Search

The capability of large language models (LLMs) to generate, debug, and explain code has sparked the interest of researchers and educators in undergraduate programming, with many anticipating their transformative potential in programming education. However, decisions about why and how to use LLMs in programming education may involve more than just the assessment of an LLM's technical capabilities. Using the social shaping of technology theory as a guiding framework, our study explores how students' social perceptions influence their own LLM usage. We then examine the correlation of self-reported LLM usage with students' self-efficacy and midterm performances in an undergraduate programming course. Triangulating data from an anonymous end-of-course student survey (n = 158), a mid-course self-efficacy survey (n=158), student interviews (n = 10), self-reported LLM usage on homework, and midterm performances, we discovered that students' use of LLMs was associated with their expectations for their future careers and their perceptions of peer usage. Additionally, early self-reported LLM usage in our context correlated with lower self-efficacy and lower midterm scores, while students' perceived over-reliance on LLMs, rather than their usage itself, correlated with decreased self-efficacy later in the course., Comment: Accepted to the ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research V.1 (ICER '24 Vol. 1)

The field of Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) focuses on the intersection of technology, education, and psychology, placing a strong emphasis on supporting learners' needs with compassion and understanding. The growing prominence of Large Language Models (LLMs) has led to the development of scalable solutions within educational settings, including generating different types of feedback in Intelligent Tutoring Systems. However, the approach to utilizing these models often involves directly formulating prompts to solicit specific information, lacking a solid theoretical foundation for prompt construction and empirical assessments of their impact on learning. This work advocates careful and caring AIED research by going through previous research on feedback generation in ITS, with emphasis on the theoretical frameworks they utilized and the efficacy of the corresponding design in empirical evaluations, and then suggesting opportunities to apply these evidence-based principles to the design, experiment, and evaluation phases of LLM-based feedback generation. The main contributions of this paper include: an avocation of applying more cautious, theoretically grounded methods in feedback generation in the era of generative AI; and practical suggestions on theory and evidence-based feedback design for LLM-powered ITS., Comment: Accepted to 25th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED 2024) BlueSky special track

Recent studies have integrated large language models (LLMs) into diverse educational contexts, including providing adaptive programming hints, a type of feedback focuses on helping students move forward during problem-solving. However, most existing LLM-based hint systems are limited to one single hint type. To investigate whether and how different levels of hints can support students' problem-solving and learning, we conducted a think-aloud study with 12 novices using the LLM Hint Factory, a system providing four levels of hints from general natural language guidance to concrete code assistance, varying in format and granularity. We discovered that high-level natural language hints alone can be helpless or even misleading, especially when addressing next-step or syntax-related help requests. Adding lower-level hints, like code examples with in-line comments, can better support students. The findings open up future work on customizing help responses from content, format, and granularity levels to accurately identify and meet students' learning needs., Comment: Accepted CHI 2024 LBW - 10 pages

Learning to program can be challenging, and providing high-quality and timely support at scale is hard. Generative AI and its products, like ChatGPT, can create a solution for most intro-level programming problems. However, students might use these tools to just generate code for them, resulting in reduced engagement and limited learning. In this paper, we present CodeTailor, a system that leverages a large language model (LLM) to provide personalized help to students while still encouraging cognitive engagement. CodeTailor provides a personalized Parsons puzzle to support struggling students. In a Parsons puzzle, students place mixed-up code blocks in the correct order to solve a problem. A technical evaluation with previous incorrect student code snippets demonstrated that CodeTailor could deliver high-quality (correct, personalized, and concise) Parsons puzzles based on their incorrect code. We conducted a within-subjects study with 18 novice programmers. Participants perceived CodeTailor as more engaging than just receiving an LLM-generated solution (the baseline condition). In addition, participants applied more supported elements from the scaffolded practice to the posttest when using CodeTailor than baseline. Overall, most participants preferred using CodeTailor versus just receiving the LLM-generated code for learning. Qualitative observations and interviews also provided evidence for the benefits of CodeTailor, including thinking more about solution construction, fostering continuity in learning, promoting reflection, and boosting confidence. We suggest future design ideas to facilitate active learning opportunities with generative AI techniques., Comment: Accepted to the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S 24) as a full paper

Novice programmers need to write basic code as part of the learning process, but they often face difficulties. To assist struggling students, we recently implemented personalized Parsons problems, which are code puzzles where students arrange blocks of code to solve them, as pop-up scaffolding. Students found them to be more engaging and preferred them for learning, instead of simply receiving the correct answer, such as the response they might get from generative AI tools like ChatGPT. However, a drawback of using Parsons problems as scaffolding is that students may be able to put the code blocks in the correct order without fully understanding the rationale of the correct solution. As a result, the learning benefits of scaffolding are compromised. Can we improve the understanding of personalized Parsons scaffolding by providing textual code explanations? In this poster, we propose a design that incorporates multiple levels of textual explanations for the Parsons problems. This design will be used for future technical evaluations and classroom experiments. These experiments will explore the effectiveness of adding textual explanations to Parsons problems to improve instructional benefits., Comment: Peer-Reviewed, Accepted for publication in Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2 (SIGCSE 2024)

As Large Language Models (LLMs) gain in popularity, it is important to understand how novice programmers use them. We present a thematic analysis of 33 learners, aged 10-17, independently learning Python through 45 code-authoring tasks using Codex, an LLM-based code generator. We explore several questions related to how learners used these code generators and provide an analysis of the properties of the written prompts and the generated code. Specifically, we explore (A) the context in which learners use Codex, (B) what learners are asking from Codex, (C) properties of their prompts in terms of relation to task description, language, and clarity, and prompt crafting patterns, (D) the correctness, complexity, and accuracy of the AI-generated code, and (E) how learners utilize AI-generated code in terms of placement, verification, and manual modifications. Furthermore, our analysis reveals four distinct coding approaches when writing code with an AI code generator: AI Single Prompt, where learners prompted Codex once to generate the entire solution to a task; AI Step-by-Step, where learners divided the problem into parts and used Codex to generate each part; Hybrid, where learners wrote some of the code themselves and used Codex to generate others; and Manual coding, where learners wrote the code themselves. The AI Single Prompt approach resulted in the highest correctness scores on code-authoring tasks, but the lowest correctness scores on subsequent code-modification tasks during training. Our results provide initial insight into how novice learners use AI code generators and the challenges and opportunities associated with integrating them into self-paced learning environments. We conclude with various signs of over-reliance and self-regulation, as well as opportunities for curriculum and tool development., Comment: 12 pages, Peer-Reviewed, Accepted for publication in the proceedings of the 2023 ACM Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research

While open-ended self-explanations have been shown to promote robust learning in multiple studies, they pose significant challenges to automated grading and feedback in technology-enhanced learning, due to the unconstrained nature of the students' input. Our work investigates whether recent advances in Large Language Models, and in particular ChatGPT, can address this issue. Using decimal exercises and student data from a prior study of the learning game Decimal Point, with more than 5,000 open-ended self-explanation responses, we investigate ChatGPT's capability in (1) solving the in-game exercises, (2) determining the correctness of students' answers, and (3) providing meaningful feedback to incorrect answers. Our results showed that ChatGPT can respond well to conceptual questions, but struggled with decimal place values and number line problems. In addition, it was able to accurately assess the correctness of 75% of the students' answers and generated generally high-quality feedback, similar to human instructors. We conclude with a discussion of ChatGPT's strengths and weaknesses and suggest several venues for extending its use cases in digital teaching and learning., Comment: Be accepted as a Research Paper in 18th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning