Analysis of Learning Behaviors and Outcomes for Students with Different Knowledge Levels: A Case Study of Intelligent Tutoring System for Coding and Learning (ITS-CAL)
Abstract
With the rapid development of generative AI technology, programming learning aids have become essential resources for enhancing students’ programming capabilities. This study developed an intelligent tutoring system, ITS-CAL, powered by a large language model (LLM) to provide students with immediate and hierarchical learning feedback, particularly in scenarios with limited class time and large student populations. The system helps students overcome challenges encountered during the learning process. A mixed-method approach, combining quantitative and qualitative analyses, was employed to investigate the usage patterns of the system’s three primary functions—Hint, Debug, and User-defined Question—and their impact on learning outcomes among students with varying knowledge levels. The results indicated that students with high knowledge levels tended to use the Hint and User-defined Question functions moderately, while those with lower knowledge levels heavily relied on the Hint function but did not achieve significant improvements in learning outcomes. Overall, students who used ITS-CAL in moderation achieved the highest pass rate (72.22%), whereas excessive reliance on ITS-CAL appeared to diminish independent problem-solving abilities. Additionally, students generally provided positive feedback on the system’s convenience and its role as a learning aid. However, they highlighted areas for improvement, particularly in the Debug function and the quality of Hint content. This study contributes to the field by demonstrating the application potential of LLMs in programming education and offering valuable empirical insights for designing future programming learning assistance systems.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Artificial intelligence in higher education: the state of the field
Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8 · Cited by 2,010 · see citing works
Role of AI chatbots in education: systematic literature review
Labadze, L., Grigolia, M., & Machaidze, L. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00426-1 · Cited by 1,043 · see citing works
The applicability of Visible Learning to higher education
Hattie, J. (2015) · Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology · doi:10.1037/stl0000021 · Cited by 656 · see citing works
Are We There Yet? - A Systematic Literature Review on Chatbots in Education
Wollny, S., Schneider, J., Di Mitri, D., Weidlich, J., Rittberger, M., & Drachsler, H. (2021) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2021.654924 · Cited by 557 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Numerous studies and discussions in the academic community have examined the application of generative AI in assisted learning [7,10,11].”
Leveraging ChatGPT for Enhancing Critical Thinking Skills
Guo, Y., & Lee, D. (2023) · Journal of Chemical Education · doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00505 · Cited by 250 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence as an Effective Classroom Assistant
du Boulay, B. (2016) · IEEE Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1109/mis.2016.93 · Cited by 213 · cited 1× · see citing works
“These examples highlight the dual benefits of addressing staff shortages in educational contexts while enhancing students’ learning experiences [8].”
Large Language Model‐Based Chatbots in Higher Education
Yigci, D., Eryilmaz, M., Yetisen, A. K., Tasoglu, S., & Ozcan, A. (2025) · Advanced Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1002/aisy.202400429 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Navigating the Ethical and Societal Impacts of Generative AI in Higher Computing Education
Mak, J., Nakatumba-Nabende, J., Clear, T., Clear, A., Abluwi, I., Andrei, O., Angeli, L., MacNeil, S., Oyelere, S. S., Hale Rattigan, M., et al. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education · doi:10.1145/3760545.3783975 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lai, C.-H., & Lin, C.-Y.
- Venue
- Applied Sciences
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2025-02-12
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1922
- ISSN
- 2076-3417
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 7
- 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