructor found AIDA useful and time-saving in several scenarios, and conclude that AI can effectively alleviate instructor workload while maintaining oversight; they also identify limitations in handling complex, context-dependent queries.

Significance. The paper is a useful practitioner contribution: it gives a concrete architecture (RAG over course materials, a prompt grammar, anonymous posting), usage statistics over real posts, and honest reflections on shortcomings. The strongest evidence is the detailed prompt-usage log and the worked examples, which show how an instructor-in-the-loop system can be operated in practice. However, the headline claim, that AIDA alleviates instructor workload, is supported only by edit counts and one instructor's self-report, with no baseline or time-on-task measurement, and the conclusion claims student reception without student-level data. These gaps mean the paper establishes feasibility and perceived value rather than demonstrated workload reduction; with appropriate reframing and added caveats, the contribution would fit a practitioner venue.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 7 / Abstract; §5.2] The central workload-alleviation claim ('AI can effectively alleviate instructor workload' in §7; 'successfully alleviated workload' in the abstract) is not established by the reported evidence. The edit counts in §5.2 and Figure 3 measure textual additions/removals, not the time or cognitive effort required to review and verify a draft; a draft needing few edits can still take as long to check as writing from scratch. No baseline is provided (e.g., time spent responding before AIDA, or on the 158 non-AIDA posts), and the instructor chose which 95 of 253 posts to route through AIDA, so the sample is not representative of the full question distribution. The interview in §5.4.3 also notes that for brief answers it was 'quicker to write and submit directly rather than using AIDA'. The conclusion should be reframed as self-reported perceived usefulness, or supplemented with a comparative time/effort measurement.
  2. [Section 7; §4.2] The concluding sentence claims 'positive reception from both students and instructors', but the manuscript reports no student perception or outcome data. Section 4.2 lists only forum-post telemetry and the instructor interview; no student surveys, interviews, or engagement analyses are reported. The claim about student reception should be removed or replaced with a statement about the absence of student-level evidence.
  3. [Section 5.2; Figure 3] The edit-count analysis is under-specified. It is not stated whether an 'edit' is a character, word, line, or diff hunk, nor how the third-party differencing tool's output was aggregated. Moreover, the claim that drafts required only 'minor modifications' because over half had fewer than 10 edits is not supported without a definition of the scale; some answers were edited quite substantially (§5.4.2) or nearly entirely deleted. Report the metric definition and summary statistics (median, quartiles, distribution of deletion-only vs. addition-only edits) so the reader can assess what 'few edits' means.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.1] The deployment is described as 'throughout the first six weeks of a 12-week course', but the abstract and introduction do not explain why only the first six weeks were used for evaluation; please clarify whether the tool remained active for the full course and why the evaluation window ends at week six.
  2. [Figure 4] The code block in the third example (Figure 4) contains a residual diff artifact ('::::::::::-u origin main' at the end of the 'git push' line) that should be cleaned up or explained in the caption.
  3. [Table 1] The row order in Table 1 is neither alphabetical nor by frequency; sorting by frequency or grouping combinations by prompt families would make the pattern easier to read.
  4. [References] References [20] and [21] cite the same CodeHelp work in preprint and proceedings form, and references [31] and [32] appear to duplicate the same Sarsa et al. entry; please consolidate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: empirical deployment study with no derivation chain or fitted-input prediction.

full rationale

This is an experience report (practitioner paper) rather than a derivation. The central claims—that AIDA generated drafts that generally required minor edits and that the instructor perceived workload relief—are empirical observations from logged prompt usage, a text-diff edit count (Sec. 5.2), and a single end-of-course interview (Sec. 5.4). There is no equation or model whose output is defined in terms of its input, no parameter fitted to a subset and then renamed a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem invoked. The paper's self-citations (e.g., Denny et al. on AI teaching assistants, CodeAid) appear only in related work and motivation; they are not the evidence for the paper's own workload claim, which rests on the instructor's reported experience and edit data. The weakness a skeptic identifies—that edit counts and self-report are not a controlled measure of time saved, and no non-AIDA baseline is reported—is an evidentiary/validity limitation explicitly acknowledged in the future-work call for 'more robust metrics for assessing the impact of AIDA' (Sec. 6). A missing baseline is not circularity: the conclusion does not reduce by construction to its evidence. Score 0.

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

No fitted parameters or numerical constants appear in this work; the analysis is based on observed prompt usage, edits, and an instructor interview. AIDA is a deployed software artifact, not an invented theoretical entity, so no entities are listed. The axioms above are the domain assumptions on which the workload and generalization claims rest.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Instructor oversight of LLM-generated drafts improves pedagogical appropriateness and mitigates student over-reliance.
    Invoked in Sections 1 and 3.1 as the motivation for the design; the study does not measure changes in student help-seeking or learning.
  • domain assumption The number of edits made to a draft and the instructor's self-report are valid proxies for workload reduction.
    Sections 5.2 and 5.4.3 interpret small edit counts and the instructor's stated productivity gains as workload relief, without a baseline or time-on-task comparison.
  • domain assumption The single instructor's experience in one course generalizes to other computing education contexts.
    Section 7 generalizes to AI effectively alleviating instructor workload from one SOFTENG 281 deployment; external validity is not established.
  • domain assumption Posting anonymously as a peer encourages open student participation.
    Section 3.3 describes this as a pedagogical intention, but no student engagement comparison is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Oversight in Action: Experiences with Instructor-Moderated LLM Responses in an Online Discussion Forum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QIIGL3L4

@misc{pith2026241209048,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Oversight in Action: Experiences with Instructor-Moderated LLM Responses in an Online Discussion Forum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QIIGL3L4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09048}
}
read the original abstract

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into computing education offers many potential benefits to student learning, and several novel pedagogical approaches have been reported in the literature. However LLMs also present challenges, one of the most commonly cited being that of student over-reliance. This challenge is compounded by the fact that LLMs are always available to provide instant help and solutions to students, which can undermine their ability to independently solve problems and diagnose and resolve errors. Providing instructor oversight of LLM-generated content can mitigate this problem, however it is often not practical in real-time learning contexts. Online class discussion forums, which are widely used in computing education, present an opportunity for exploring instructor oversight because they operate asynchronously. Unlike real-time interactions, the discussion forum format aligns with the expectation that responses may take time, making oversight not only feasible but also pedagogically appropriate. In this practitioner paper, we present the design, deployment, and evaluation of a `bot' module that is controlled by the instructor, and integrated into an online discussion forum. The bot assists the instructor by generating draft responses to student questions, which are reviewed, modified, and approved before release. Key features include the ability to leverage course materials, access archived discussions, and publish responses anonymously to encourage open participation. We report our experiences using this tool in a 12-week second-year software engineering course on object-oriented programming. Instructor feedback confirmed the tool successfully alleviated workload but highlighted a need for improvement in handling complex, context-dependent queries. We report the features that were viewed as most beneficial, and suggest avenues for future exploration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09048 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of AIDA’s core implementation workflow in assisting instructors. Solid arrows represent direct user [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the AIDA prompts available to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Number of edits made to all adopted generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of a course-related administrative ques [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example of an assignment-specific question. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Due to the generic nature of this question, the in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    David S Ackerman and Barbara L Gross. 2021. Synchronous online discussion board as a primary mode of delivering marketing education: Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Marketing Education Review 31, 4 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Rishabh Balse, Viraj Kumar, Prajish Prasad, and Jayakrishnan Madathil Warriem

  3. [3]

    Jennifer Campbell, Diane Horton, and Michelle Craig. 2016. Factors for Success in Online CS1. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Tech- nology in Computer Science Education (Arequipa, Peru) (ITiCSE ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 320–325

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Paul Chandler and John Sweller. 1991. Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and instruction 8, 4 (1991), 293–332

    work page 1991

  5. [5]

    Yu Chen, Scott Jensen, Leslie J Albert, Sambhav Gupta, and Terri Lee. 2023. Artificial intelligence (AI) student assistants in the classroom: Designing chatbots to support student success. Information Systems Frontiers 25, 1 (2023), 161–182

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Bruno Pereira Cipriano and Pedro Alves. 2023. GPT-3 vs Object Oriented Program- ming Assignments: An Experience Report. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference Australasian Computing Education Conference, February 2025, Brisbane, Australia Shuying Qiao, Paul Denny, and Nasser Giacaman on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 (Turku, F...

    work page 2023

  7. [9]

    Becker, James Finnie-Ansley, Arto Hellas, Juho Leinonen, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Brent N

    Paul Denny, James Prather, Brett A. Becker, James Finnie-Ansley, Arto Hellas, Juho Leinonen, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Brent N. Reeves, Eddie Antonio Santos, and Sami Sarsa. 2024. Computing Education in the Era of Generative AI.Commun. ACM 67, 2 (Jan. 2024), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/3624720

    doi:10.1145/3624720 2024

  8. [10]

    Smith, Max Fowler, James Prather, Brett A

    Paul Denny, David H. Smith, Max Fowler, James Prather, Brett A. Becker, and Juho Leinonen. 2024. Explaining Code with a Purpose: An Integrated Approach for Developing Code Comprehension and Prompting Skills. In Proceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 (Milan, Italy) (ITiCSE 2024). Association for Computing Ma...

    arXiv 2024

Show all 40 references
  1. [11]

    Margaret Hamilton Dip Nandi and James Harland. 2012. Evaluating the quality of interaction in asynchronous discussion forums in fully online courses. Dis- tance Education 33, 1 (2012), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012.667957 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.20...

    2012

  2. [12]

    Becker, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and James Prather

    James Finnie-Ansley, Paul Denny, Brett A. Becker, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and James Prather. 2022. The Robots Are Coming: Exploring the Implications of OpenAI Codex on Introductory Programming. In Proceedings of the 24th Aus- tralasian Computing Education Conference (Virtual Eve...

    2022

  3. [13]

    My robot is an idiot!

    Andrew Gallacher, Andrew Thompson, Mark Howarth, P Taalas, J Jalkanen, L Bradley, and S Thouësny. 2018. “My robot is an idiot!”–Students’ perceptions of AI in the L2 classroom. Future-proof CALL: language learning as exploration and encounters–short papers from EUROCALL (2018), 70–76

    2018

  4. [14]

    Arto Hellas, Juho Leinonen, Sami Sarsa, Charles Koutcheme, Lilja Kujanpää, and Juha Sorva. 2023. Exploring the Responses of Large Language Models to Beginner Programmers’ Help Requests. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conf. on International Comp. Ed. Research - Volume 1 (Chicag...

    2023

  5. [15]

    Yann Hicke, Anmol Agarwal, Qianou Ma, and Paul Denny. 2023. AI-TA: Towards an Intelligent Question-Answer Teaching Assistant using Open-Source LLMs. arXiv:2311.02775 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02775

    2023 arXiv

  6. [16]

    Breanna Jury, Angela Lorusso, Juho Leinonen, Paul Denny, and Andrew Luxton- Reilly. 2024. Evaluating LLM-generated Worked Examples in an Introductory Programming Course. In Proceedings of the 26th Australasian Computing Educa- tion Conference (Sydney, NSW, Australia)(ACE ’24)....

    2024

  7. [17]

    Majeed Kazemitabaar, Runlong Ye, Xiaoning Wang, Austin Zachary Henley, Paul Denny, Michelle Craig, and Tovi Grossman. 2024. CodeAid: Evaluating a Classroom Deployment of an LLM-based Programming Assistant that Balances Student and Educator Needs. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI...

    2024

  8. [18]

    Karen Kear*. 2004. Peer learning using asynchronous discussion systems in distance education. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning 19, 2 (2004), 151–164

    2004

  9. [19]

    Babak Khoshnevisan and Mojgan Rashtchi. 2021. Developing online discussion boards to increase student engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dual Language Research and Practice Journal 4, 1 (2021)

    2021

  10. [20]

    Mark Liffiton, Brad Sheese, Jaromir Savelka, and Paul Denny. 2023. CodeHelp: Us- ing Large Language Models with Guardrails for Scalable Support in Programming Classes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06921 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  11. [21]

    Mark Liffiton, Brad E Sheese, Jaromir Savelka, and Paul Denny. 2024. CodeHelp: Using Large Language Models with Guardrails for Scalable Support in Program- ming Classes. In Proceedings of the 23rd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli, Fin...

    2024

  12. [22]

    Chang Liu, Loc Hoang, Andrew Stolman, and Bo Wu. 2024. HiTA: A RAG- Based Educational Platform that Centers Educators in the Instructional Loop. In Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 405–412

    2024

  13. [23]

    Rongxin Liu, Carter Zenke, Charlie Liu, Andrew Holmes, Patrick Thornton, and David J. Malan. 2024. Teaching CS50 with AI: Leveraging Generative Artificial Intelligence in Computer Science Education. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Comp. Sci. Ed. V. 1 (Por...

    2024

  14. [24]

    Stephen MacNeil, Andrew Tran, Arto Hellas, Joanne Kim, Sami Sarsa, Paul Denny, Seth Bernstein, and Juho Leinonen. 2023. Experiences from Using Code Expla- nations Generated by Large Language Models in a Web Software Development E-Book. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical ...

    2023

  15. [25]

    Ismael Villegas Molina, Audria Montalvo, Benjamin Ochoa, Paul Denny, and Leo Porter. 2024. Leveraging LLM Tutoring Systems for Non-Native English Speakers in Introductory CS Courses. arXiv:2411.02725 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2411.02725

    2024 arXiv

  16. [26]

    Nigel Newby. 2024. Askers, Answerers, Non-Answerers, and Lurkers: Investigat- ing Online Q&A Platforms Personas and Success in a CS1 Course. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2 (Port- land, OR, USA) (SIGCSE 2024). Association f...

    2024

  17. [27]

    van Rooyen

    Vreda Pieterse and Isabel J. van Rooyen. 2011. Student discussion forums: what is in it for them?. In Computer Science Education Research Conference (Heerlen, Netherlands) (CSERC ’11). Open Universiteit, Heerlen, Heerlen, NLD, 59–70

    2011

  18. [28]

    Becker, Ibrahim Albluwi, Michelle Craig, Hieke Keuning, Natalie Kiesler, Tobias Kohn, Andrew Luxton- Reilly, Stephen MacNeil, Andrew Petersen, Raymond Pettit, Brent N

    James Prather, Paul Denny, Juho Leinonen, Brett A. Becker, Ibrahim Albluwi, Michelle Craig, Hieke Keuning, Natalie Kiesler, Tobias Kohn, Andrew Luxton- Reilly, Stephen MacNeil, Andrew Petersen, Raymond Pettit, Brent N. Reeves, and Jaromir Savelka. 2023. The Robots Are Here: Na...

    2023

  19. [29]

    Becker, Bailey Kimmel, Jared Wright, and Ben Briggs

    James Prather, Brent N Reeves, Juho Leinonen, Stephen MacNeil, Arisoa S Randrianasolo, Brett A. Becker, Bailey Kimmel, Jared Wright, and Ben Briggs

  20. [30]

    Dennis A Rivera, Mariane Frenay, and Valérie Swaen. 2024. The learning design of MOOC discussion forums: An analysis of forum instructions and their role in supporting the social construction of knowledge. Technology, Knowledge and Learning 29, 2 (2024), 585–615

    2024

  21. [32]

    Sami Sarsa, Paul Denny, Arto Hellas, and Juho Leinonen. 2022. Automatic Gen- eration of Programming Exercises and Code Explanations Using Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1. ACM. https://doi...

    2022

  22. [33]

    Jaromir Savelka, Arav Agarwal, Christopher Bogart, and Majd Sakr. 2024. From GPT-3 to GPT-4: On the Evolving Efficacy of LLMs to Answer Multiple-Choice Questions for Programming Classes in Higher Education. In Computer Supported Education. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 160–182

    2024

  23. [34]

    Afsaneh Sharif and Barry Magrill. 2015. Discussion forums in MOOCs. In- ternational Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research 12, 1 (2015), 119–132

    2015

  24. [35]

    Judy Sheard, Jan Miller, and Sita Ramakrishnan. 2003. Web-based discussion forums: the staff perspective. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Thessaloniki, Greece) (ITiCSE ’03). Association for Computing Machi...

    2003

  25. [36]

    Mickey Vellukunnel, Philip Buffum, Kristy Elizabeth Boyer, Jeffrey Forbes, Sarah Heckman, and Ketan Mayer-Patel. 2017. Deconstructing the Discussion Forum: Student Questions and Computer Science Learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Sc...

    2017

  26. [37]

    Thiemo Wambsganss, Tobias Kueng, Matthias Soellner, and Jan Marco Leimeister

  27. [38]

    Wang, Ana T

    Rose E. Wang, Ana T. Ribeiro, Carly D. Robinson, Susanna Loeb, and Dora Demszky. 2024. Tutor CoPilot: A Human-AI Approach for Scaling Real-Time Expertise. arXiv:2410.03017 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.03017

    2024 arXiv

  28. [39]

    Yuemeng Wang. 2022. A comparative study on the effectiveness of traditional and modern teaching methods. In2022 5th International Conference on Humanities Education and Social Sciences (ICHESS 2022) . Atlantis Press, 270–277

    2022

  29. [40]

    J. D. Zamfirescu-Pereira, Laryn Qi, Björn Hartmann, John DeNero, and Narges Norouzi. 2024. 61A-Bot Report: AI Assistants in CS1 Save Students Homework Time and Reduce Demands on Staff. (Now What?). arXiv:2406.05600 [cs.CY]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [2021]

    In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems

    ArgueTutor: An adaptive dialog-based learning system for argumentation skills. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    2021

  31. [2023]

    In Proceedings of the 16th Annual ACM India Com- pute Conference (Hyderabad, India) (COMPUTE ’23)

    Evaluating the Quality of LLM-Generated Explanations for Logical Errors in CS1 Student Programs. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual ACM India Com- pute Conference (Hyderabad, India) (COMPUTE ’23) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 49–54. https://doi.org/1...

  32. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Interna- tional Computing Education Research - Volume 1 (Melbourne, VIC, Australia) (ICER ’24)

    The Widening Gap: The Benefits and Harms of Generative AI for Novice Programmers. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Interna- tional Computing Education Research - Volume 1 (Melbourne, VIC, Australia) (ICER ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.