Many early computer science students and argumentation learners quietly disengage when they feel behind. They stop raising their hands, avoid office hours, and do not revise their work even when feedback is available. These students often do not know what "better" looks like or how to apply feedback in a concrete way. For computer science students, this could mean explaining how a loop or recursion works, not just writing code. A revise-and-resubmit loop is a good fit for this problem because it makes feedback actionable, gives students a clear next step, and normalizes revision as part of learning instead of a sign of failure. In this intervention, AI plays a supporting role by helping generate consistent, rubric-based feedback, but it does not replace teachers. The goal is to design a system that makes practice feel safer and more structured for students who are anxious about making mistakes.
This intervention is designed for underclassmen computer science students and students practicing basic argumentation skills. This includes students in intro CS courses, debate practice groups, or introductory writing and communication courses. These learners are often new to structured reasoning, whether they are explaining how code works or building a logical argument.
This system could work in several settings: a CS club where students practice explaining their code, an intro CS course as a formative practice tool, or an informal online platform where students work through prompts at their own pace. The key is low stakes and multiple opportunities to try again.
By the end of this intervention, I want students to: