Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 63 references

EDBooks: AI-Enhanced Interactive Narratives for Programming Education

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that EDBook, a platform combining author-written dialog trees with a context-aware LLM, is the first to make dialogic learning open-ended yet goal-aligned for programming education.

desk verdict EDBooks is a genuinely new integration of dialog trees with context-aware LLM queries for programming instruction, but its user study confounds the platform's interface with the dialogic structure, so treat the engagement claims as suggestive rather than proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10687 v1 pith:WE5BPDXW submitted 2024-11-16 cs.HC

Steve Oney , Yue Shen , Fei Wu , Young Suh Hong , Ziang Wang , Yamini Khajekar , Jiacheng Zhang , April Yi Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords EDBookdialogiclearninglargelanguagemodelsineducationprogrammingdialogtreesgoal-alignedLLMinteractionsinteractivetextbooksself-directed
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

The paper proposes EDBook, a programming-education platform that wraps an author-written, goal-directed dialog tree around a context-aware large language model. The aim is to give learners the structure and accuracy of a curated textbook alongside the flexibility of asking their own questions, so that open-ended interaction stays aligned with a defined learning goal. The authors argue this is the first such integration for programming instruction and report a 20-participant study in which learners using EDBook spent more time with the material, attempted more practice quizzes, and rated engagement higher than with equivalent webpage content plus ChatGPT. If the finding holds, it offers a concrete way to get personalized LLM tutoring without losing pedagogical control.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a dialog tree rendered as a flattened, readable conversation: each node is a message, children are possible responses, and a designated 'target' leaf marks the learning goal. Every reader query to the LLM is grounded by passing the current node and all ancestors as context, so a terse question like 'what is url' is answered relative to the code sample in view rather than as a dictionary definition. Around this core, EDBook adds several supporting mechanisms: deictic pointers that draw curved lines from narrative cells to code regions, incremental code diffs that build up a larger sample over the story, and interactive multiple-choice and code-writing assessments embedded as directives in the message cells. The tree representation keeps the author's verification burden low, since only the path from root to target must be checked for accuracy, while the branch-on-LLM mechanism preserves open-ended exploration.

What would settle it

Run the same two learning tasks in a third condition that uses the identical EDBook interface but replaces the dialog-tree narrative with a plain linear text layout, keeping the integrated editor, quizzes, and diff view; if the engagement and quiz-attempt gains disappear, the dialogic structure rather than the all-in-one environment is responsible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's terms, EDBook's core discovery is that pre-written dialog trees can act as 'rails' while open-ended LLM queries let students 'go off-road,' and that this combination produces dialogic learning that is open-ended yet goal-aligned. The dialog tree is authored or verified by an instructor, with a single target leaf node representing completion of the learning goals; whenever a reader queries the LLM, the current node and its ancestors are passed as context, and the response becomes a new branch labeled as unverified AI-generated content. In a within-subjects study with 20 programming learners comparing EDBook with equivalent content rendered as a webpage plus context-informed ChatGPT, the EDBook condition showed significantly more time spent learning, significantly more attempts at quiz and example-code questions, and significantly higher self-rated engagement and perceived usefulness of code-writing questions. Assessment scores were numerically higher but not significantly different. The authors interpret the result as evidence that structured dialogic narratives can keep learners active and focused while preserving their agency to pursue personally relevant questions.

Load-bearing premise

The study compares EDBook against a plain webpage plus ChatGPT, so any benefit might come from having editor, quizzes, and content in one place rather than from the dialogic narrative itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Programming novices can ask questions in an unfamiliar domain without knowing what to ask, because the dialog tree supplies a path and contextual suggestions.
  • LLM answers stay goal-aligned because the model receives the current conversational branch; off-topic or inaccurate tangents are flagged as unverified AI content.
  • Authors can guarantee accuracy of core material by writing or verifying only the nodes from root to target, while still allowing free-form exploration.
  • Learners in the dialogic condition spend more time with the material and attempt more practice questions, a pattern the paper connects to prior findings that engagement improves learning outcomes.
  • The platform extends beyond programming to any domain where guided practice and open-ended questioning both matter.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The all-in-one integration (editor, quizzes, diff view in one place) may explain part of the engagement gains; a component-control study would separate this from the dialogic narrative itself.
  • Dialog trees could double as curriculum-alignment instrumentation: each branch's divergence from the target gives instructors data on where learners stray, enabling automated curriculum repair.
  • The approach could be tested in other skill domains where 'building' is central, such as data analysis workflows or hardware description, by swapping the code panel for another editor.
  • If authors adopt LLM-generated branches at scale, the warning-label mechanism for unverified AI content becomes a reusable design pattern for any adaptive educational material that mixes human and synthetic text.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces EDBook, a Visual Studio Code-based platform for interactive programming tutorials that combines author-authored dialog trees with context-aware large language model (LLM) interactions. The design aims to give learners the pedagogical structure and verified content of traditional e-books while allowing open-ended personalized questions to an LLM, with additional features such as incremental code diffs, deictic code pointers, and embedded multiple-choice and code-writing assessments. The authors report a within-subjects user study with 20 participants, two learning tasks (Scheme basics and Python web-request caching), and two conditions: EDBook and a comparable webpage supplemented with a context-informed ChatGPT. Their quantitative results show significantly more time spent on learning materials and more attempts at quiz/code exercises in the EDBook condition, as well as higher self-reported engagement, while assessment scores were not significantly different. Interview data suggest that participants valued the local context provided to the LLM and the integrated coding environment, though some found the dialogic content 'fluffy' and preferred the webpage for skimming and searching. The paper's central claim is that EDBook is the first platform to integrate pre-written dialogic narratives with open-ended context-informed LLMs, enabling dialogic learning that is open-ended yet goal-aligned.

Significance. If the design claim is taken at face value, EDBook makes a useful contribution to programming education by addressing a real limitation of open-ended LLM tutoring: novices often do not know what to ask, and LLM responses may drift from pedagogical goals. The system's representation of dialogs as trees with a target node, its separation of user state from page content, and its integration of code execution and quizzes are thoughtful design choices that could influence future interactive textbook platforms. The study also has strengths: a within-subjects Latin square design, two varied learning tasks, manual coding of LLM questions using Bloom's taxonomy, and honest discussion of limitations in Sections 4.6 and 6. The source code and a deployment link are provided, which supports reproducibility. However, the empirical support for the central attribution claim is limited because the two experimental conditions differ in multiple dimensions beyond the dialogic/LLM integration, and the survey results are reported without full descriptive statistics.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3, §4.4, §4.5.1, §4.5.2] The comparison between C_EDBook and C_Web+GPT does not isolate the dialogic-narrative-plus-LLM integration that the paper claims is the central innovation. The conditions vary in at least four ways: (1) EDBook integrates a code editor, quiz widgets, and diff views into a single environment, while the webpage condition requires switching between tools; (2) EDBook automatically provides local dialog context to the LLM, while the webpage uses only a global page-level context; (3) EDBook reveals content through interaction, while the webpage is scrollable without interaction; and (4) EDBook is a novel, unfamiliar tool whose novelty may itself inflate time and engagement measures. The significant differences in time on materials, quiz/code attempts, and self-reported engagement (Table 2, Section 4.4.3, Section 4.5.6) are consistent with any of these factors. The authors partially acknowledge this in Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2, but they do not provide evidence that the dialogic/LLM integration is the operative factor. Since the paper's central claim is that this integration enables open-ended yet goal-aligned learning, the evaluation leaves the attribution unresolved.
  2. [§4.4.3, Table 4] The statistical reporting for self-report measures is incomplete. Table 4 lists questionnaire statements but does not present means, standard deviations, test statistics, or corrected p-values for any item, despite the text stating that two items reached p < 0.05. With 20 participants and a large number of Likert items examined by ANOVA, uncorrected multiple comparisons make these positive results fragile. Please report full descriptive statistics and either apply a multiple-comparison correction or explicitly label the questionnaire analyses as exploratory.
  3. [Abstract, §1, §3.3] The novelty claim that EDBook is 'the first platform to integrate pre-written dialogic narratives with open-ended context-informed LLMs' is repeatedly asserted but not established by a systematic comparison. The related work discusses adjacent systems such as Graphologue, Sensecape, chat.codes, Callisto, Colaroid, and Torii, and the authors state 'As far as we are aware' in Section 3.3, but the abstract and the contribution bullet in Section 1 use unqualified 'first' language. Please either soften these claims to match the evidence or provide a more comprehensive literature search to justify the uniqueness claim.
  4. [§4.4.2, Table 3] The Bloom's Taxonomy coding of LLM questions is presented as evidence that EDBook led to more 'active' learning, but the counts in Table 3 are not accompanied by any inferential statistics and appear to be based on small numbers of observations. The qualitative difference in question types is interesting, but the current presentation does not support a claim that EDBook changed the nature of learners' questions in a statistically reliable way. Please either add appropriate quantitative analysis or present this strictly as an observational, qualitative finding.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.5] There is a typo in the Callisto paragraph: 'with Like EDBook, Callisto’s references' should read 'Like EDBook, Callisto’s references...'.
  2. [§4.5.6] The sentence 'some participants found EDBooks to be more engaging that ChatGPT' should be 'more engaging than ChatGPT'.
  3. [§4.3, Figure 7] The figure uses both '≤ 30 minutes' and '≤ 10m' without a consistent time-unit convention; please standardize (e.g., all minutes).
  4. [§4.4.3, Table 4] Table 4 would be easier to interpret if it included the actual Likert scale used and columns for means and standard deviations in each condition, rather than only listing the statements.
  5. [§3.1.2, Figure 3] The caption of Figure 3 refers to 'icons' and 'red' highlighting but these are not visible in the grayscale reproduction; please ensure the figure is legible in print.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the platform claim and study are self-contained, and the self-citations are positional rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a design-and-evaluation claim, not a mathematical derivation. The novelty statement ('first platform to integrate pre-written dialogic narratives with open-ended context-informed LLMs') is supported by a related-work comparison (Sections 2.3-2.5 and 3.3) rather than by an equation, fitted parameter, or imported uniqueness theorem. The design decisions, including dialog trees, the target node, and context-passing to the LLM, are explicitly constructed and then empirically evaluated through a user study (Section 4). The comparative evaluation has a real validity threat: EDBook requires interaction to advance and integrates an editor, quizzes, and diff views, while Web+ChatGPT is a scrollable page with a global-context chatbot (Sections 4.5.1-4.5.2). The paper openly acknowledges these alternative explanations, so the observed engagement and quiz-attempt differences are not presented as a tautological consequence of the design. The self-citations to chat.codes, Callisto, Colaroid, and Wang & Chilana are used to position and differentiate the design and are not load-bearing for the central claim. No fitted value is renamed as a prediction, no 'uniqueness' result from prior author work is invoked to forbid alternatives, and no ansatz is adopted solely via self-citation. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the paper's own stated assumptions and evidence; the confound is a correctness/validity concern, not circularity.

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

The paper introduces no new physical or formal entities; the EDBook platform is a software system. The central claims rest on domain assumptions about dialogic learning, LLM context prompting, experimental equivalence, and the validity of self-report, rather than on fitted parameters or invented constructs.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Dialogic learning improves engagement and learning outcomes.
    The paper grounds its motivation in prior dialogic learning research (Section 1, citing [56], [60]) and uses it to justify the design.
  • domain assumption Passing dialog state as context to an LLM yields contextually appropriate and pedagogically useful responses.
    Section 3.1.3 and 5.4 assume that the dialog context prompt is sufficient to constrain LLM output; no evaluation of answer correctness or alignment is reported.
  • domain assumption The two experimental conditions present equivalent learning content and difficulty.
    Section 4.3 states the same content was converted to a webpage, but the authors authored both versions and no equivalence check is described.
  • domain assumption Self-reported engagement and interview statements reflect genuine engagement rather than demand characteristics.
    Section 4.6 acknowledges the 'good participant' risk, but the quantitative engagement measure remains self-report.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of EDBooks: AI-Enhanced Interactive Narratives for Programming Education." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WE5BPDXW

@misc{pith2026241110687,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: EDBooks: AI-Enhanced Interactive Narratives for Programming Education},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WE5BPDXW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10687}
}
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown the potential to be valuable teaching tools, with the potential of giving every student a personalized tutor. However, one challenge with using LLMs to learn new concepts is that when learning a topic in an unfamiliar domain, it can be difficult to know what questions to ask. Further, language models do not always encourage "active learning" where students can test and assess their understanding. In this paper, we propose ways to combine large language models with "traditional" learning materials (like e-books) to give readers the benefits of working with LLMs (the ability to ask personally interesting questions and receive personalized answers) with the benefits of a traditional e-book (having a structure and content that is pedagogically sound). This work shows one way that LLMs have the potential to improve learning materials and make personalized programming education more accessible to a broader audience.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10687 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration of EDBook content that describes the basics of Python modules. Readers learn through an interactive dialog [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An illustration of different dialog system types along a continuum from less constrained input (left) to more (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Conceptually, EDBook dialogs are trees (left) but these trees are visually simplified and flattened in the reader [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Warning labels are added to any cells that contain un [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Instructors can work with larger codebases that change over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An Illustration of the two conditions in our evaluation of EDBook. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An Illustration of the steps that participants take in our study. Each participant performs two tasks using two different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: An illustration of how EDBook content is represented and stored. We differentiate between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - Volume 1 (2022), p

    Al-Gahmi, A., Zhang, Y., and V alle, H.Jupyter in the classroom: An experience report. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - Volume 1 (2022), p. 425–431

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    A., Denny, P., Finnie-Ansley, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Prather, J., and Santos, E

    Becker, B. A., Denny, P., Finnie-Ansley, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Prather, J., and Santos, E. A. Programming is hard-or at least it used to be: Educational opportunities and challenges of ai code generation. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (2023), pp. 500–506

    2023

  3. [3]

    Language Learning & Technology 26, 1 (2022)

    Bibauw, S., V an den Noortgate, W., François, T., and Desmet, P.Dialogue systems for language learning: A meta-analysis. Language Learning & Technology 26, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Bloom’s taxonomy, 1956

    Bloom, B. Bloom’s taxonomy, 1956

    work page 1956

  5. [5]

    T., Li, Y., Lundberg, S., et al

    Bubeck, S., Chandrasekaran, V., Eldan, R., Gehrke, J., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., Lee, P., Lee, Y. T., Li, Y., Lundberg, S., et al. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Chen, M., Tworek, J., Jun, H., Yuan, Q., Pinto, H. P. d. O., Kaplan, J., Edwards, H., Burda, Y., Joseph, N., Brockman, G., et al. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374 (2021)

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Community, E. B. Jupyter book, Feb. 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Calendar

    Cranshaw, J., Elwany, E., Newman, T., Kocielnik, R., Yu, B., Soni, S., Teevan, J., and Monroy-Hernández, A. Calendar. help: Designing a workflow-based scheduling agent with humans in the loop. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2017), pp. 2382–2393

    work page 2017

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Dahl, D. A. Visualization tools for designing spoken dialogs. Practical spoken dialog systems (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    In Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on computing education research (2008), pp

    Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., and Simon, B.Evaluating a new exam question: Parsons problems. In Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on computing education research (2008), pp. 113–124

    2008

  3. [11]

    J., and Miller, B

    Ericson, B. J., and Miller, B. N. Runestone: A platform for free, on-line, and interactive ebooks. InProceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (2020), pp. 1012–1018

    2020

  4. [12]

    In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (2016), p

    Färnqvist, T., Heintz, F., Lambrix, P., Mannila, L., and W ang, C.Supporting active learning by introducing an interactive teaching tool in a data structures and algorithms course. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (2016), p. 663–668

    2016

  5. [13]

    P., and Felleisen, M

    Friedman, D. P., and Felleisen, M. The Little Schemer. MIT Press, 1995

    1995

  6. [14]

    P., and Felleisen, M

    Friedman, D. P., and Felleisen, M. The seasoned schemer. MIT Press, 1995

    1995

  7. [15]

    Effects of dialogic learning on value-loaded critical thinking

    Frijters, S., ten Dam, G., and Rijlaarsdam, G. Effects of dialogic learning on value-loaded critical thinking. Learning and Instruction 18 , 1 (2008), 66–82. Manuscript submitted to ACM 22 Steve Oney, Yue Shen, Fei Wu, Young Suh Hong, Ziang Wang, Yamini Khajekar, Jiacheng Zhan...

    2008

  8. [16]

    A., and DiLoreto, M

    Gray, J. A., and DiLoreto, M. The effects of student engagement, student satisfaction, and perceived learning in online learning environments. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation 11 , 1 (2016), n1

    2016

  9. [17]

    Chatbots, humbots, and the quest for artificial general intelligence

    Grudin, J., and Jacqes, R. Chatbots, humbots, and the quest for artificial general intelligence. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (2019), pp. 1–11

    2019

  10. [18]

    Guo, P. J. Six opportunities for scientists and engineers to learn programming using ai tools such as chatgpt

  11. [19]

    J., and Yeh, T.Designing effective interview chatbots: Automatic chatbot profiling and design suggestion generation for chatbot debugging

    Han, X., Zhou, M., Turner, M. J., and Yeh, T.Designing effective interview chatbots: Automatic chatbot profiling and design suggestion generation for chatbot debugging. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2021), pp. 1–15

    2021

  12. [20]

    A., and Hartmann, B

    Head, A., Jiang, J., Smith, J., Hearst, M. A., and Hartmann, B. Composing flexibly-organized step-by-step tutorials from linked source code, snippets, and outputs. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2020), pp. 1–12

    2020

  13. [21]

    Chatgpt is going to change education, not destroy it, 2023

    Heaven, W. Chatgpt is going to change education, not destroy it, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Chatgpt: educational friend or foe?

    Hirsh-Pasek, K., and Blinkoff, E. Chatgpt: educational friend or foe?

  15. [23]

    N.Evaluating and informing the design of chatbots

    Jain, M., Kumar, P., Kota, R., and Patel, S. N.Evaluating and informing the design of chatbots. In Proceedings of the 2018 designing interactive systems conference (2018), pp. 895–906

    2018

  16. [24]

    Towards automated interactive tutoring-focussing on misconceptions and adaptive level-specific feedback

    Jell, L., List, C., and Kipp, M. Towards automated interactive tutoring-focussing on misconceptions and adaptive level-specific feedback. In Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Software Engineering Education (2023), pp. 226–235

    2023

  17. [25]

    P., and Xia, H

    Jiang, P., Rayan, J., Dow, S. P., and Xia, H. Graphologue: Exploring large language model responses with interactive diagrams. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11473 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Johnson, J. W. Benefits and pitfalls of jupyter notebooks in the classroom. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference on Information Technology Education (2020), p. 32–37

    2020

  19. [27]

    Joyner, D. A. Chatgpt in education: Partner or pariah? XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students 29 , 3 (2023), 48–51

    2023

  20. [28]

    Kazemitabaar, M., Chow, J., Ma, C. K. T., Ericson, B. J., Weintrop, D., and Grossman, T. Studying the effect of ai code generators on supporting novice learners in introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2023),...

    2023

  21. [29]

    S., Lee, Y., Chang, M., and Kim, J

    Kim, T. S., Lee, Y., Chang, M., and Kim, J. Cells, generators, and lenses: Design framework for object-oriented interaction with large language models

  22. [30]

    E., Bussonnier, M., Frederic, J., Kelley, K., Hamrick, J

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., Pérez, F., Granger, B. E., Bussonnier, M., Frederic, J., Kelley, K., Hamrick, J. B., Grout, J., Corlay, S., et al. Jupyter notebooks-a publishing format for reproducible computational workflows. Elpub 2016 (2016), 87–90

    2016

  23. [31]

    Lee, C., Jung, S., Eun, J., Jeong, M., and Lee, G. G. A situation-based dialogue management using dialogue examples. In 2006 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing Proceedings (2006), vol. 1, IEEE, pp. I–I

    2006

  24. [32]

    Comparing code explanations created by students and large language models

    Leinonen, J., Denny, P., MacNeil, S., Sarsa, S., Bernstein, S., Kim, J., Tran, A., and Hellas, A. Comparing code explanations created by students and large language models. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 (2...

    2023

  25. [33]

    Leinonen, J., Hellas, A., Sarsa, S., Reeves, B., Denny, P., Prather, J., and Becker, B. A. Using large language models to enhance programming error messages. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (2023), p. 563–569

    2023

  26. [34]

    A conversation analysis of non-progress and coping strategies with a banking task-oriented chatbot

    Li, C.-H., Yeh, S.-F., Chang, T.-J., Tsai, M.-H., Chen, K., and Chang, Y.-J. A conversation analysis of non-progress and coping strategies with a banking task-oriented chatbot. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2020), pp. 1–12

    2020

  27. [35]

    W., Hang, C

    Li, J., Tan, C. W., Hang, C. N., and Qi, X. A chatbot-server framework for scalable machine learning education through crowdsourced data. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale (2022), pp. 271–274

    2022

  28. [36]

    D., Hubert, T., Choy, P., de Masson d’Autume, C., Babuschkin, I., Chen, X., Huang, P.-S., Welbl, J., Gowal, S., Cherepanov, A., Molloy, J., Mankowitz, D

    Li, Y., Choi, D., Chung, J., Kushman, N., Schrittwieser, J., Leblond, R., Eccles, T., Keeling, J., Gimeno, F., Lago, A. D., Hubert, T., Choy, P., de Masson d’Autume, C., Babuschkin, I., Chen, X., Huang, P.-S., Welbl, J., Gowal, S., Cherepanov, A., Molloy, J., Mankowitz, D. J.,...

    2022

  29. [37]

    Codehelp: Using large language models with guardrails for scalable support in programming classes

    Liffiton, M., Sheese, B., Savelka, J., and Denny, P. Codehelp: Using large language models with guardrails for scalable support in programming classes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06921 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Exploring the role of chatgpt as a facilitator for motivating self-directed learning among adult learners

    Lin, X. Exploring the role of chatgpt as a facilitator for motivating self-directed learning among adult learners. Adult Learning (2023), 10451595231184928

    2023

  31. [39]

    Dialogflow, 2023

    LLC, G. Dialogflow, 2023. Accessed: 2023-09-01

    2023

  32. [40]

    In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2023), pp

    Lu, X., Fan, S., Houghton, J., W ang, L., and W ang, X.Readingquizmaker: A human-nlp collaborative system that supports instructors to design high-quality reading quiz questions. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2023), pp. 1–18

    2023

  33. [41]

    J., Wong, V

    Luo, C. J., Wong, V. Y. L., and Gonda, D. E. Code free chatbot development: An easy way to jumpstart your chatbot! In Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale (2020), pp. 233–235

    2020

  34. [42]

    M., Opferman, S

    Markel, J. M., Opferman, S. G., Landay, J. A., and Piech, C. Gpteach: Interactive ta training with gpt based students

  35. [43]

    N., and Ranum, D

    Miller, B. N., and Ranum, D. L. Beyond pdf and epub: Toward an interactive textbook. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (2012), p. 150–155

    2012

  36. [44]

    A., Ondrej, J., Vodolan, M., and Wiecha, C

    Muise, C., Chakraborti, T., Agarwal, S., Bajgar, O., Chaudhary, A., Lastras-Montano, L. A., Ondrej, J., Vodolan, M., and Wiecha, C. Planning for goal-oriented dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.08137 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Creating guided code explanations with chat

    Oney, S., Brooks, C., and Resnick, P. Creating guided code explanations with chat. codes. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (2018), 1–20. Manuscript submitted to ACM EDBooks: AI-Enhanced Interactive Narratives for Programming Education 23

    2018

  38. [46]

    Asleep at the keyboard? assessing the security of github copilot’s code contributions

    Pearce, H., Ahmad, B., Tan, B., Dolan-Gavitt, B., and Karri, R. Asleep at the keyboard? assessing the security of github copilot’s code contributions. In 2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) (2022), pp. 754–768

    2022

  39. [47]

    A., Hellas, A., Kimmel, B., Powell, G., and Leinonen, J

    Reeves, B., Sarsa, S., Prather, J., Denny, P., Becker, B. A., Hellas, A., Kimmel, B., Powell, G., and Leinonen, J. Evaluating the performance of code generation models for solving parsons problems with small prompt variations. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovatio...

    2023

  40. [48]

    B., Asterhan, C

    Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S., Clarke, S. N., and Schantz, F. Next generation research in dialogic learning. Wiley handbook of teaching and learning (2018), 323–338

    2018

  41. [49]

    Santos Teixeira, M., and Dragoni, M.A review of plan-based approaches for dialogue management.Cognitive Computation 14, 3 (2022), 1019–1038

    2022

  42. [50]

    Automatic generation of programming exercises and code explanations using large language models

    Sarsa, S., Denny, P., Hellas, A., and Leinonen, J. Automatic generation of programming exercises and code explanations using large language models. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1 (2022), p. 27–43

    2022

  43. [51]

    A., Karavirta, V., Korhonen, A., and Naps, T

    Shaffer, C. A., Karavirta, V., Korhonen, A., and Naps, T. L.Opendsa: Beginning a community active-ebook project. In Proceedings of the 11th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (2011), p. 112–117

    2011

  44. [52]

    H., Hao, Q., Hundhausen, C

    Smith, D. H., Hao, Q., Hundhausen, C. D., Jagodzinski, F., Myers-Dean, J., and Jaeger, K.Towards modeling student engagement with interactive computing textbooks: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (2021), p. 914–920

    2021

  45. [53]

    Sensecape: Enabling multilevel exploration and sensemaking with large language models

    Suh, S., Min, B., Palani, S., and Xia, H. Sensecape: Enabling multilevel exploration and sensemaking with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11483 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    P., and Hu, Z

    Tang, J., Zhao, T., Xiong, C., Liang, X., Xing, E. P., and Hu, Z. Target-guided open-domain conversation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.11553 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Character.ai, 2023

    Team, C. Character.ai, 2023. Accessed: 2023-09-01

    2023

  48. [56]

    Teaching for the 21st century: A case for dialogic pedagogy

    Teo, P. Teaching for the 21st century: A case for dialogic pedagogy. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 21 (2019), 170–178

    2019

  49. [57]

    Y., and Chilana, P

    W ang, A. Y., and Chilana, P. K.Designing curated conversation-driven explanations for communicating complex technical concepts. In 2019 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) (2019), IEEE, pp. 211–215

    2019

  50. [58]

    Y., Head, A., Zhang, A

    W ang, A. Y., Head, A., Zhang, A. G., Oney, S., and Brooks, C.Colaroid: A literate programming approach for authoring explorable multi-stage tutorials. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2023), pp. 1–22

    2023

  51. [59]

    Y., Wu, Z., Brooks, C., and Oney, S

    Wang, A. Y., Wu, Z., Brooks, C., and Oney, S. Callisto: Capturing the "why" by connecting conversations with computational narratives. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2020), pp. 1–13

    2020

  52. [60]

    Dialogic education and technology: Expanding the space of learning , vol

    Wegerif, R. Dialogic education and technology: Expanding the space of learning , vol. 7. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007

    2007

  53. [61]

    K., Galloway, R

    Wood, A. K., Galloway, R. K., Sinclair, C., and Hardy, J. Teacher-student discourse in active learning lectures: case studies from undergraduate physics. Teaching in Higher Education 23 , 7 (2018), 818–834

    2018

  54. [62]

    S., Wu, F., Hashimoto, K., Qu, J., Kang, Y

    Xie, T., Yang, X., Lin, A. S., Wu, F., Hashimoto, K., Qu, J., Kang, Y. M., Yin, W., Wang, H., Yavuz, S., et al. Converse: A tree-based modular task-oriented dialogue system. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.12187 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    I’m sorry, dave, i’m afraid i can’t do that: Chatbot perception and expectations

    Zamora, J. I’m sorry, dave, i’m afraid i can’t do that: Chatbot perception and expectations. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on human agent interaction (2017), pp. 253–260. Manuscript submitted to ACM

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.