Generative AI in Computing Education: Perspectives of Students and Instructors

Generative models are now capable of producing natural language text that is, in some cases, comparable in quality to the text produced by people. In the computing education context, these models are being used to generate code, code explanations, and programming exercises. The rapid adoption of these models has prompted multiple position papers and workshops which discuss the implications of these models for computing education, both positive and negative. This paper presents results from a series of semi-structured interviews with 12 students and 6 instructors about their awareness, experiences, and preferences regarding the use of tools powered by generative AI in computing classrooms. The results suggest that Generative AI (GAI) tools will play an increasingly significant role in computing education. However, students and instructors also raised numerous concerns about how these models should be integrated to best support the needs and learning goals of students. We also identified interesting tensions and alignments that emerged between how instructors and students prefer to engage with these models. We discuss these results and provide recommendations related to curriculum development, assessment methods, and pedagogical practice. As GAI tools become increasingly prevalent, it's important to understand educational stakeholders' preferences and values to ensure that these tools can be used for good and that potential harms can be mitigated.

[1]  Brett A. Becker,et al.  Transformed by Transformers: Navigating the AI Coding Revolution for Computing Education: An ITiCSE Working Group Conducted by Humans , 2023, ITiCSE.

[2]  Juho Leinonen,et al.  Comparing Code Explanations Created by Students and Large Language Models , 2023, ITiCSE.

[3]  F. Fischer,et al.  ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education , 2023, Learning and Individual Differences.

[4]  Jaromír Šavelka,et al.  Large Language Models (GPT) Struggle to Answer Multiple-Choice Questions about Code , 2023, CSEDU.

[5]  Austin Z. Henley,et al.  What Is Your Biggest Pain Point?: An Investigation of CS Instructor Obstacles, Workarounds, and Desires , 2023, SIGCSE.

[6]  M. Wermelinger Using GitHub Copilot to Solve Simple Programming Problems , 2023, SIGCSE.

[7]  Brett A. Becker,et al.  Programming Is Hard - Or at Least It Used to Be: Educational Opportunities and Challenges of AI Code Generation , 2022, SIGCSE.

[8]  Juho Leinonen,et al.  Experiences from Using Code Explanations Generated by Large Language Models in a Web Software Development E-Book , 2022, SIGCSE.

[9]  Paul Denny,et al.  Conversing with Copilot: Exploring Prompt Engineering for Solving CS1 Problems Using Natural Language , 2022, SIGCSE.

[10]  M. Daniels,et al.  Student Perspectives on On-site versus Online Teaching throughout the Covid-19 Pandemic , 2022, 2022 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).

[11]  Ziheng Huang,et al.  Generating Diverse Code Explanations using the GPT-3 Large Language Model , 2022, ICER.

[12]  Juho Leinonen,et al.  Automatic Generation of Programming Exercises and Code Explanations Using Large Language Models , 2022, ICER.

[13]  Roberto Martínez Maldonado,et al.  Explainable Artificial Intelligence in education , 2022, Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell..

[14]  Juho Leinonen,et al.  Automatically Generating CS Learning Materials with Large Language Models , 2022, SIGCSE.

[15]  Brett A. Becker,et al.  The Implications of Large Language Models for CS Teachers and Students , 2022, SIGCSE.

[16]  Brett A. Becker,et al.  The Robots Are Coming: Exploring the Implications of OpenAI Codex on Introductory Programming , 2022, ACE.

[17]  M. D. de Vries,et al.  Feedback perceptions: preliminary analysis of semistructured group interviews with first-year bachelor students of Computer Science , 2021, Frontiers in Education Conference.

[18]  Waldemar Karwowski,et al.  Explainable artificial intelligence for education and training , 2021, The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology.

[19]  Jeffrey C. Carver,et al.  A Systematic Literature Review of Empiricism and Norms of Reporting in Computing Education Research Literature , 2021, ACM Trans. Comput. Educ..

[20]  T. Cerratto Pargman,et al.  Mapping the Ethics of Learning Analytics in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Research , 2021, J. Learn. Anal..

[21]  M. Ghassemi,et al.  Do as AI say: susceptibility in deployment of clinical decision-aids , 2021, npj Digital Medicine.

[22]  Marina Fiedler,et al.  Unintended Consequences of Introducing AI Systems for Decision Making , 2020, MIS Q. Executive.

[23]  Carol Zander,et al.  Copying Can Be Good: How Students View Imitation as a Tool in Learning to Program , 2020, 2020 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).

[24]  Bart Rienties,et al.  Defining the Boundaries Between Artificial Intelligence in Education, Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Educational Data Mining, and Learning Analytics: A Need for Coherence , 2020, Frontiers in Education.

[25]  Brian Magerko,et al.  What is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations , 2020, CHI.

[26]  Pingping Chen,et al.  Artificial Intelligence in Education: A Review , 2020, IEEE Access.

[27]  Mark O. Riedl,et al.  Human-centered Explainable AI: Towards a Reflective Sociotechnical Approach , 2020, HCI.

[28]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Co-Designing a Real-Time Classroom Orchestration Tool to Support Teacher-AI Complementarity , 2019, J. Learn. Anal..

[29]  Mark O. Riedl Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning , 2019, Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies.

[30]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Student Learning Benefits of a Mixed-Reality Teacher Awareness Tool in AI-Enhanced Classrooms , 2018, AIED.

[31]  Burkhard Wünsche,et al.  Intelligent tutoring systems for programming education: a systematic review , 2018, ACE.

[32]  Martin Ebner,et al.  Learning Analytics in Higher Education—A Literature Review , 2017 .

[33]  Aman Yadav,et al.  Methodological Rigor and Theoretical Foundations of CS Education Research , 2016, ICER.

[34]  Tracey E. Hall,et al.  An Operationalized Understanding of Personalized Learning , 2016 .

[35]  Jürgen Börstler,et al.  Educational Data Mining and Learning Analytics in Programming: Literature Review and Case Studies , 2015, ITiCSE-WGR.

[36]  K. Peters,et al.  Interviews in qualitative research. , 2015, Nurse researcher.

[37]  Judithe Sheard,et al.  Analysis of research into the teaching and learning of programming , 2009, ICER '09.

[38]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[39]  John D. Lee,et al.  Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[40]  P. Drijvers,et al.  The graphics calculator in mathematics education , 1996 .

[41]  S. Delgado STUDENTS , 1969, Keywords in Radical Philosophy and Education.

[42]  Alejandro Peña-Ayala,et al.  Learning Analytics: Fundaments, Applications, and Trends , 2017 .

[43]  Masooda N. Bashir,et al.  Trust in Automation: Integrating Empirical Evidence on Factors That Influence Trust , 2015, Hum. Factors.

[44]  Chauncey E. Wilson Semi-Structured Interviews , 2014 .

[45]  Kristin L. Gunckel,et al.  Including Students and Teachers in the Co-Design of the Enacted Curriculum , 2005 .

[46]  Tom Routen,et al.  Intelligent Tutoring Systems , 1996, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[47]  C. Bonwell,et al.  Active learning : creating excitement in the classroom , 1991 .

[48]  C. Bonwell,et al.  Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ERIC Digest. , 1991 .