An Explainable AI Assistant for Introductory Programming Education: Improving Feedback Reliability with Instructor-AI Collaboration

Educational interventions are effective tools for enhancing student learning. While Large Language Models (LLMs) allow for generating adaptive feedback at scale, current studies lack clear methodologies for providing Just-in-Time (JiT) feedback in authentic instructional settings. In this paper, we present a framework that provides adaptive feedback by grounding LLMs with domain-specific expert knowledge. Our approach collects written reasoning logic (strategy essays) from students, analyzes potential error types based on the content of that reasoning, and delivers non-intrusive feedback designed to clarify missing or incorrect concepts. We deploy this framework in a large-scale university course (N > 1000), where it improved student performance by over 80% compared to previous semesters. Lastly, we validate the framework's pedagogical utility by analyzing the learning trajectories; we demonstrate how iterative conversations with LLM facilitate shifting one's misconception to correct understanding.

Current Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based tutoring systems (AI tutors) are primarily evaluated based on the pedagogical quality of their feedback messages. While important, pedagogy alone is insufficient because it ignores a critical question: what do students actually do with the feedback they receive? We argue that AI tutor evaluation should be extended with a behavioral dimension grounded in student interaction data, which complements pedagogical assessment. We propose an evaluation framework and apply it to 10,235 code submissions with corresponding AI tutor feedback from an introductory undergraduate programming course to measure whether students act on tutor feedback and whether those actions are applied correctly. Using this framework to compare two deployed AI tutors across different semesters in a large-scale introductory computer science course reveals substantial differences in student engagement patterns that are not captured by pedagogy-only evaluation. Moreover, these engagement-based behavioral signals are more strongly associated with student perception of helpful feedback than pedagogical quality alone, providing a more complete and actionable picture of AI tutor performance.

Generative AI tools provide novice programmers with instant, personalized support, but also raise concerns about whether AI use supports or bypasses students' regulation of problem-solving. Existing work has largely focused on correctness, usability, or overall usage frequency, with less attention to how student--AI help-seeking unfolds. This study addresses this gap by analyzing AI-assisted help-seeking trajectories in university-level programming. Using an SRL-informed analytical framework that links prompt-level help-seeking codes to conceptual, implementation, debugging, and reflective forms of support, we analyzed 1,290 task-specific student prompts linked to 17,190 code submissions from 71 students in introductory Python programming courses. Specifically, we examined how help-seeking interactions were structured across turns and attempts, and how trajectory patterns related to task scores and the number of code submissions. Results indicate that many students primarily used AI for reactive troubleshooting rather than for planned, self-regulated problem-solving. Although trajectory patterns were not associated with significant differences in task scores, they differed substantially in the number of code submissions required. These findings suggest that the educational significance of AI support lies not only in whether students use AI, but in how their help-seeking trajectories develop during programming problem-solving.