Raymond Pettit

James Prather, Paul Denny, Juho Leinonen et al. · cmu

Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) are fundamentally reshaping computing, with large language models (LLMs) now effectively being able to generate and interpret source code and natural language instructions. These emergent capabilities have sparked urgent questions in the computing education community around how educators should adapt their pedagogy to address the challenges and to leverage the opportunities presented by this new technology. In this working group report, we undertake a comprehensive exploration of LLMs in the context of computing education and make five significant contributions. First, we provide a detailed review of the literature on LLMs in computing education and synthesise findings from 71 primary articles. Second, we report the findings of a survey of computing students and instructors from across 20 countries, capturing prevailing attitudes towards LLMs and their use in computing education contexts. Third, to understand how pedagogy is already changing, we offer insights collected from in-depth interviews with 22 computing educators from five continents who have already adapted their curricula and assessments. Fourth, we use the ACM Code of Ethics to frame a discussion of ethical issues raised by the use of large language models in computing education, and we provide concrete advice for policy makers, educators, and students. Finally, we benchmark the performance of LLMs on various computing education datasets, and highlight the extent to which the capabilities of current models are rapidly improving. Our aim is that this report will serve as a focal point for both researchers and practitioners who are exploring, adapting, using, and evaluating LLMs and LLM-based tools in computing classrooms.

Nicholas Gardella, James Prather, Juho Leinonen et al.

Code-generating Artificial Intelligence has gained popularity within both professional and educational programming settings over the past several years. While research and pedagogy are beginning to cope with this change, computing students are left to bear the unforeseen consequences of AI amidst a dearth of empirical evidence about its effects. Though pair programming between students is well studied and known to be beneficial to self-efficacy and academic achievement, it remains underutilized and further threatened by the proposition that AI can replace a human programming partner. In this paper, we present a controlled pair programming study with 22 participants who wrote Python code under time pressure in teams of two and individually with GitHub Copilot for 20 minutes each. They were incentivized by bonus compensation to balance performance with understanding and were retested individually on the programming tasks after a retention interval of one week. Subjective measures of workload and emotion as well as objective measures of performance and learning (retest performance) were collected. Results showed that participants performed significantly better with GitHub Copilot than their human teammate, and several dimensions of their workload were significantly reduced. However, the emotional effect of the human teammate was significantly more positive and arousing as compared to working with Copilot. Furthermore, there was a nonsignificant absolute retest performance reduction in the AI condition and a larger retest performance decrement in the AI condition. We recommend that educators strongly consider revisiting pair programming as an educational tool in addition to embracing modern AI.