Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Code Interviews: Design and Evaluation of a More Authentic Assessment for Introductory Programming Assignments

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 2410.01010 v2 pith:MY7CK6N4 submitted 2024-10-01 cs.CY

classification cs.CY
keywords interviewscodeprogrammingassessmentassignmentsauthenticdesignexams
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Generative artificial intelligence poses new challenges around assessment, increasingly driving introductory programming educators to employ invigilated exams. But exams do not afford more authentic programming experiences that involve planning, implementing, and debugging programs with computer interaction. In this experience report, we describe code interviews: a more authentic assessment method for take-home programming assignments. Through action research, we experimented with varying the number and type of questions as well as whether interviews were conducted individually or with groups of students. To scale the program, we converted most of our weekly teaching assistant (TA) sections to conduct code interviews on 5 major weekly take-home programming assignments. By triangulating data from 5 sources, we identified 4 themes. Code interviews (1) pushed students to discuss their work, motivating more nuanced but sometimes repetitive insights; (2) enabled peer learning, reducing stress in some ways but increasing stress in other ways; (3) scaled with TA-led sections, replacing familiar practice with an unfamiliar assessment; (4) focused on student contributions, limiting opportunities for TAs to give guidance and feedback. We conclude by discussing the different decisions about the design of code interviews with implications for student experience, academic integrity, and teaching workload.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Tool-Invariant Framework for Teaching and Assessing Computational Methods in the Age of Agentic AI

    physics.ed-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Computational physics courses should be re-centered on verification and oral defense because AI-generated artifacts no longer certify student understanding.

Pith tools