Paul Denny

James Prather, Brent N. Reeves, Paul Denny et al.

Non-native English speakers (NNES) face multiple barriers to learning programming. These barriers can be obvious, such as the fact that programming language syntax and instruction are often in English, or more subtle, such as being afraid to ask for help in a classroom full of native English speakers. However, these barriers are frustrating because many NNES students know more about programming than they can articulate in English. Advances in generative AI (GenAI) have the potential to break down these barriers because state of the art models can support interactions in multiple languages. Moreover, recent work has shown that GenAI can be highly accurate at code generation and explanation. In this paper, we provide the first exploration of NNES students prompting in their native languages (Arabic, Chinese, and Portuguese) to generate code to solve programming problems. Our results show that students are able to successfully use their native language to solve programming problems, but not without some difficulty specifying programming terminology and concepts. We discuss the challenges they faced, the implications for practice in the short term, and how this might transform computing education globally in the long term.

Sebastian Gutierrez, Irene Hou, Jihye Lee et al.

Recent advancements in generative AI systems have raised concerns about academic integrity among educators. Beyond excelling at solving programming problems and text-based multiple-choice questions, recent research has also found that large multimodal models (LMMs) can solve Parsons problems based only on an image. However, such problems are still inherently text-based and rely on the capabilities of the models to convert the images of code blocks to their corresponding text. In this paper, we further investigate the capabilities of LMMs to solve graph and tree data structure problems based only on images. To achieve this, we computationally construct and evaluate a novel benchmark dataset comprising 9,072 samples of diverse graph and tree data structure tasks to assess the performance of the GPT-4o, GPT-4v, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Gemini 1.5 Flash, Gemini 1.0 Pro Vision, and Claude 3 model families. GPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 Flash performed best on trees and graphs respectively. GPT-4o achieved 87.6% accuracy on tree samples, while Gemini 1.5 Flash, achieved 56.2% accuracy on graph samples. Our findings highlight the influence of structural and visual variations on model performance. This research not only introduces an LMM benchmark to facilitate replication and further exploration but also underscores the potential of LMMs in solving complex computing problems, with important implications for pedagogy and assessment practices.