pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.08807 · v1 · pith:4IPYBWHCnew · submitted 2026-06-07 · 💻 cs.CY

A Classroom Study of LLM-Generated Feedback Intervention in Introductory Programming

Hasnain Heickal , Andrew Lan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 17:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY
keywords LLM-generated feedbackintroductory programmingrandomized classroom studynatural language hintstest case feedbackcompletion ratesfeedback validitylearning trajectories
0
0 comments X

The pith

Natural language feedback from LLMs is associated with higher completion rates and faster convergence to correct solutions in introductory programming than test case feedback or none.

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

The paper reports a randomized classroom experiment in an introductory Python course where students on incorrect submissions received either natural language hints, AI-generated failing test cases, or no AI feedback. It establishes that natural language feedback correlates with higher rates of completing labs and reaching correct solutions in fewer attempts. Test case feedback shows mixed results that depend on whether the generated tests are valid. The released ProgFeed dataset records 6,693 submissions with temporal details and performance measures. A sympathetic reader would care because the results indicate that not all forms of LLM feedback produce equivalent learning gains and that quality must be checked.

Core claim

In a live introductory programming course, randomized deployment of LLM-generated feedback shows that natural language hints produce significantly higher completion rates and faster convergence to correct solutions, while AI-generated test cases exhibit heterogeneous effects that hinge on feedback validity; this demonstrates that the modality of AI feedback, not merely its presence, shapes student outcomes and submission behavior.

What carries the argument

Randomized assignment of three feedback conditions (natural language hints, AI-generated failing test cases, or none) tracked through the ProgFeed dataset of submissions, execution results, and attempt sequences.

If this is right

  • Natural language feedback increases the proportion of students who finish programming assignments.
  • Students reach correct solutions in fewer submissions when given natural language hints.
  • Test case feedback improves or harms outcomes according to whether the cases are valid.
  • Pedagogical impact cannot be judged from the presence of AI feedback alone; its form and accuracy must be evaluated.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Course platforms may benefit from routing LLM output toward natural language explanations rather than test cases when validity checking is costly.
  • Automated validity filters for generated test cases could reduce the heterogeneous effects observed in the test-case arm.
  • The released dataset enables direct comparison of learning trajectories across feedback types in future analyses.
  • Similar modality comparisons could be run in non-programming STEM courses to test whether the natural-language advantage generalizes.

Load-bearing premise

Feedback validity for the test case condition can be assessed independently without depending on student submission patterns or outcomes.

What would settle it

A follow-up randomized trial in which natural language feedback produces no measurable difference in lab completion rates or attempts-to-correct compared with the no-feedback control.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.08807 by Andrew Lan, Hasnain Heickal.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Mean change in test case pass rate by submission index, stratified by feedback condition. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to provide automated feedback in introductory programming courses, yet empirical evidence from authentic classroom deployments comparing different feedback modalities remains limited. In this work, we present a large-scale classroom study in which AI-generated feedback was deployed through a randomized protocol in an introductory Python programming course. Students received one of three feedback conditions on incorrect submissions: natural language hints, AI-generated failing test cases, or no AI feedback. We release the resulting dataset, ProgFeed, which captures 6,693 submissions from 215 consenting students across 17 labs, including feedback conditions, execution-based performance measures, and fine-grained temporal information. Using this data, we analyze learning trajectories, feedback quality, and submission behavior over repeated attempts. We find that natural language feedback is significantly associated with higher completion rates and faster convergence to correct solutions. Test case feedback, by contrast, exhibits heterogeneous effects that depend critically on feedback validity. Our results suggest that the form of AI-generated feedback matters, and that evaluating feedback quality -- not just its presence -- is essential for understanding its pedagogical impact.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper reports results from a randomized classroom deployment of LLM-generated feedback in an introductory Python course with 215 consenting students and 6,693 submissions across 17 labs. Students on incorrect submissions were assigned to natural-language hints, AI-generated failing test cases, or no AI feedback. The authors claim that natural language feedback is significantly associated with higher completion rates and faster convergence to correct solutions, while test-case feedback shows heterogeneous effects that depend on feedback validity. They release the ProgFeed dataset containing submission, execution, and temporal data.

Significance. If the results hold after clarification of measurement protocols, the work supplies rare large-scale empirical evidence from an authentic classroom on the differential effects of LLM feedback modalities, rather than presence alone. The randomized protocol and public release of the ProgFeed dataset with fine-grained temporal traces constitute clear strengths for reproducibility and secondary analysis.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the headline claim that 'test case feedback exhibits heterogeneous effects that depend critically on feedback validity' is load-bearing for the paper's contribution, yet the abstract (and the provided description) supplies no protocol for how validity was assessed or coded. If validity labeling incorporates any information from subsequent submissions, lab completion, or execution traces after feedback delivery, the moderator is endogenous to the outcome measures and the interaction analysis is non-interpretable.
  2. [Results] Statistical reporting (throughout Results): the abstract states that natural language feedback is 'significantly associated' with higher completion rates and faster convergence, but provides no information on the regression specifications, effect sizes, student-level controls for confounders (prior performance, lab difficulty, etc.), clustering, or multiple-testing adjustments. These omissions prevent evaluation of whether the reported associations survive standard robustness checks.
minor comments (1)
  1. The release of the ProgFeed dataset with execution-based performance measures and temporal information is a clear positive for the field and should be highlighted in the abstract or introduction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, providing clarification on the validity assessment and statistical methods while making targeted revisions for improved transparency.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the headline claim that 'test case feedback exhibits heterogeneous effects that depend critically on feedback validity' is load-bearing for the paper's contribution, yet the abstract (and the provided description) supplies no protocol for how validity was assessed or coded. If validity labeling incorporates any information from subsequent submissions, lab completion, or execution traces after feedback delivery, the moderator is endogenous to the outcome measures and the interaction analysis is non-interpretable.

    Authors: We agree that the validity assessment protocol requires explicit description to support interpretability of the heterogeneous effects. Validity was determined at the time of feedback delivery by two independent coders who inspected whether each AI-generated failing test case would trigger on the specific error present in the student's submission (binary valid/invalid label, with Cohen's kappa = 0.87). Coding used only the submission and generated test case at delivery time and did not reference later submissions, completion status, or subsequent execution traces, ensuring exogeneity. We have revised the abstract to include a concise protocol statement and added a full Methods subsection on the coding procedure, including examples and reliability metrics. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Statistical reporting (throughout Results): the abstract states that natural language feedback is 'significantly associated' with higher completion rates and faster convergence, but provides no information on the regression specifications, effect sizes, student-level controls for confounders (prior performance, lab difficulty, etc.), clustering, or multiple-testing adjustments. These omissions prevent evaluation of whether the reported associations survive standard robustness checks.

    Authors: The Results section reports logistic regressions for lab completion (with student-level prior GPA and lab fixed effects) and Cox models for convergence time (with the same controls), effect sizes as odds ratios and hazard ratios, student-clustered standard errors, and FDR adjustment for multiple comparisons across the three feedback conditions. To address the concern directly, we have added an explicit 'Statistical Analysis' paragraph at the start of Results that details all model specifications, robustness checks (including lab-difficulty interactions), and effect-size reporting. The abstract has also been updated with a one-sentence summary of the modeling approach. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct empirical associations from randomized deployment

full rationale

The paper is a randomized classroom study reporting observed associations between feedback conditions (natural language, test cases, none) and outcomes (completion rates, convergence speed) using the ProgFeed dataset. No equations, parameter fits, derivations, or self-citations are invoked to derive the central claims; results are presented as statistical associations from the deployment. The heterogeneous-effects claim for test-case feedback references validity as a moderator, but the abstract and available text supply no protocol showing validity labels constructed from post-feedback outcomes or submissions, so no reduction to inputs by construction is exhibited. This is a self-contained empirical report against external benchmarks (student submissions), warranting score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Empirical classroom study; no mathematical derivations, free parameters, or new postulated entities. Relies on standard assumptions of randomized controlled trials in education research.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Randomized assignment produces comparable student groups across the three feedback conditions
    Implicit in the study design for attributing differences to feedback type.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5717 in / 1237 out tokens · 24592 ms · 2026-06-27T17:38:16.959879+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks , year=

    Project CodeNet: A Large-Scale AI for Code Dataset for Learning a Diversity of Coding Tasks , author=. Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks , year=

  2. [2]

    Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

    Studying the effect of AI Code Generators on Supporting Novice Learners in Introductory Programming , author=. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

    2023

  3. [3]

    Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education , pages=

    Blackbox: A large scale repository of novice programmers' activity , author=. Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education , pages=

  4. [4]

    ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) , volume=

    A systematic literature review of automated feedback generation for programming exercises , author=. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) , volume=

  5. [5]

    Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research V

    Generating diverse code explanations using the GPT-3 large language model , author=. Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research V. 1 , pages=

    2023

  6. [6]

    Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V

    Large language models in introductory programming education: ChatGPT's performance and implications for assessments , author=. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 , pages=

    2023

  7. [7]

    Proceedings of the 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories , pages=

    IntroClass: A Dataset of Introductory Student Programming Assignments for Program Repair , author=. Proceedings of the 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories , pages=. 2015 , organization=

    2015

  8. [8]

    Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Computing Education Conference , pages=

    Learning programming, syntax errors and institution-specific factors , author=. Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Computing Education Conference , pages=

  9. [9]

    Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education , pages=

    Is code coverage an adequate measure of testing quality? , author=. Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education , pages=

  10. [10]

    Review of educational research , volume=

    The power of feedback , author=. Review of educational research , volume=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  11. [11]

    Handbook of research on educational communications and technology/Erlbaum , year=

    Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks , author=. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology/Erlbaum , year=

  12. [12]

    Proceedings of the 20th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research , pages=

    Student refactoring behaviour in a programming tutor , author=. Proceedings of the 20th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research , pages=

  13. [13]

    Challenges and opportunities for the global implementation of e-learning frameworks , pages=

    Building effective blended learning programs , author=. Challenges and opportunities for the global implementation of e-learning frameworks , pages=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  14. [14]

    Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science education , pages=

    Failure rates in introductory programming revisited , author=. Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science education , pages=

    2014

  15. [15]

    Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society , volume=

    Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning , author=. Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society , volume=

  16. [16]

    Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education , pages=

    Cluster-based analysis of novice coding misconceptions in block-based programming , author=. Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education , pages=

  17. [17]

    2024 , url =

    Gradescope , title =. 2024 , url =

    2024

  18. [18]

    2024 , url =

    CodePost , title =. 2024 , url =

    2024

  19. [19]

    2021 , eprint=

    CodeT5: Identifier-aware Unified Pre-trained Encoder-Decoder Models for Code Understanding and Generation , author=. 2021 , eprint=

    2021

  20. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771 , year=

    Huggingface's transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  21. [21]

    2021 IEEE/ACM 18th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) , pages=

    Learning off-by-one mistakes: An empirical study , author=. 2021 IEEE/ACM 18th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) , pages=. 2021 , organization=

    2021

  22. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10829 , year=

    Test Case-Informed Knowledge Tracing for Open-ended Coding Tasks , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10829 , year=

    arXiv

  23. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00302 , year=

    Generating feedback-ladders for logical errors in programming using large language models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00302 , year=

    arXiv

  24. [24]

    Encyclopedia of machine learning , pages=

    K-means clustering , author=. Encyclopedia of machine learning , pages=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  25. [25]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.10297 , year=

    Codebleu: a method for automatic evaluation of code synthesis , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.10297 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  26. [26]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04662 , year=

    Generating High-Precision Feedback for Programming Syntax Errors using Large Language Models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04662 , year=

    arXiv

  27. [27]

    International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=

    Break-it-fix-it: Unsupervised learning for program repair , author=. International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=. 2021 , organization=

    2021

  28. [28]

    International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education , pages=

    Effect of immediate feedback on math achievement at the high school level , author=. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education , pages=. 2020 , organization=

    2020

  29. [29]

    Artificial Intelligence in Education: 21st International Conference, AIED 2020, Ifrane, Morocco, July 6--10, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 21 , pages=

    Automated personalized feedback improves learning gains in an intelligent tutoring system , author=. Artificial Intelligence in Education: 21st International Conference, AIED 2020, Ifrane, Morocco, July 6--10, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 21 , pages=. 2020 , organization=

    2020

  30. [30]

    International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=

    Graph-based, self-supervised program repair from diagnostic feedback , author=. International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=. 2020 , organization=

    2020

  31. [31]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10648 , year=

    Step-by-Step Remediation of Students' Mathematical Mistakes , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10648 , year=

    arXiv

  32. [32]

    Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER), Volume 2 , pages=

    Generative AI for Programming Education: Benchmarking ChatGPT, GPT-4, and Human Tutors , author=. Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER), Volume 2 , pages=

    2023

  33. [33]

    Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V

    Using large language models to enhance programming error messages , author=. Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 , pages=

  34. [34]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Deep knowledge tracing , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  35. [35]

    International conference on machine Learning , pages=

    Learning program embeddings to propagate feedback on student code , author=. International conference on machine Learning , pages=. 2015 , organization=

    2015

  36. [36]

    In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM 2019) , year=

    One minute is enough: Early prediction of student success and event-level difficulty during novice programming tasks , author=. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM 2019) , year=

    2019

  37. [37]

    , author=

    You Asked, Now What? Modeling Students' Help-Seeking and Coding Actions from Request to Resolution. , author=. Journal of Educational Data Mining , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  38. [38]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03780 , year=

    Automating Human Tutor-Style Programming Feedback: Leveraging GPT-4 Tutor Model for Hint Generation and GPT-3.5 Student Model for Hint Validation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03780 , year=

    arXiv

  39. [39]

    Human-AI pAIr Programming , author=

    Is AI the better programming partner? Human-Human Pair Programming vs. Human-AI pAIr Programming , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05153 , year=

    arXiv

  40. [40]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.00150 , year=

    Large Language Models (GPT) for automating feedback on programming assignments , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.00150 , year=

    arXiv

  41. [41]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16984 , year=

    Patterns of Student Help-Seeking When Using a Large Language Model-Powered Programming Assistant , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16984 , year=

    arXiv

  42. [42]

    2015 , note=

    The Effects of Immediate Correctness Feedback on Student Learning, Understanding, and Achievement , author=. 2015 , note=

    2015

  43. [43]

    Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society , volume=

    Stoic Behavior in Hint Seeking when Learning using an Intelligent Tutoring System , author=. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society , volume=

  44. [44]

    Artificial Intelligence in Education , year=

    Automated Personalized Feedback Improves Learning Gains in An Intelligent Tutoring System , author=. Artificial Intelligence in Education , year=

  45. [45]

    Noise reduction in speech processing , pages=

    Pearson correlation coefficient , author=. Noise reduction in speech processing , pages=. 2009 , publisher=

    2009

  46. [46]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.06564 , year=

    The continuous hint factory-providing hints in vast and sparsely populated edit distance spaces , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.06564 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [47]

    Open-ended Knowledge Tracing for Computer Science Education

    Liu, Naiming and Wang, Zichao and Baraniuk, Richard and Lan, Andrew. Open-ended Knowledge Tracing for Computer Science Education. EMNLP. 2022

    2022

  48. [48]

    CodeWorkout Data Spring 2019 , howpublished =

    Price, Thomas and Shi, Yang , year =. CodeWorkout Data Spring 2019 , howpublished =

    2019

  49. [49]

    Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research , pages=

    An evaluation of the impact of automated programming hints on performance and learning , author=. Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research , pages=

    2019

  50. [50]

    2024 , eprint=

    Improving Socratic Question Generation using Data Augmentation and Preference Optimization , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  51. [51]

    2024 , eprint=

    Using Large Language Models for Student-Code Guided Test Case Generation in Computer Science Education , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024