Providing effective feedback is important for student learning in programming problem-solving. In this sense, Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as potential tools to automate feedback generation. However, their reliability and ability to identify reasoning errors in student code remain not well understood. This study evaluates the performance of four LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-4o mini, GPT-4-Turbo, and Gemini-1.5-pro) on a benchmark dataset of 45 student solutions. We assessed the models' capacity to provide accurate and insightful feedback, particularly in identifying reasoning mistakes. Our analysis reveals that 63\% of feedback hints were accurate and complete, while 37\% contained mistakes, including incorrect line identification, flawed explanations, or hallucinated issues. These findings highlight the potential and limitations of LLMs in programming education and underscore the need for improvements to enhance reliability and minimize risks in educational applications.

Feedback is a very important part the learning process. However, it is challenging to make this feedback both timely and accurate when relying on human markers. This is the challenge that Automated Feedback Generation attempts to address. In this paper, a technique to train such a system on a very small dataset with very long sequences is presented. Both of these attributes make this a very challenging task, however, by using a three stage transfer learning pipeline state-of-the-art results can be achieved with qualitatively accurate but unhuman sounding results. The use of both Automated Essay Scoring and Automated Feedback Generation systems in the real world is also discussed.

Timely feedback is an important part of teaching and learning. Here we describe how a readily available neural network transformer (machine-learning) model (BERT) can be used to give feedback on the structure of the response to an abstracting exercise where students are asked to summarise the contents of a published article after finding it from a publication database. The dataset contained 207 submissions from two consecutive years of the course, summarising a total of 21 different papers from the primary literature. The model was pre-trained using an available dataset (approx. 15,000 samples) and then fine-tuned on 80% of the submitted dataset. This fine tuning was seen to be important. The sentences in the student submissions are characterised into three classes - background, technique and observation - which allows a comparison of how each submission is structured. Comparing the structure of the students' abstract a large collection of those from the PubMed database shows that students in this exercise concentrate more on the background to the paper and less on the techniques and results than the abstracts to papers themselves. The results allowed feedback for each submitted assignment to be automatically generated.