Cited by 370Teaching and Learning ProgrammingStudent Assessment and FeedbackIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

A systematic literature review of automated feedback generation for programming exercises

Open access
Keuning, Hieke, Jeuring, Johan, Heeren, Bastiaan·2019·ACM Transactions on Computing Education

Abstract

Formative feedback, aimed at helping students to improve their work, is an important factor in learning. Many tools that offer programming exercises provide automated feedback on student solutions. We have performed a systematic literature review to find out what kind of feedback is provided, which techniques are used to generate the feedback, how adaptable the feedback is, and how these tools are evaluated. We have designed a labelling to classify the tools, and use Narciss’ feedback content categories to classify feedback messages. We report on the results of coding a total of 101 tools. We have found that feedback mostly focuses on identifying mistakes and less on fixing problems and taking a next step. Furthermore, teachers cannot easily adapt tools to their own needs. However, the diversity of feedback types has increased over the past decades and new techniques are being applied to generate feedback that is increasingly helpful for students.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3231711

Cites

200 of 200 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Keuning, H., Jeuring, J., & Heeren, B.
Affiliations
  • Windesheim University of Applied Sciences (NL)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Open University of the Netherlands (NL)
Venue
ACM Transactions on Computing Education
Published
2018-09-28
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
1-43
ISSN
1946-6226 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2894540915
Cited by
370
References
200
Citations by year
2026: 72 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 12
FWCI
2.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Transactions on Computing Education (publishedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (023.005.063)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Keywords
automated feedback, programming exercises, formative feedback, programming education, adaptive feedback, tool evaluation

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