Manual grading of programming assignments in introductory computer science courses can be time-consuming and prone to inconsistencies. While unit testing is commonly used for automatic evaluation, it typically follows a binary pass/fail model and does not give partial marks. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) offer the potential for automated, scalable, and more objective grading. This paper compares two AI-based grading techniques: \textit{Direct}, where the AI model applies a rubric directly to student code, and \textit{Reverse} (a newly proposed approach), where the AI first fixes errors, then deduces a grade based on the nature and number of fixes. Each method was evaluated on both the instructor's original grading scale and a tenfold expanded scale to assess the impact of range on AI grading accuracy. To assess their effectiveness, AI-assigned scores were evaluated against human tutor evaluations on a range of coding problems and error types. Initial findings suggest that while the Direct approach is faster and straightforward, the Reverse technique often provides a more fine-grained assessment by focusing on correction effort. Both methods require careful prompt engineering, particularly for allocating partial credit and handling logic errors. To further test consistency, we also used synthetic student code generated using Gemini Flash 2.0, which allowed us to evaluate AI graders on a wider range of controlled error types and difficulty levels. We discuss the strengths and limitations of each approach, practical considerations for prompt design, and future directions for hybrid human-AI grading systems that aim to improve consistency, efficiency, and fairness in CS courses.

Effective personalized learning in computer science education depends on accurately modeling what students know and what they need to learn. While Knowledge Components (KCs) provide a foundation for such modeling, automated KC extraction from student code is inherently challenging due to insufficient explainability of discovered KCs and the open-endedness of programming problems with significant structural variability across student solutions and complex interactions among programming concepts. In this work, we propose a novel, explainable framework for automated KC discovery through pattern-based KCs: recurring structural patterns within student code that capture the specific programming patterns and language constructs that students must master. Toward this, we train a Variational Autoencoder to generate important representative patterns from student code guided by an explainable, attention-based code representation model that identifies important correct and incorrect pattern implementations from student code. These patterns are then clustered to form pattern-based KCs. We evaluate our KCs using two well-established methods informed by Cognitive Science: learning curve analysis and Deep Knowledge Tracing (DKT). Experimental results demonstrate meaningful learning trajectories and significant improvements in DKT predictive performance over traditional KT methods. This work advances knowledge modeling in CS education by providing an automated, scalable, and explainable framework for identifying granular code patterns and algorithmic constructs, essential for student learning.

When learning to code, students often develop misconceptions about various programming language concepts. These can not only lead to bugs or inefficient code, but also slow down the learning of related concepts. In this paper, we introduce McMining, the task of mining programming misconceptions from samples of code from a student. To enable the training and evaluation of McMining systems, we develop an extensible benchmark dataset of misconceptions together with a large set of code samples where these misconceptions are manifested. We then introduce two LLM-based McMiner approaches and through extensive evaluations show that models from the Gemini, Claude, and GPT families are effective at discovering misconceptions in student code.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong performance on programming tasks, but can they generate student-like code like real students - imperfect, iterative, and stylistically diverse? We present ParaStudent, a systematic study of LLM-based "student-like" code generation in an introductory programming course setting. Using a dataset of timestamped student submissions across multiple semesters, we design low- and high-resolution experiments to model student progress and evaluate code outputs along semantic, functional, and stylistic dimensions. Our results show that fine-tuning significantly improves alignment with real student trajectories and captures error patterns, incremental improvements, and stylistic variations more faithfully. This study shows that modeling realistic student code requires capturing learning dynamics through context-aware generation, temporal modeling, and multi-dimensional evaluation. Code for experiments and evaluation is available at https://github.com/mmiroyan/ParaStudent.

Since the disruption in LLM technology brought about by the release of GPT-3 and ChatGPT, LLMs have shown remarkable promise in programming-related tasks. While code generation remains a popular field of research, code evaluation using LLMs remains a problem with no conclusive solution. In this paper, we focus on LLM-based code evaluation and attempt to fill in the existing gaps. We propose multi-agentic novel approaches using question-specific rubrics tailored to the problem statement, arguing that these perform better for logical assessment than the existing approaches that use question-agnostic rubrics. To address the lack of suitable evaluation datasets, we introduce two datasets: a Data Structures and Algorithms dataset containing 150 student submissions from a popular Data Structures and Algorithms practice website, and an Object Oriented Programming dataset comprising 80 student submissions from undergraduate computer science courses. In addition to using standard metrics (Spearman Correlation, Cohen's Kappa), we additionally propose a new metric called as Leniency, which quantifies evaluation strictness relative to expert assessment. Our comprehensive analysis demonstrates that question-specific rubrics significantly enhance logical assessment of code in educational settings, providing better feedback aligned with instructional goals beyond mere syntactic correctness.

LLM chatbot interfaces allow students to get instant, interactive assistance with homework, but doing so carelessly may not advance educational objectives. In this study, an interactive homework help system based on DeepSeek R1 is developed and first implemented for students enrolled in a large computer science beginning programming course. In addition to an assist button in a well-known code editor, our assistant also has a feedback option in our command-line automatic evaluator. It wraps student work in a personalized prompt that advances our educational objectives without offering answers straight away. We have discovered that our assistant can recognize students' conceptual difficulties and provide ideas, plans, and template code in pedagogically appropriate ways. However, among other mistakes, it occasionally incorrectly labels the correct student code as incorrect or encourages students to use correct-but-lesson-inappropriate approaches, which can lead to long and frustrating journeys for the students. After discussing many development and deployment issues, we provide our conclusions and future actions.

Open-ended coding tasks, which ask students to construct programs according to certain specifications, are common in computer science education. Student modeling can be challenging since their open-ended nature means that student code can be diverse. Traditional knowledge tracing (KT) models that only analyze response correctness may not fully capture nuances in student knowledge from student code. In this paper, we introduce Test case-Informed Knowledge Tracing for Open-ended Coding (TIKTOC), a framework to simultaneously analyze and predict both open-ended student code and whether the code passes each test case. We augment the existing CodeWorkout dataset with the test cases used for a subset of the open-ended coding questions, and propose a multi-task learning KT method to simultaneously analyze and predict 1) whether a student's code submission passes each test case and 2) the student's open-ended code, using a large language model as the backbone. We quantitatively show that these methods outperform existing KT methods for coding that only use the overall score a code submission receives. We also qualitatively demonstrate how test case information, combined with open-ended code, helps us gain fine-grained insights into student knowledge.

Recent research has shown that smaller language models can acquire substantial reasoning abilities when fine-tuned with reasoning exemplars crafted by a significantly larger teacher model. We explore this paradigm for the financial domain, focusing on the challenge of answering questions that require multi-hop numerical reasoning over financial texts. We assess the performance of several smaller models that have been fine-tuned to generate programs that encode the required financial reasoning and calculations. Our findings demonstrate that these fine-tuned smaller models approach the performance of the teacher model. To provide a granular analysis of model performance, we propose an approach to investigate the specific student model capabilities that are enhanced by fine-tuning. Our empirical analysis indicates that fine-tuning refines the student models ability to express and apply the required financial concepts along with adapting the entity extraction for the specific data format. In addition, we hypothesize and demonstrate that comparable financial reasoning capability can be induced using relatively smaller datasets.