Beyond verbal self‐explanations: Student annotations of a code‐tracing solution produced by ChatGPT.
Saved in:
| Title: | Beyond verbal self‐explanations: Student annotations of a code‐tracing solution produced by ChatGPT. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Gandhi, Abbey1 (AUTHOR), Muldner, Kasia1 (AUTHOR) kasia.muldner@carleton.ca |
| Source: | British Journal of Educational Technology. Jan2026, Vol. 57 Issue 1, p112-137. 26p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Computer programming education, *Artificial intelligence, *Student engagement, *Learning strategies, ChatGPT, Graphic methods, Annotations |
| Abstract: | ChatGPT is a generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) that can produce a variety of outputs, including solutions to problems. Prior research shows that for students to learn from instructional content, they need to actively process the content. To date, existing research has focused on student explanations expressed in words (either spoken or written). Thus, less is known about other forms of expression, such as ones involving spatial elements (eg, flowcharts, drawings). Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, there is not yet work on how students annotate solutions produced by ChatGPT. The study was conducted in the context of a first‐year programming tutorial focused on loops and code tracing. Code tracing is a fundamental programming skill that involves simulating at a high level the actions a computer takes when it executes a program. The students annotated a printed‐out code trace produced by ChatGPT using the strategy of their choice. Our goal was to describe the visual and verbal strategies students used to annotate the ChatGPT trace as well as how strategies relate to annotation quality, and so we used an observational study design with a single condition. Annotation strategies ranged from words‐only strategies to visual representations like flowcharts. As annotation quality increased, the proportions of strategies used changed, suggesting that some strategies may facilitate the production of quality annotations. In particular, the proportion of words‐only and flowchart strategies increased as quality increased; in the top quality quartile, there was a similar proportion of each but with slightly more flowcharts. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topic When students study instructional materials, they need to actively and constructively interact with the materials in order to learn effectively. Much of the research showing this has examined only verbal student output.In addition to verbal strategies involving only words, strategies including visual elements are also beneficial. For instance, when students are asked to predict a program's output by simulating the steps the computer takes when executing the program, they use representations like tables and/or visual elements to organise their work. These strategies are positively associated with tracing performance.To date, research has focused on how students study instructional materials produced by humans, rather than Large Language Models.What this paper adds We provide insights into the annotation strategies novice programmers from non‐traditional computer science backgrounds use to annotate a ChatGPT solution showing a code trace of a computer program. We identified six strategies; while the words‐only strategy was the most common overall, students used a variety of annotation types, including ones with visual and spatial elements (eg, flowcharts, outlines, lists).As annotation quality increased, the proportions of strategies used changed, suggesting that some strategies may facilitate the production of quality annotations. In particular, the proportion of words‐only and flowchart strategies increased as quality increased; in the top quality quartile, there was a similar proportion of each (with slightly more flowcharts).We integrate several existing frameworks to propose a qualitative method for comparing annotation quality across annotation modalities (verbal, sketched).Implications for practice and/or policy We provide insight into one way instructors could use ChatGPT in a first‐year programming class, that is, use ChatGPT to produce code‐tracing solutions and scaffold student processing of these solutions through annotation activities.We provide evidence that students annotate ChatGPT solutions using a variety of strategies, including ones with visual elements; of the students who provided demographics, the vast majority reported no prior experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of British Journal of Educational Technology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Text: Availability: 1 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: ehh DbLabel: Education Research Complete An: 190860412 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Beyond verbal self‐explanations: Student annotations of a code‐tracing solution produced by ChatGPT. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gandhi%2C+Abbey%22">Gandhi, Abbey</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Muldner%2C+Kasia%22">Muldner, Kasia</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> kasia.muldner@carleton.ca</i> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22British+Journal+of+Educational+Technology%22">British Journal of Educational Technology</searchLink>. Jan2026, Vol. 57 Issue 1, p112-137. 26p. – Name: Subject Label: Subject Terms Group: Su Data: *<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+programming+education%22">Computer programming education</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Artificial+intelligence%22">Artificial intelligence</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+engagement%22">Student engagement</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+strategies%22">Learning strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22ChatGPT%22">ChatGPT</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graphic+methods%22">Graphic methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Annotations%22">Annotations</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: ChatGPT is a generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) that can produce a variety of outputs, including solutions to problems. Prior research shows that for students to learn from instructional content, they need to actively process the content. To date, existing research has focused on student explanations expressed in words (either spoken or written). Thus, less is known about other forms of expression, such as ones involving spatial elements (eg, flowcharts, drawings). Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, there is not yet work on how students annotate solutions produced by ChatGPT. The study was conducted in the context of a first‐year programming tutorial focused on loops and code tracing. Code tracing is a fundamental programming skill that involves simulating at a high level the actions a computer takes when it executes a program. The students annotated a printed‐out code trace produced by ChatGPT using the strategy of their choice. Our goal was to describe the visual and verbal strategies students used to annotate the ChatGPT trace as well as how strategies relate to annotation quality, and so we used an observational study design with a single condition. Annotation strategies ranged from words‐only strategies to visual representations like flowcharts. As annotation quality increased, the proportions of strategies used changed, suggesting that some strategies may facilitate the production of quality annotations. In particular, the proportion of words‐only and flowchart strategies increased as quality increased; in the top quality quartile, there was a similar proportion of each but with slightly more flowcharts. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topic When students study instructional materials, they need to actively and constructively interact with the materials in order to learn effectively. Much of the research showing this has examined only verbal student output.In addition to verbal strategies involving only words, strategies including visual elements are also beneficial. For instance, when students are asked to predict a program's output by simulating the steps the computer takes when executing the program, they use representations like tables and/or visual elements to organise their work. These strategies are positively associated with tracing performance.To date, research has focused on how students study instructional materials produced by humans, rather than Large Language Models.What this paper adds We provide insights into the annotation strategies novice programmers from non‐traditional computer science backgrounds use to annotate a ChatGPT solution showing a code trace of a computer program. We identified six strategies; while the words‐only strategy was the most common overall, students used a variety of annotation types, including ones with visual and spatial elements (eg, flowcharts, outlines, lists).As annotation quality increased, the proportions of strategies used changed, suggesting that some strategies may facilitate the production of quality annotations. In particular, the proportion of words‐only and flowchart strategies increased as quality increased; in the top quality quartile, there was a similar proportion of each (with slightly more flowcharts).We integrate several existing frameworks to propose a qualitative method for comparing annotation quality across annotation modalities (verbal, sketched).Implications for practice and/or policy We provide insight into one way instructors could use ChatGPT in a first‐year programming class, that is, use ChatGPT to produce code‐tracing solutions and scaffold student processing of these solutions through annotation activities.We provide evidence that students annotate ChatGPT solutions using a variety of strategies, including ones with visual elements; of the students who provided demographics, the vast majority reported no prior experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of British Journal of Educational Technology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=190860412 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1111/bjet.13600 Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 26 StartPage: 112 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Computer programming education Type: general – SubjectFull: Artificial intelligence Type: general – SubjectFull: Student engagement Type: general – SubjectFull: Learning strategies Type: general – SubjectFull: ChatGPT Type: general – SubjectFull: Graphic methods Type: general – SubjectFull: Annotations Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Beyond verbal self‐explanations: Student annotations of a code‐tracing solution produced by ChatGPT. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Gandhi, Abbey – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Muldner, Kasia IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Text: Jan2026 Type: published Y: 2026 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 00071013 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 57 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: British Journal of Educational Technology Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
