Vom 20.12.2025 bis 11.01.2026 ist die Universitätsbibliothek geschlossen. Ab dem 12.01.2026 gelten wieder die regulären Öffnungszeiten. Ausnahme: Medizinische Hauptbibliothek und Zentralbibliothek sind bereits ab 05.01.2026 wieder geöffnet. Weitere Informationen

Treffer: Impact of Generative AI Dialogic Feedback on Different Stages of Programming Problem Solving

Title:
Impact of Generative AI Dialogic Feedback on Different Stages of Programming Problem Solving
Language:
English
Authors:
Xin Gong (ORCID 0000-0001-5962-0448), Zhixia Li, Ailing Qiao (ORCID 0009-0003-6996-7711)
Source:
Education and Information Technologies. 2025 30(7):9689-9709.
Availability:
Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed:
Y
Page Count:
21
Publication Date:
2025
Document Type:
Fachzeitschrift Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
Education Level:
High Schools
Secondary Education
DOI:
10.1007/s10639-024-13173-1
ISSN:
1360-2357
1573-7608
Entry Date:
2025
Accession Number:
EJ1470342
Database:
ERIC

Weitere Informationen

Feedback is crucial during programming problem solving, but context often lacks critical and difference. Generative artificial intelligence dialogic feedback (GenAIDF) has the potential to enhance learners' experience through dialogue, but its effectiveness remains sufficiently underexplored in empirical research. This study employed a rigorous quasi-experimental design and collected multidimensional data through mixed methods to investigate the impact of GenAIDF at different stages of programming problem-solving on high school students' programming skills and critical thinking. One hundred seventy-two high school students from four distinct classes participated in this study. We established three experimental groups, introducing GenAIDF during the code writing (CAG, N[subscript CAG] = 43), verification debugging (DAG, N[subscript DAG] = 43), and both code writing and verification debugging (CDAG, N[subscript CDAG] = 43) stages, and one control group, without GenAIDF introduced at any stage (NAG, N[subscript NAG] = 43). The results indicated that, first, in terms of programming skills, the three experimental groups exhibited no significant difference in their programming knowledge, yet they significantly outperformed the control group. CAG excelled in programming project performance, while DAG excelled in structure. CDAG excelled in functions but had poor plagiarism scores. Second, regarding critical thinking skills, DAG performed best, followed by CAG, CDAG, and NAG, with significant differences observed among the four groups. Finally, student interviews revealed increased learning engagement, satisfaction, and critical thinking consciousness. Based on these findings, the study provides empirical recommendations for teachers on effectively utilizing GenAIDF in the future.

As Provided