Cited by 86Artificial Intelligence in EducationIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningTeaching and Learning Programming

A Pilot Study Integrating an AI-driven Chatbot in an Introductory Programming Course

Verleger, Matthew, Pembridge, James·2018·2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)

Abstract

As AI software tools become more commonplace, their potential to transform the student experience has greatly increased. By integrating these tools into a course, students can begin to receive real-time, around the clock, instructor moderated support. The potential benefits for students are significant. In addition to increasing their ability to work constructively on their schedule, it has the potential to engage students who might otherwise avoid directly interacting with another person. Before these tools can be meaningfully actualized into a course, work must be done to build a knowledge base about the course. For this research, the team sought to develop an intelligent chatbot interface for an introductory computer programming course. The interface had an initially limited knowledge base with the intent that it would be populated based on students' interactions with the chatbot. This model allowed the bot to evolve with the needs of the students. This paper seeks to present the methodology for how the chatbot was developed and integrated into the course, how the knowledge base was developed, the usage during the pilot, and the next steps for improving the chatbot's interface. Additionally, the paper will discuss the mechanisms added to handle issues such as false-positive responses and how faculty may be able to integrate such tools into their own courses as supplementary assistance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/fie.2018.8659282

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Lack of student involvement may have resulted in decreased engagement and motivation over time.

    “(Verleger and Pembridge, 2018) which may have resulted in decreased engagement and motivation over time.”

    From Interacting with educational chatbots: A systematic review (2023) · cites this paper as Verleger & Pembridge, 2018

  • Some peer agents were based on a Question and Answer (Q&A) database and answered specific questions.

    “the peer agents in (Verleger & Pembridge, 2018;da Silva Oliveira et al., 2019;Mendez et al., 2020) were based on a Question and Answer (Q&A) database, and as such answered specific questions.”

    From Interacting with educational chatbots: A systematic review (2023) · cites this paper as Verleger & Pembridge, 2018

  • The study by Verleger and Pembridge (2018) reported lack of training.

    “| (Verleger & Pembridge, 2018) Peer agent, chatbot driven 21 | Lack of training | | |”

    From Interacting with educational chatbots: A systematic review (2023) · cites this paper as Verleger & Pembridge, 2018

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Verleger, M., & Pembridge, J.
Affiliations
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Daytona Beach Florida Campus (US)
Venue
2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2018-10
Pages
1-4
ISSN
0190-5848 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2922030019
Cited by
86
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3
FWCI
2.55
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
Keywords
AI chatbots, introductory programming courses, knowledge base, false positive reactions, student engagement, course integration, programming education

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