The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Experiences from Using Code Explanations Generated by Large Language Models in a Web Software Development E-Book
Open accessAbstract
Advances in natural language processing have resulted in large language models (LLMs) that are capable of generating understandable and sensible written text. Recent versions of these models, such as OpenAI Codex and GPT-3, can generate code and code explanations. However, it is unclear whether and how students might engage with such explanations. In this paper, we report on our experiences generating multiple code explanation types using LLMs and integrating them into an interactive e-book on web software development. We modified the e-book to make LLM-generated code explanations accessible through buttons next to code snippets in the materials, which allowed us to track the use of the explanations as well as to ask for feedback on their utility. Three different types of explanations were available for students for each explainable code snippet; a line-by-line explanation, a list of important concepts, and a high-level summary of the code. Our preliminary results show that all varieties of explanations were viewed by students and that the majority of students perceived the code explanations as helpful to them. However, student engagement appeared to vary by code snippet complexity, explanation type, and code snippet length. Drawing on our experiences, we discuss future directions for integrating explanations generated by LLMs into existing computer science classrooms.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
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?
Developers spend a significant amount of time searching and foraging for information and organizing and digesting the information they find.
“Consequently, developers spend a significant amount of time searching and foraging for the information they need and organizing and digesting the information they find [30,31,34,44,48,57].”
From Using an LLM to Help With Code Understanding (2024) · cites this paper as [44]
Section 6.4.5 (page unavailable) says that students search beyond course materials for help, including on StackOverflow. It does not establish that developers spend a significant amount of time searching or foraging, or that they spend time organizing and digesting what they find. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThis behavior might be attributed to developers' inclination to focus on task completion rather than comprehending the software, as reported in the literature [44].
“This behavior might be attributed to developers' inclination to focus on task completion rather than comprehending the software, as reported in the literature [44].”
From Using an LLM to Help With Code Understanding (2024) · cites this paper as [44]
Section 6.2 reports that students used the code explanations less than expected, but does not attribute this to a preference for completing tasks over understanding software. Sections 6.4.2 and 6.5 discuss other possible factors affecting engagement. Searches for task completion versus comprehension found no passage making the claimed point about developers. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 45
- Kirsti M Ala-Mutka. 2005. A survey of automated assessment approaches for programming assignments. Computer science education 15, 2 (2005), 83-102.
- Jacob Austin, Augustus Odena, Maxwell Nye, Maarten Bosma, Henryk Michalewski, David Dohan, Ellen Jiang, Carrie Cai, Michael Terry, Quoc Le, and Charles Sutton. 2021. Program Synthesis with Large Language Models. arXiv:2108.07732 [cs.PL] · arXiv
- Shraddha Barke, Michael B James, and Nadia Polikarpova. 2022. Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.15000 (2022). · arXiv
- Joseph E Beck and Yue Gong. 2013. Wheel-spinning: Students who fail to master a skill. In International conf. on artificial intelligence in education. Springer, 431-440.
- Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language Models are Few-Shot Learners. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 1877-1901.
- Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374 (2021). · arXiv
- Kathryn Cunningham, Yike Qiao, Alex Feng, and Eleanor O'Rourke. 2022. Bring- ing "High-Level" Down to Earth: Gaining Clarity in Conversational Programmer Learning Goals. In Proc. of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 551-557.
- Paul Denny, John Hamer, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Helen Purchase. 2008. PeerWise: students sharing their multiple choice questions. In Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on computing education research. 51-58.
- Paul Denny, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Ewan Tempero, and Jacob Hendrickx. 2011. Codewrite: supporting student-driven practice of java. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. 471-476.
- Pierpaolo Dondio and Suha Shaheen. 2019. Is StackOverflow an Effective Com- plement to Gaining Practical Knowledge Compared to Traditional Computer Science Learning?. In Proceedings of the 2019 11th International Conf. on Education Technology and Computers. 132-138.
- James Finnie-Ansley, Paul Denny, Brett A Becker, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and James Prather. 2022. The Robots Are Coming: Exploring the Implications of Ope- nAI Codex on Introductory Programming. In Australasian Computing Education Conf. 10-19.
- Tianyu Gao, Adam Fisch, and Danqi Chen. 2021. Making Pre-trained Language Models Better Few-shot Learners. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conf. on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 3816-3830.
- Katy Ilonka Gero, Vivian Liu, and Lydia Chilton. 2022. Sparks: Inspiration for Science Writing Using Language Models. In Designing Interactive Systems Conf. (Virtual Event, Australia) (DIS '22). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1002-1019.
- Jean M. Griffin. 2016. Learning by Taking Apart: Deconstructing Code by Read- ing, Tracing, and Debugging. In Proc. of the 17th Annual Conf. on Information Technology Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 148-153.
- Philip J Guo. 2013. Online python tutor: embeddable web-based program vi- sualization for cs education. In Proc. of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. 579-584.
- Brian Hanks, Sue Fitzgerald, Renée McCauley, Laurie Murphy, and Carol Zander. 2011. Pair programming in education: a literature review. Computer Science Education 21, 2 (2011), 135-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2011.579808 · DOI
- Andrew Head, Codanda Appachu, Marti A Hearst, and Björn Hartmann. 2015. Tutorons: Generating context-relevant, on-demand explanations and demonstra- tions of online code. In 2015 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human- Centric Computing (VL/HCC). IEEE, 3-12.
- Petri Ihantola, Tuukka Ahoniemi, Ville Karavirta, and Otto Seppälä. 2010. Review of recent systems for automatic assessment of programming assignments. In Proc. of the 10th Koli calling international conf. on computing education research.
- Cazembe Kennedy, Aubrey Lawson, Yvon Feaster, and Eileen Kraemer. 2020. Misconception-Based Peer Feedback: A Pedagogical Technique for Reducing Mis- conceptions. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conf. on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Trondheim, Norway) (ITiCSE '20). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 166-172.
- Amy J Ko and Brad A Myers. 2004. Designing the whyline: a debugging inter- face for asking questions about program behavior. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 151-158.
- Juho Leinonen, Nea Pirttinen, and Arto Hellas. 2020. Crowdsourcing Content Creation for SQL Practice. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conf. on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 349-355.
- Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Gra- ham Neubig. 2021. Pre-train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompt- ing methods in natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13586 (2021). · arXiv
- Stephen MacNeil, Parth Patel, and Benjamin E Smolin. 2022. Expert Goggles: Detecting and Annotating Visualizations using a Machine Learning Classifier. In The Adjunct Publication of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1145/3526114.3558627 · DOI
- Stephen MacNeil, Andrew Tran, Dan Mogil, Seth Bernstein, Erin Ross, and Ziheng Huang. 2022. Generating Diverse Code Explanations Using the GPT-3 Large Language Model. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research -Volume 2. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 37-39. https://doi.org/10.1145/3501709.3544280 · DOI · Paper page
- Samiha Marwan, Ge Gao, Susan Fisk, Thomas W. Price, and Tiffany Barnes. 2020. Adaptive Immediate Feedback Can Improve Novice Programming Engagement and Intention to Persist in Computer Science. In Proc. of the 2020 ACM Conf. on International Computing Education Research. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 194-203.
- Samiha Marwan, Nicholas Lytle, Joseph Jay Williams, and Thomas Price. 2019. The Impact of Adding Textual Explanations to Next-Step Hints in a Novice Pro- gramming Environment. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conf. on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 520-526.
- Laurie Murphy, Sue Fitzgerald, Raymond Lister, and Renée McCauley. 2012. Ability to 'explain in Plain English' Linked to Proficiency in Computer-Based Programming. In Proceedings of the Conf. on International Computing Education Research (ICER '12). 111-118. https://doi.org/10.1145/2361276.2361299 · DOI
- Niko Myller, Roman Bednarik, Erkki Sutinen, and Mordechai Ben-Ari. 2009. Extending the engagement taxonomy: Software visualization and collaborative learning. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 9, 1 (2009), 1-27.
- Greg L Nelson, Benjamin Xie, and Amy J Ko. 2017. Comprehension first: evaluat- ing a novel pedagogy and tutoring system for program tracing in CS1. In Proc. of the 2017 ACM conf. on international computing education research. 2-11.
- John C Nesbit, Olusola O Adesope, Qing Liu, and Wenting Ma. 2014. How effective are intelligent tutoring systems in computer science education?. In 2014 IEEE 14th international conference on advanced learning technologies. IEEE, 99-103.
- José Carlos Paiva, José Paulo Leal, and Álvaro Figueira. 2022. Automated As- sessment in Computer Science Education: A State-of-the-Art Review. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) (2022).
- Chris Piech, Mehran Sahami, Jonathan Huang, and Leonidas Guibas. 2015. Au- tonomously Generating Hints by Inferring Problem Solving Policies. In Proc. of the Second (2015) ACM Conf. on Learning @ Scale. ACM, 195-204.
- Nea Pirttinen, Vilma Kangas, Irene Nikkarinen, Henrik Nygren, Juho Leinonen, and Arto Hellas. 2018. Crowdsourcing programming assignments with CrowdSor- cerer. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conf. on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 326-331.
- Jaanus Pöial. 2020. Challenges of Teaching Programming in StackOverflow Era. In International Conf. on Interactive Collaborative Learning. Springer, 703-710.
- Thomas W Price, Yihuan Dong, and Dragan Lipovac. 2017. iSnap: towards intelligent tutoring in novice programming environments. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on computer science education. 483-488.
- Ruixiang Qi and Davide Fossati. 2020. Unlimited Trace Tutor: Learning Code Tracing With Automatically Generated Programs. ACM, 427-433.
- Sami Sarsa, Paul Denny, Arto Hellas, and Juho Leinonen. 2022. Automatic Gen- eration of Programming Exercises and Code Explanations Using Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conf. on International Computing Educa- tion Research -Volume 1. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 27-43.
- Dominik Sobania, Martin Briesch, and Franz Rothlauf. 2021. Choose Your Pro- gramming Copilot: A Comparison of the Program Synthesis Performance of GitHub Copilot and Genetic Programming. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV. 2111.07875 · DOI
- Anaïs Tack and Chris Piech. 2022. The AI Teacher Test: Measuring the Peda- gogical Ability of Blender and GPT-3 in Educational Dialogues. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.07540 (2022). · arXiv
- Zahid Ullah, Adidah Lajis, Mona Jamjoom, Abdulrahman Altalhi, Abdullah Al- Ghamdi, and Farrukh Saleem. 2018. The effect of automatic assessment on novice programming: Strengths and limitations of existing systems. Computer Applications in Engineering Education 26, 6 (2018), 2328-2341.
- Priyan Vaithilingam, Tianyi Zhang, and Elena L Glassman. 2022. Expectation vs. Experience: Evaluating the Usability of Code Generation Tools Powered by Large Language Models. In CHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts. 1-7.
- Arto Vihavainen, Craig S Miller, and Amber Settle. 2015. Benefits of self- explanation in introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Tech- nical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 284-289.
- Wengran Wang, Yudong Rao, Rui Zhi, Samiha Marwan, Ge Gao, and Thomas W. Price. 2020. Step Tutor: Supporting Students through Step-by-Step Example- Based Feedback. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conf. on Innovation and Technol- ogy in Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 391-397.
- Jacqueline L. Whalley, Raymond Lister, Errol Thompson, Tony Clear, Phil Robbins, P. K. Ajith Kumar, and Christine Prasad. 2006. An Australasian Study of Reading and Comprehension Skills in Novice Programmers, Using the Bloom and SOLO Taxonomies. In Proc. of the 8th Australasian Conf. on Computing Education - Volume 52. Australian Computer Society, Inc., AUS, 243-252.
- Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, Emily Reif, and Daphne Ippolito. 2022. Wordcraft: Story Writing With Large Language Models. In 27th International Conf. on Intelligent User Interfaces. 841-852.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Using an LLM to Help With Code Understanding
Nam, D., Macvean, A., Hellendoorn, V., Vasilescu, B., & Myers, B. (2024) · Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3597503.3639187 · Cited by 487
Metadata
- Authors
- MacNeil, S., Tran, A., Hellas, A., Kim, J., Sarsa, S., Denny, P., Bernstein, S., & Leinonen, J.
- Affiliations
- Temple University (US)
- Aalto University (FI)
- University of Auckland (NZ)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- Pages
- 931-937
- arXiv
- 2211.02265
- OpenAlex
- W4323033814
- Cited by
- 195
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 79 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 58.66
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Aaltodoc (Aalto University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Keywords
- code explanation, large language models, interactive e-books, computer science education, student engagement, explanation types, code generation, code complexity
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