Cited by 141Teaching and Learning ProgrammingIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningEducational Robotics and Engineering

A Tool for Introducing Computer Science with Automatic Formative Assessment

Open access
Benotti, Luciana, Martinez, Maria Cecilia, Schapachnik, Fernando·2018·IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies

Abstract

In this paper we present a software platform called Chatbot designed to introduce high school students to Computer Science (CS) concepts in an innovative way: by programming chatbots. A chatbot is a bot that can be programmed to have a conversation with a human or robotic partner in some natural language such as English or Spanish. While programming their chatbots, students use fundamental CS constructs such as variables, conditionals, and finite state automata, among others. Chatbot uses pattern matching, state of the art lemmatization techniques, and finite state automata in order to provide automatic formative assessment to the students. When an error is found, the formative feedback generated is immediate and task-level. We evaluated Chatbot in two observational studies. An online nation-wide competition where more than 10,000 students participated. And, a mandatory in-class 15-lesson pilot course in three high schools. We measured indicators of student engagement (task completion, participation, self reported interest, etc.) and found that girls engagement with Chatbot was higher than boys for most indicators. Also, in the online competition, the task completion rate for the students that decided to use Chatbot was five times higher than for the students that chose to use the renowned animation and game programming tool Alice. Our results suggest that the availability of automatic formative assessment may have an impact on task completion and other engagement indicators among high school students.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tlt.2017.2682084

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 55 · Cited by 141

Authors
Benotti, L., Martinez, M. C., & Schapachnik, F.
Affiliations
  • Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (AR)
  • Universidad de Buenos Aires (AR)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies
Published
2018-04-01
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
179-192
ISSN
  • 1939-1382 (ISSN-L)
  • 2372-0050
OpenAlex
W2595273079
Cited by
141
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
5.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies (publishedVersion)
  • CONICET Digital (CONICET) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
  • This work was partially supported (ANPCyT-PICT-2014-1833, UBACyT 20020130200032BA, CIN-CONICET-PDTS-2015, PID-MINCYT-CBA-2014)
  • Argentinean Ministry of Science, Technology and Productive Innovations Manuel Sadosky Foundation
  • Universidad Nacional de Crdoba
  • Google
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Robotics and Engineering
Keywords
computer science education, chatbots, high school students, programming education, finite automata, lemmatization, pattern matching, task completion, Alice programming environment

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