Previous work demonstrated that esports players often leverage insights from other players and communities to learn and improve. However, little research examined social learning in esports, over time, in granular detail. Understanding the role of others in the esports learning process has implications for the design of computational support systems that can help esports players learn and make the games more accessible. Therefore, we perform an exploration of this topic using Co-Regulated Learning as a theoretical lens. In doing so, we hope to enrich existing knowledge on social learning in esports, provide insights for the future development of computational support, and a road-map for future work. Through an interview study of an esports community consisting of 14, college-aged, male players, we uncovered 10 themes regarding how Co-Regulated learning occurs within their teams. Based on these, we discuss three main takeaways and their implications for future research and development.

Recent developments in deep learning have resulted in code-generation models that produce source code from natural language and code-based prompts with high accuracy. This is likely to have profound effects in the classroom, where novices learning to code can now use free tools to automatically suggest solutions to programming exercises and assignments. However, little is currently known about how novices interact with these tools in practice. We present the first study that observes students at the introductory level using one such code auto-generating tool, Github Copilot, on a typical introductory programming (CS1) assignment. Through observations and interviews we explore student perceptions of the benefits and pitfalls of this technology for learning, present new observed interaction patterns, and discuss cognitive and metacognitive difficulties faced by students. We consider design implications of these findings, specifically in terms of how tools like Copilot can better support and scaffold the novice programming experience.

The recent emergence of code generation tools powered by large language models has attracted wide attention. Models such as OpenAI Codex can take natural language problem descriptions as input and generate highly accurate source code solutions, with potentially significant implications for computing education. Given the many complexities that students face when learning to write code, they may quickly become reliant on such tools without properly understanding the underlying concepts. One popular approach for scaffolding the code writing process is to use Parsons problems, which present solution lines of code in a scrambled order. These remove the complexities of low-level syntax, and allow students to focus on algorithmic and design-level problem solving. It is unclear how well code generation models can be applied to solve Parsons problems, given the mechanics of these models and prior evidence that they underperform when problems include specific restrictions. In this paper, we explore the performance of the Codex model for solving Parsons problems over various prompt variations. Using a corpus of Parsons problems we sourced from the computing education literature, we find that Codex successfully reorders the problem blocks about half of the time, a much lower rate of success when compared to prior work on more free-form programming tasks. Regarding prompts, we find that small variations in prompting have a noticeable effect on model performance, although the effect is not as pronounced as between different problems.

Reading a programming error message is the first step in understanding what it is trying to tell the programmer about how to fix an error in their code. However, these are often difficult to read, especially for novices which is not surprising given that error messages in many of the most popular languages in which novices learn to code were not written with readability in mind. As a result, novices frequently struggle to understand them. This is a long-standing problem, with researchers highlighting concerns about programming error message readability over the last six decades. Very recent work has put forward evidence of the need for measuring readability in error messages and a framework for doing so. This framework consists of four factors of readability for programming error messages: message length, vocabulary, jargon, and sentence construction. We use this framework to implement an approach to automatically assess the readability of programming error messages. Using established readability factors as predictors in a machine learning model, we train several models using a dataset of C and Java error messages. We examine the performance of these models, and apply the best performing model to a previously published set of messages evaluated for readability by experts, non-experts and students. Our results validate the previously proposed readability factors, and our model classifies messages similarly to human raters. Finally, we discuss future work needed to improve the accuracy of the model.

Background and Context. Metacognitive skills are important for all students learning to program and interest in applying pedagogical approaches in early programming courses that focus on metacognitive aspects is growing. However, most studies of such approaches are not rigorously based in theory, and when they are, almost always utilize foundational education and psychology theories from as far back as the 1970s. More recent theory is less tested, and not all relevant metacognitive theories have been explored in the computing education research literature.

Humans adjust how they speak depending on context. Two key facets of this are utilizing different vocabulary and speaking rates depending on the audience. Exactly how we use language while teaching may depend on our students, their backgrounds and needs, and the subject matter. How we speak in the classroom likely affects student comprehension and may affect equity and accessibility.

Programming error messages play an important role in learning to program. The cycle of program input and error message response completes a loop between the programmer and the compiler/interpreter and is a fundamental interaction between human and computer. However, error messages are notoriously problematic, especially for novices. Despite numerous guidelines citing the importance of message readability, there is little empirical research dedicated to understanding and assessing it. We report three related experiments investigating factors that influence programming error message readability. In the first two experiments we identify possible factors, and in the third we ask novice programmers to rate messages using scales derived from these factors. We find evidence that several key factors significantly affect message readability: message length, jargon use, sentence structure, and vocabulary. This provides novel empirical support for previously untested long-standing guidelines on message design, and informs future efforts to create readability metrics for programming error messages.