Investigating the Essential of Meaningful Automated Formative Feedback for Programming Assignments
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
This study investigated the essential of meaningful automated feedback for programming assignments. Three different types of feedback were tested, including (a) What's wrong - what test cases were testing and which failed, (b) Gap - comparisons between expected and actual outputs, and (c) Hint - hints on how to fix problems if test cases failed. 46 students taking a CS2 participated in this study. They were divided into three groups, and the feedback configurations for each group were different: (1) Group One - What's wrong, (2) Group Two - What's wrong + Gap, (3) Group Three - What's wrong + Gap + Hint. This study found that simply knowing what failed did not help students sufficiently, and might stimulate system gaming behavior. Hints were not found to be impactful on student performance or their usage of automated feedback. Based on the findings, this study provides practical guidance on the design of automated feedback.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 21 Jun 2019.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 0; 2025: 1.
2 papers.