Cited by 5

A Survey on Feedback Types in Automated Programming Assessment Systems

Frankford, Eduard, Antensteiner, Tobias, Vierhauser, Michael, Sauerwein, Clemens, Wallner, Vivien, Groher, Iris, Plösch, Reinhold, Breu, Ruth·2026·ACM Transactions on Computing Education

Abstract

With the recent rapid increase in digitization across all major industries, acquiring programming skills has increased the demand for introductory programming courses. This has further resulted in universities integrating programming courses into a wide range of curricula, including not only technical studies but also business and management fields of study. Consequently, additional resources are needed for teaching, grading, and tutoring students with diverse educational backgrounds and skills. As part of this, Automated Programming Assessment Systems (APASs) have emerged, providing scalable and high-quality assessment systems with efficient evaluation and instant feedback. Commonly, APASs heavily rely on predefined unit tests for generating feedback, which often limits the scope and level of detail of feedback that can be provided to students. With the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) in recent years, new opportunities have emerged as these technologies can enhance feedback quality and personalization. To investigate how different feedback mechanisms in APASs are perceived by students, and how effective they are in supporting problem-solving, we have conducted a large-scale study with over 200 students from 2 different universities. Specifically, we compare baseline Compiler Feedback, standard Unit Test Feedback, and advanced LLM-based Feedback regarding perceived quality and impact on student performance. Results indicate that while students rate Unit Test Feedback as the most helpful, AI-generated feedback leads to significantly better performances. These findings suggest combining unit tests and AI-driven guidance to optimize automated feedback mechanisms and improve learning outcomes in programming education.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3773911

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Frankford, E., Antensteiner, T., Vierhauser, M., Sauerwein, C., Wallner, V., Groher, I., Plösch, R., & Breu, R.
Venue
ACM Transactions on Computing Education
Published
2025-12-16
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
1-35
ISSN
1946-6226
Cited by
5
References
3
Language
en

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