Cited by 46Teaching and Learning ProgrammingIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningArtificial Intelligence in Education

Comparing the Effects of Instructor Manual Feedback and ChatGPT Intelligent Feedback on Collaborative Programming in China's Higher Education

Ouyang, Fan, Guo, Mingyue, Zhang, Ning, Bai, Xianping, Jiao, Pengcheng·2024·IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies

Abstract

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) has gained increasing global attention as the field of large language models undergoes rapid development. Due to its human-like cognitive abilities, the AGI system has great potential to help instructors provide detailed, comprehensive, and individualized feedback to students throughout the educational process. ChatGPT, as a preliminary version of the AGI system, has the potential to improve programming education. In programming, students often have difficulties in writing codes and debugging errors, whereas ChatGPT can provide intelligent feedback to support students’ programming learning process. This research implemented intelligent feedback generated by ChatGPT to facilitate collaborative programming among student groups and further compared the effects of ChatGPT with instructors’ manual feedback on programming. This research employed a variety of learning analytics methods to analyze students’ computer programming performances, cognitive and regulation discourses, and programming behaviors. Results indicated that no substantial differences were identified in students’ programming knowledge acquisition and group-level programming product quality when both instructor manual feedback and ChatGPT intelligent feedback were provided. ChatGPT intelligent feedback facilitated students’ regulation-oriented collaborative programming, while instructor manual feedback facilitated cognition-oriented collaborative discussions during programming.…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tlt.2024.3486749

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Several studies report that LLM-generated feedback can yield comparable or even superior academic performance relative to human feedback.

    “Regarding effects on learning outcomes, several studies report that LLM-generated feedback can yield comparable or even superior academic performance relative to human feedback (Nguyen et al., 2024; Ouyang et al., 2024), despite some negative findings (Er et al., 2024).”
  • Students perceive LLM-generated feedback as useful in identifying errors and offering constructive guidance, but concerns about fairness and trustworthiness remain.

    “Finally, regarding learners' perceptions of LLM-generated feedback, some studies indicate that students perceive such feedback as useful in identifying errors and offering constructive guidance (Ouyang et al., 2024; Zhao et al., 2025), but concerns about fairness and trustworthiness remain (Er et al., 2024; Zhao et al., 2025).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ouyang, F., Guo, M., Zhang, N., Bai, X., & Jiao, P.
Affiliations
Zhejiang University (CN)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies
Published
2024
Volume
17
Pages
2173-2185
ISSN
  • 1939-1382 (ISSN-L)
  • 2372-0050
OpenAlex
W4403759160
Cited by
39
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 1
FWCI
14.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (62177041)
  • Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, Zhejiang University, China
  • Degree Core Course Project and Ideological and Political Teaching Project of Smart Marine Metastructures
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 › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
ChatGPT, intelligent feedback, collaborative programming, programming education, large language models, higher education, cooperative learning

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