Paul Denny

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.

Kaitlin Riegel, Yan Cathy Hua, Paul Denny et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into computing education, yet nearly all prior research has focused on text-based interactions. As voice-enabled interfaces become more capable and more common, there is growing interest in understanding how voice input might shape students' use of LLM-powered tools. In this exploratory study, we investigated how introductory programming students interact with Prompt Problems, which are programming tasks that require crafting natural-language prompts to generate correct code. Students (N = 919) solved a series of Prompt Problems with the freedom to select or switch between text and voice input modalities. We collected their prompt submissions as well as post-activity survey responses, then analysed differences in prompt accuracy, persistence, and perspectives by modality. For two of the three problems, we found that students who typed their prompts using text were more likely to have those prompts succeed on the first attempt than students who submitted unedited voice prompts. There was no difference in success rate if students edited their transcribed voice prompts before submission. Across the problems, we found evidence that students who tried voice prompting varied in their usage of modality - perhaps indicating a complementary, or non-preferential approach. However, most students only tried and reported preferring text. Our qualitative analysis revealed how students' perceived the roles of voice and text input in shaping their problem-solving process, as well as the reported drawbacks and advantages of each modality. We discuss implications for future multimodal tools and instructional design in computing education.

Victor-Alexandru Pădurean, Kaitlin Riegel, Alkis Gotovos et al.

As Generative AI (GenAI) becomes increasingly central to software development, CS education is integrating prompt-centered workflows where students describe intended program behavior in natural language to elicit code. However, professional practice requires careful review and verification of GenAI-generated code that may appear correct while containing subtle faults. This creates a challenge for CS1-level activities, where current models often solve tasks correctly and reduce students' incentive to closely inspect generated outputs. We investigate how prompt-centered programming activities can be adapted to better foster these practices. Specifically, we explore an approach where realistic, runnable bugs are injected into otherwise correct solutions, thus requiring students to read and repair generated outputs. We analyzed 2,636 sessions from 917 students, and examined behavior across instances of naturally occurring prompt-related failures and deliberately injected bugs within each session. Our findings show that students responded differently across bug sources. Deliberately injected bugs more often led to direct code edits and higher next-attempt success, suggesting localized repair of near-miss solutions. Prompt-related failures instead more often led students to refine prompts by clarifying constraints, updating function signatures, adding edge cases, or reframing the task. Student reflections reinforce the emphasis on review and repair, describing useful practice in code understanding, code review, and debugging, as well as a more careful verification mindset and greater awareness of GenAI limitations. Ultimately, prompt-related failures and injected bugs together support a pedagogically useful GenAI workflow, where students practice both specification refinement through prompts and debugging through code editing.

Victor-Alexandru Pădurean, Kaitlin Riegel, Gweneth Barbre et al.

Learning to communicate with code-generating AI models is an emerging skill for novice programmers. One recent pedagogical approach, Prompt Problems, has students solve computational tasks by writing natural-language prompts for code-generating AI models. However, little is known about the specific prompt-level mistakes novice programmers make, the kinds of computational details they fail to communicate, and what strategies they use to recover when generated code is incorrect. In a CS1 course, we studied attempts by more than 900 students to solve dialogue-based Prompt Problems. We analyzed student reflections, unsuccessful prompts, and reported debugging strategies. Compared to traditional coding tasks, students generally found prompting easier, more enjoyable, and better targeted at developing problem-solving skills. The most common mistakes are related to the omission of key details, suggesting both a failure to acknowledge their importance and over-reliance on AI to infer them. When prompts failed, students focused more on clarifying their intent and reflecting on the provided problem details than on tracing generated code or examining test cases.

Seth Bernstein, Paul Denny, Juho Leinonen et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown the potential to generate code explanations that surpass those of peers in quality, offering promising opportunities for computer science education. While these explanations may not yet match the depth and clarity of instructor-provided explanations, research in computational creativity highlights that the quantity and diversity of ideas can often outweigh a singular focus on quality. Inspired by this, we explore whether combining multiple diverse explanations, each emphasizing distinct aspects (e.g., function, concept, goal), can enhance students' understanding of programming exercises compared to generic explanations that do not emphasize distinct conceptual aspects. In our study 971 first-year computing students were randomly assigned either diverse or generic LLM-generated explanations for two programming exercises. Students completed multiple-choice and open-ended questions for each exercise, followed by Likert-scale questions and open-ended reflections. Our findings outline patterns in student performance and perceived cognitive load across the two explanation conditions. These findings highlight how variation in explanation emphasis may relate to learner engagement and understanding. Across participants, open-ended response accuracy was consistently about 7.7% higher when students received diverse explanations, with no difference in perceived cognitive load.

Hassan Khosravi, Dragan Gasevic, Shazia Sadiq et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming knowledge work by improving the quality and efficiency of tasks such as writing, coding, and data analysis. However, their growing use in education has exposed a learning-performance paradox: while they can enhance short-term task performance, they may also undermine genuine learning, including cognitive growth, knowledge transfer, and metacognitive development. This paper addresses the question of how artificial intelligence should be designed and used to support learning rather than merely improve immediate outputs. We introduce the concept of AI learning companions, defined as adaptive, pedagogically informed, LLM-powered agents designed for integration into learning environments. We propose a framework for their design built on three interrelated foundations: a pedagogical foundation focused on how students learn with AI, an adaptive foundation focused on how AI learns about students, and a responsible design foundation ensuring systems remain transparent, accountable, inclusive, and secure. The framework is illustrated through five case studies spanning diverse educational contexts, levels, and tool designs, revealing both the promise and current limitations of existing tools. We conclude that there is a necessary shift away from LLMs designed for task-oriented performance, and beyond simply prompting them to act as tutors, toward deliberately developed AI learning companions that are pedagogically sound, adapt to their learners, and foster durable understanding, metacognitive growth, and learner agency.

Meng Xia, Yan Chen, Qiao Jin et al.

This workshop addresses this gap by bringing together researchers and practitioners from AI, HCI, and the learning sciences to explore how interactive systems can better support learning. We focus on the design and evaluation of human-AI collaborative learning interfaces that are technically robust, human-centered, and pedagogically grounded. By fostering interdisciplinary dialogue, the workshop aims to identify shared challenges, design principles, and research directions for next-generation learning technologies.