The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) presents a significant challenge to conventional automated programming assessment. Students can now readily produce functionally correct code, obscuring their actual grasp of programming concepts. This paper, accepted for publication at CSEDU 2026, addresses this critical gap by proposing a new paradigm for verifying student understanding in the age of LLM-generated code. The researchers conducted a saturation-based scoping review of conversational assessment approaches, identifying three dominant architectural families: rule-based/template-driven systems, LLM-based systems, and hybrid systems. While conversational agents show promise for scalable feedback and probing deeper understanding, challenges like hallucinations, over-reliance, privacy, and deployment constraints persist.
Bridging the Understanding Chasm with Hybrid Socratic Assessment
To overcome these limitations, the authors introduce a Hybrid Socratic Framework designed to integrate conversational verification seamlessly into Automated Programming Assessment Systems (APASs). This framework innovatively combines deterministic code analysis with a sophisticated dual-agent conversational layer. It incorporates knowledge tracking, scaffolded questioning, and crucial guardrails that anchor prompts to verifiable runtime facts. This approach moves beyond simple code correctness to assess genuine comprehension, a critical need in the era of LLM programming assessment.
Fortifying Integrity Against LLM Evasion
The framework also tackles practical concerns surrounding LLM-generated explanations. Safeguards include proctored deployment modes, randomized trace questions that demand step-by-step reasoning tied to concrete execution states, and options for local-model deployment to address privacy-sensitive settings. This layered defense is not intended to replace existing testing methodologies but to act as a complementary verification mechanism, ensuring students truly understand the code they submit, thereby reinforcing the integrity of LLM programming assessment.
