Repository Feedback

Your feedback helps us improve the repository's content relevance and usability. Please share your thoughts to help us better serve researchers and practitioners.

Submit feedback

Submit a research study

Contribute to the repository:

Add a paper

Synthesizing High-Quality Programming Tasks with LLM-based Expert and Student Agents

Authors
Manh Hung Nguyen,
Victor-Alexandru Padurean,
Alkis Gotovos,
Sebastian Tschiatschek,
Adish Singla
Date
Publisher
arXiv
Generative AI is transforming computing education by enabling the automatic generation of personalized content and feedback. We investigate its capabilities in providing high-quality programming tasks to students. Despite promising advancements in task generation, a quality gap remains between AI-generated and expert-created tasks. The AI-generated tasks may not align with target programming concepts, could be incomprehensible for students to solve, or may contain critical issues such as incorrect tests. Existing works often require interventions from human teachers for validation. We address these challenges by introducing PyTaskSyn, a novel synthesis technique that first generates a programming task and then decides whether it meets certain quality criteria to be given to students. The key idea is to break this process into multiple stages performed by expert and student agents simulated using both strong and weaker generative models. Through extensive evaluation, we show that PyTaskSyn significantly improves task quality compared to baseline techniques and showcases the importance of each specialized agent type in our validation pipeline. Additionally, we conducted user studies using our publicly available web application and show that PyTaskSyn can deliver high-quality programming tasks comparable to expert-designed ones while reducing workload and costs, and being more engaging than programming tasks that are available in online resources.
Study at a glance
  • Question: Can generative AI create high-quality programming tasks for students that match those designed by experts?
  • Setting and data: Users of a publicly available web application.
  • Method: Comparative evaluation against baseline techniques and user studies using a web application.
Why it matters

A quality gap remains between AI-generated and expert-created programming tasks. AI-generated tasks may not align with target concepts, can be incomprehensible to students, or contain incorrect tests, often requiring interventions from human teachers for validation.

Key findings
  • In computing education user studies, an AI tool produced programming tasks comparable to expert-designed ones while reducing workload and costs.
  • Programming tasks generated by the tool were more engaging than tasks available from existing online resources.
  • The tool significantly improved programming task quality compared to baseline AI generation techniques.

Summary drafted with AI from the paper’s abstract and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.

What is the application?
Who is the user?
Who age?