The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A GPT-Based Code Review System With Accurate Feedback for Programming Education
Open accessAbstract
The increasing demand for programming education and growing class sizes require immediate and personalized feedback. However, integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT in introductory programming courses raises concerns about AI-assisted cheating. In large-scale settings, faulty code submissions may lead LLMs to overanalyze, causing unnecessary token consumption. This paper proposes a GPT-4o-based code review system that provides accurate feedback while reducing token usage and preventing AI-assisted cheating. Unlike general-purpose LLM tools for professionals, the system is pedagogically designed for primary and secondary students by focusing on review necessity and learner-friendly feedback. The system features a Code Review Module (CRM) that reduces token usage via a Review Necessity Chain (RNC), and Code Correctness Check Module (CCM) combining test case validation with LLM-based assessment. To prevent AI-assisted cheating, the system provides automated feedback on submitted code without prompting and revealing correct answers, which are accessed only through the "Ask Code Tutor" button. In usability test, the system detected up to 42.86% more errors than a conventional online judge. BERTScore analysis showed that over 80% of the system-generated reviews were semantically aligned with human feedback. A performance comparison with state-of-the-art systems demonstrated a blocking success rate of 86%, with a comparable review omission rate. These results indicate that the system provides more accurate feedback than conventional automated code reviews, while achieving token efficiency and supporting self-directed learning through educational feedback. Thus, it can serve as a practical solution for scalable programming education in primary and secondary classes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT
Zhang, T., Kishore, V., Wu, F., Weinberger, K. Q., & Artzi, Y. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.09675 · Cited by 2,865
Can Large Language Models Provide Feedback to Students? A Case Study on ChatGPT
Dai, W., Lin, J., Jin, H., Li, T., Tsai, Y.-S., Gašević, D., & Chen, G. (2023) · 2023 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) · doi:10.1109/icalt58122.2023.00100 · Cited by 395
Research works printed but not linked: 27
- of Science, 2021, Global Digital Competency Education
- 10.1787/df80bc12-en · DOI
- Cardona, 2025, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Teaching and Learning: Insights and Recommendations
- 2025, Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidance and Use Case Inventory
- 2023, Policies for the Digitalisation of Education and Training Until 2027
- 2024, Transforming Education Through Technology: Masterplan 2030
- 2024, Exploring the 2022 Revised Elementary School Curriculum Organization and Operation
- 2025, Rules of the 2025 British Informatics Olympiad
- 2023, Ap Computer Science a—The Exam
- Choi, 2023, Designing llm-based code reviewing learning environment for programming education, J. Korean Assoc. Comput. Educ., 26, 1
- 10.1145/3613904.3642773 · DOI · Paper page
- Sahai, Improving the coverage of GPT for automated feedback on high school programming assignments, 46, 1
- 10.3390/e25060888 · DOI
- 10.1145/3626252.3630960 · DOI
- 10.31039/ljss.2023.6.103 · DOI
- 10.4018/979-8-3693-0240-8.ch015 · DOI
- 10.1145/3585059.3611449 · DOI
- 10.1145/3641554.3701872 · DOI
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3554627 · DOI
- 10.1145/2491956.2462195 · DOI
- 10.1109/ISSRE59848.2023.00026 · DOI
- Zhang, 2023, A critical review of large language model on software engineering: An example from ChatGPT and automated program repair, arXiv:2310.08879 · arXiv
- Sun, BERTScore is unfair: On social bias in language model-based metrics for text generation, 1, 3726
- Crandall, 2023, Generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) models as a code review feedback tool in computer science programs, J. Comput. Sci. Colleges, 39, 38
- Crandall, WIP: ARTful insights from a pilot study on GPT-based automatic code reviews in undergraduate computer science programs, 1
- 2023, The Online Judge System for Elementary and Secondary School Students
- 10.9728/dcs.2023.24.10.2611 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mapeamento Sistemático sobre o Uso de IAs Generativas no Ensino de Programação
Ferreira de Sousa, J., & Silveira, F. R. D. V. (2026) · Revista Eletrônica de Iniciação Científica em Computação · doi:10.5753/reic.2026.7169
Metadata
- Authors
- Lee, D.-K., & Joe, I.
- Affiliations
- Hanyang University (KR)
- Venue
- IEEE Access
- Published
- 2025
- Volume
- 13
- Pages
- 105724-105737
- ISSN
- 2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4411406668
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 9.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- IEEE Access (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- DLAB in RECRUITING PRIMARY AND SECONDARY students for the usability testing of the Code Review System and by C3 Coding in providing an online judge system dataset for experimental evaluation.
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Keywords
- automated code review, large language models, GPT-4o, programming education, personalized feedback, token efficiency, primary and secondary school students
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review