arXiv subjects

Hongxuan Chen

Publications and source records attributed to Hongxuan Chen.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Implementation of Split Deadlines in a Large CS1 Course

Office hour utilization in computer science courses can spike near deadlines, producing long wait times, frustrated students, and overworked staff. To address this problem, a large CS1 course implemented a split deadlines policy. Students were randomly divided into two groups with staggered release and due dates. Each group had the same amount of time to complete assignments, but the number of students with each due date was reduced by half. Our study evaluates the effectiveness of this policy. We measure office hour utilization and staff efficiency near deadlines, examine the policy's impact on student performance, and investigate student perception of the policy's fairness and effectiveness. Overall we found that the split deadline policy increased office hour efficiency, resulted in no significant difference in performance between groups, and was considered fair and effective by most students. Our experience report includes reflections and student feedback indicating how to implement and further improve similar policies.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

ArchSIBench: Benchmarking the Architectural Spatial Intelligence of Vision-Language Models

Architectural spatial intelligence, the ability to recognize and infer architectural space, is fundamental to tasks such as robot navigation, embodied interaction, and 3D scene understanding and generation. Although extensive research has evaluated the basic spatial skills of Vision-Language Models (VLMs) such as relative orientation, distance comparison, and object counting, these tasks cover only the most elementary levels of spatial cognition and largely overlook higher-level cognition of architectural space, including layout understanding, circulation patterns, and functional zoning. In this work, we present ArchSIBench, a Benchmark for Architectural Spatial Intelligence based on the perspectives from architecture, cognitive science, and psychology. ArchSIBench covers five core dimensions: perception, reasoning, navigation, transformation, and configuration, comprising 17 fine-grained subtasks. Through careful manual annotation by experts with architectural backgrounds, we construct 3,000 question-answer pairs to enable comprehensive evaluation of architectural spatial intelligence. Based on ArchSIBench, we evaluate various VLMs and find that the architectural spatial intelligence of most models shows significant differences from human baselines; additionally, models exhibit substantial variability across capability dimensions. Some state-of-the-art models can approach the level of human evaluators without architectural training. However, a clear gap remains compared to human evaluators with architectural training, particularly in spatial transformation and configuration reasoning. We believe that ArchSIBench will provide important insights and systematic resources for measuring and advancing the architectural spatial intelligence of VLMs. The dataset and code are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/ArchSIBench/ArchSIBench.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2024

Teaching Algorithm Design: A Literature Review

Algorithm design is a vital skill developed in most undergraduate Computer Science (CS) programs, but few research studies focus on pedagogy related to algorithms coursework. To understand the work that has been done in the area, we present a systematic survey and literature review of CS Education studies. We search for research that is both related to algorithm design and evaluated on undergraduate-level students. Across all papers in the ACM Digital Library prior to August 2023, we only find 94 such papers. We first classify these papers by topic, evaluation metric, evaluation methods, and intervention target. Through our classification, we find a broad sparsity of papers which indicates that many open questions remain about teaching algorithm design, with each algorithm topic only being discussed in between 0 and 10 papers. We also note the need for papers using rigorous research methods, as only 38 out of 88 papers presenting quantitative data use statistical tests, and only 15 out of 45 papers presenting qualitative data use a coding scheme. Only 17 papers report controlled trials. We then synthesize the results of the existing literature to give insights into what the corpus reveals about how we should teach algorithms. Much of the literature explores implementing well-established practices, such as active learning or automated assessment, in the algorithms classroom. However, there are algorithms-specific results as well: a number of papers find that students may under-utilize certain algorithmic design techniques, and studies describe a variety of ways to select algorithms problems that increase student engagement and learning. The results we present, along with the publicly available set of papers collected, provide a detailed representation of the current corpus of CS Education work related to algorithm design and can orient further research in the area.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2023

Measuring the Impact of Distractors on Student Learning Gains while Using Proof Blocks

Background: Proof Blocks is a software tool that enables students to construct proofs by assembling prewritten lines and gives them automated feedback. Prior work on learning gains from Proof Blocks has focused on comparing learning gains from Proof Blocks against other learning activities such as writing proofs or reading. Purpose: The study described in this paper aims to compare learning gains from different variations of Proof Blocks. Specifically, we attempt to quantify the difference in learning gains for students who complete Proof Blocks problems with and without distractors. Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial with three experimental groups: a control group that completed an off-topic Proof Blocks activity, one that completed a \tool{} activity without distractors, and one that completed a Proof Blocks activity with distractors. All three groups read a book chapter on proof by induction before completing their activity. Findings: The group that completed the Proof Blocks activity with distractors performed better on the posttest than the group that completed the Proof Blocks without distractors, who in turn performed better than the group that completed the off-topic Proof Blocks activity. However, none of these differences were statistically significant. While the results of this study are inconclusive, we hope that it can serve as a foundation for future work.

cs.HC↗