Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-gmt7q Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-09T18:26:12.757Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Generative AI in Education

Generative AI in Computer Science Education

Challenges and Opportunities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2025

Diana Franklin ,
Paul Denny ,
David A. Gonzalez-Maldonado  and
Minh Tran
Diana Franklin
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Paul Denny
Affiliation:
The University of Auckland
David A. Gonzalez-Maldonado
Affiliation:
The University of Chicago
Minh Tran
Affiliation:
The University of Chicago

Summary

Generative AI is a disruptive technology that has the potential to transform many aspects of how computer science is taught. Like previous innovations such as high-level programming languages and block-based programming languages, generative AI lowers the technical expertise necessary to create working programs, bringing the power of computation to more people. The programming process is already changing as a result of its presence, even for expert programmers. It also poses significant challenges to educators around re-thinking assessment as some well-established approaches may no longer be viable. Many traditional programming assignments can be completed using generative AI tools with minimal effort, thus potentially undermining learning. In this Element, the authors explore both the opportunities and the challenges for computer science education resulting from the widespread availability of generative AI.
Get access

Keywords

computer science educationcomputing educationgenerative AI (GenAI)large language models (LLMs)
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Generative AI in Education
Online ISBN: 9781009581738
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 24 April 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Element purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aiken, A. (n.d.). A System for Detecting Software Similarity. Accessed June 24, 2024, at https://theory.stanford.edu/aiken/moss/Google Scholar
Alkafaween, U., Albluwi, I., & Denny, P. (2024). Automating autograding: Large language models as test suite generators for introductory programming. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.09261Google Scholar
Allen, J. M., Vahid, F., Downey, K., Miller, K., & Edgcomb, A. D. (2019). Many small programs in CS1: Usage analysis from multiple universities. In 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. https://monolith.asee.org/public/conferences/140/papers/27535/viewCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allowatt, A., & Edwards, S. H. (2005). IDE support for test-driven development and automated grading in both Java and C++. In Proceedings of the 2005 OOPSLA workshop on Eclipse technology eXchange (pp. 100–104). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1117696.1117717Google Scholar
Alves, P., & Cipriano, B. P. (2023). The centaur programmer – how Kasparov’s advanced chess spans over to the software development of the future. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.11172Google Scholar
ASHP. (2023, Dec.). Study finds ChatGPT provides inaccurate responses to drug questions. https://news.ashp.org/News/ashp-news/2023/12/05/study-finds-chatgpt-provides-inaccurate-responses-to-drug-questionsGoogle Scholar
Balse, R., Kumar, V., Prasad, P., & Warriem, J. M. (2023). Evaluating the quality of LLM-generated explanations for logical errors in CS1 student programs. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual ACM India Compute Conference (pp. 49–54). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3627217.3627233Google Scholar
Barr, A. (2023, Sept.). The summer is over, schools are back, and the data is in: ChatGPT is mainly a tool for cheating on homework. Business Insider. www.businessinsider.com/school-is-back-chatgpt-mainly-tool-cheating-homework-2023-9.Google Scholar
Becker, B. A., Denny, P., Finnie-Ansley, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Prather, J., & Santos, E. A. (2023). Programming is hard – or at least it used to be: Educational opportunities and challenges of AI code generation. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education v. 1 (pp. 500–506). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569759Google ScholarPubMed
Bernstein, S., Denny, P., Leinonen, J. et al. (2024). “Like a nesting doll”: Analyzing recursion analogies generated by CS students using Large Language Models. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.09409.Google Scholar
Biderman, S., & Raff, E. (2022, Oct.). Fooling MOSS detection with pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management (pp. 2933–2943). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3511808.3557079Google Scholar
Chen, B., Lewis, C. M., West, M., & Zilles, C. (2024). Plagiarism in the age of generative AI: Cheating method change and learning loss in an Intro to CS course. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning@Scale (pp. 75–85). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3657604.3662046Google Scholar
Chen, M., Tworek, J., Jun, H. et al. (2021). Evaluating large language models trained on code. https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03374Google Scholar
Cipriano, B. P., & Alves, P. (2023). GPT-3 vs object oriented programming assignments: An experience report. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education v. 1 (pp. 61–67). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3587102.3588814Google Scholar
Corder, M. (2024, Aug.). Clearview AI fined 33.7 million by Dutch data protection watchdog over “illegal database” of faces. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/clearview-ai-facial-recognition-privacy-fine-netherlands-a1ac33c15d561d37a923b6c382f48ab4Google Scholar
Coyle, J. (2023, Sept.). In Hollywood writers’ battle against AI, humans win (for now). Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/hollywood-ai-strike-wga-artificial-intelligence-39ab72582c3a15f77510c9c30a45ffc8.Google Scholar
Crow, T., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Wuensche, B. (2018). Intelligent tutoring systems for programming education: A systematic review. In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp. 53–62). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3160489.3160492Google Scholar
Davis, K., White, S. V., Dinah, B.- C., & Scott, A. (2021). Culturally responsive-sustaining computer science education: A framework. Kapor Center. www.kaporcenter.org/equitablecsGoogle Scholar
Del Carpio Gutierrez, A., Denny, P., & Luxton-Reilly, A. (2024). Evaluating automatically generated contextualised programming exercises. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education v. 1 (pp. 289–295). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3626252.3630863Google Scholar
Denny, P., Kumar, V., & Giacaman, N. (2023). Conversing with Copilot: Exploring prompt engineering for solving CS1 problems using natural language. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education v. 1 (pp. 1136–1142). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569823Google Scholar
Denny, P., Leinonen, J., Prather, J. et al. (2024). Prompt problems: A new programming exercise for the generative AI era. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education v. 1 (pp. 296–302). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3626252.3630909Google Scholar
Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Simon, B. (2008). Evaluating a new exam question: Parsons problems. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 113–124). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1404520.1404532Google Scholar
Denny, P., MacNeil, S., Savelka, J., Porter, L., & Luxton-Reilly, A. (2024). Desirable characteristics for AI teaching assistants in programming education. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education v. 1 (pp. 408–414). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3649217.3653574Google Scholar
Denny, P., Prather, J., Becker, B. A. et al. (2019). A closer look at metacognitive scaffolding: Solving test cases before programming. In Proceedings of the 19th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3364510.3366170Google Scholar
Denny, P., Prather, J., Becker, B. A. et al. (2024, Jan.). Computing education in the era of generative AI. Communications of the ACM, 67(2), 56–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3624720Google Scholar
Denny, P., Smith, D. H., Fowler, M. et al. (2024). Explaining code with a purpose: An integrated approach for developing code comprehension and prompting skills. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education v. 1 (pp. 283–289). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3649217.3653587.Google Scholar
DeVon, C. (2023, Nov.). On ChatGPT’s one-year anniversary, it has more than 1.7 billion users – here’s what it may do next. CNBC. www.cnbc.com/2023/11/30/chatgpts-one-year-anniversary-how-the-viral-ai-chatbot-has-changed.htmlGoogle Scholar
Ding, Z., Srinivasan, A., Macneil, S., & Chan, J. (2023). Fluid transformers and creative analogies: Exploring large language models’ capacity for augmenting cross-domain analogical creativity. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Creativity and Cognition (pp. 489–505). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3591196.3593516Google Scholar
Duffy, H., & Weil, S. E. (2023, Feb.). ChatGPT, Cheating, and the Future of Education. The Harvard Crimson. www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/2/23/chatgpt-scrut/.Google Scholar
Edwards, B. (2023a, Jan.). Artists File Class-Action Lawsuit against AI Image Generator Companies. Ars Technica. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/01/artists-file-class-action-lawsuit-against-ai-image-generator-companies/.Google Scholar
Edwards, B. (2023b, Nov.). ChatGPT Is One Year Old. Here’s How It Changed the Tech World. Ars Technica. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/11/chatgpt-was-the-spark-that-lit-the-fire-under-generative-ai-one-year-ago-today/.Google Scholar
Emeka, C., West, M., Zilles, C., & Silva, M. (2024). A comparison of proctoring regimens for computer-based computer science exams. In Proceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education v. 1 (pp. 185–191). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3649217.3653536Google Scholar
Ericson, B. J., Denny, P., Prather, J. et al. (2022). Parsons problems and beyond: Systematic literature review and empirical study designs. In Proceedings of the 2022 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 191–234). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3571785.3574127Google Scholar
Feng, D., Shaw, E., Kim, J., & Hovy, E. (2006). An intelligent discussion-bot for answering student queries in threaded discussions. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 171–177). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1111449.1111488Google Scholar
Finnie-Ansley, J., Denny, P., Becker, B. A., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Prather, J. (2022). The robots are coming: Exploring the implications of openai codex on introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 24th Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp. 10–19). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3511861.3511863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnie-Ansley, J., Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A. et al. (2023). My AI wants to know if this will be on the exam: Testing OpenAI’s Codex on CS2 programming exercises. In Proceedings of the 25th Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp. 97–104). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3576123.3576134Google Scholar
Fisler, K. (2014). The recurring rainfall problem. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 35–42). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2632320.2632346Google Scholar
Fowler, M., Smith, D. H., & Zilles, C. (2024). Quickly producing “isomorphic” exercises: Quantifying the impact of programming question permutations. In Proceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education v. 1 (pp. 178–184). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3649217.3653617Google Scholar
Franklin, D., Conrad, P., Boe, B. et al. (2013). Assessment of computer science learning in a scratch-based outreach program. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 371–376). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, D., Weintrop, D., Palmer, J. et al. (2020). Scratch encore: The design and pilot of a culturally-relevant intermediate scratch curriculum. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 794–800).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gay, G. (2018). Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice. Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Maldonado, D., Liu, J., & Franklin, D. (2025). Evaluating GPT for use in K–12 block based CS instruction using a transpiler and prompt engineering. In Proceedings of the 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education v. 1.Google Scholar
Hart, K., Mano, C., & Edwards, J. (2023, March). Plagiarism deterrence in CS1 through keystroke data. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science EducationV. 1 (pp. 493–499). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569805Google Scholar
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487Google Scholar
Hicke, Y., Agarwal, A., Ma, Q., & Denny, P. (2023). Ai-ta: Towards an intelligent question-answer teaching assistant using open-source LLMs. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02775Google Scholar
Hoq, M., Shi, Y., Leinonen, J. et al. (2024, March). Detecting ChatGPT-generated code submissions in a CS1 course using machine learning models. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (pp. 526–532). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3626252.3630826Google Scholar
Hou, I., Man, O., Mettille, S. et al. (2024). More robots are coming: Large multimodal models (ChatGPT) can solve visually diverse images of Parsons problems. In Proceedings of the 26th Australasian Computing Education Conference (p. 29–38). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3636243.3636247Google Scholar
Hwang, C. J., & Gibson, D. E. (1982, Feb.). Using an effective grading method for preventing plagiarism of programming assignments. SIGCSE Bulletin, 14(1), 50–59.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (2023, Feb.). Face recognition software led to his arrest. it was dead wrong; Alonzo Sawyer’s misidentification by algorithm made him a suspect for a crime police now say was committed by someone else – feeding debate over regulation. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/face-recognition-software-led-to-his-arrest-it-was-dead-wrong/Google Scholar
Jury, B., Lorusso, A., Leinonen, J., Denny, P., & Luxton-Reilly, A. (2024). Evaluating LLM-generated worked examples in an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the 26th Australasian Computing Education Conference (p. 77–86). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3636243.3636252Google Scholar
Katersky, A. (2023, Nov.). Famous authors’ lawsuit against ChatGPT developer gets underway. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/US/famous-authors-lawsuit-chatgpt-maker-openai-begins-initial/story?id=105239215#::text=A20group20of20well2Dknown,train20the20popular20chatbot20ChatGPT.ABCNews.Google Scholar
Kazemitabaar, M., Chow, J., Ma, C. K. T. et al. (2023). Studying the effect of AI code generators on supporting novice learners in introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580919Google Scholar
Kotek, H., Dockum, R., & Sun, D. (2023). Gender bias and stereotypes in large language models. In Proceedings of the ACM Collective Intelligence Conference (pp. 12–24).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.Google Scholar
Lau, S., & Guo, P. (2023). From “ban it till we understand it” to “resistance is futile”: How university programming instructors plan to adapt as more students use AI code generation and explanation tools such as ChatGPT and Github Copilot. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research – Volume 1 (pp. 106–121). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3568813.3600138Google Scholar
Leinonen, J., Denny, P., MacNeil, S. et al. (2023). Comparing code explanations created by students and large language models. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education v. 1 (pp. 124–130). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3587102.3588785Google Scholar
Leinonen, J., Denny, P., & Whalley, J. (2021). Exploring the effects of contextualized problem descriptions on problem solving. In Proceedings of the 23rd Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp. 30–39). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3441636.3442302Google Scholar
Leinonen, J., Hellas, A., Sarsa, S. et al. (2023, March). Using large language models to enhance programming error messages. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (pp. 563–569). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569770Google Scholar
Liang, P. P., Wu, C., Morency, L.- P., & Salakhutdinov, R. (2021). Towards understanding and mitigating social biases in language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 6565–6576).Google Scholar
Liffiton, M., Sheese, B. E., Savelka, J., & Denny, P. (2024). Codehelp: Using large language models with guardrails for scalable support in programming classes. In Proceedings of the 23rd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3631802.3631830Google Scholar
Ling, K., Beenen, G., Ludford, P. et al. (2005). Using social psychology to motivate contributions to online communities. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 212–221).Google Scholar
Lister, R., Simon, B., Thompson, E., Whalley, J. L., & Prasad, C. (2006). Not seeing the forest for the trees: Novice programmers and the solo taxonomy. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 118–122). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1140124.1140157Google Scholar
Liu, M., & M’Hiri, F. (2024, March). Beyond Traditional Teaching: Large Language Models as Simulated Teaching Assistants in Computer Science. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (pp. 743–749). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3626252.3630789Google Scholar
MacNeil, S., Tran, A., Hellas, A. et al. (2023). Experiences from using code explanations generated by large language models in a web software development e-book. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education v. 1 (pp. 931–937). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569785Google Scholar
Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 5(4), 333–369.Google Scholar
Margulieux, L. E., & Catrambone, R. (2016). Improving problem solving with subgoal labels in expository text and worked examples. Learning and Instruction, 42, 58–71. Available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095947521530044X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.12.002Google Scholar
Margulieux, L. E., Catrambone, R., & Guzdial, M. (2016). Employing subgoals in computer programming education. Computer Science Education, 26(1), 44–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2016.1144429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margulieux, L. E., Morrison, B. B., & Decker, A. (2020). Reducing withdrawal and failure rates in introductory programming with subgoal labeled worked examples. International Journal on STEM Education, 7(19). Available at https://stemeducationjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40594-020-00222-7#citeas DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00222-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maslow, A. H. (1958). A dynamic theory of human motivation. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/11305-004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maslow, A. H. (1962). Lessons from the peak-experiences. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 2(1), 9–18.Google Scholar
McCabe, D., Trevino, L., & Butterfield, K. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 219.Google Scholar
Muldner, K., Jennings, J., & Chiarelli, V. (2022, Dec.). A review of worked examples in programming activities. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 23(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3560266Google Scholar
Murphy, L., McCauley, R., & Fitzgerald, S. (2012). “Explain in plain English” questions: Implications for teaching. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 385–390). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2157136.2157249Google Scholar
Nadeem, M., Bethke, A., & Reddy, S. (2020). Stereoset: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language models. arXiv:2004.09456.Google Scholar
Neumeister, L. (2023, June). Lawyers submitted bogus case law created by ChatGPT. A judge fined them 5,000. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-chatgpt-fake-case-lawyers-d6ae9fa79d0542db9e1455397aef381c.Google Scholar
Nguyen, H., & Allan, V. (2024, March). Using GPT-4 to provide tiered, formative code feedback. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (pp. 958–964). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3626252.3630960Google Scholar
Nietzel, M. T. (2023, March). More than half of college students believe using ChatGPT to complete assignments is cheating. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2023/03/20/more-than-half-of-college-students-believe-using-chatgpt-to-complete-assignments-is-cheating/Google Scholar
Notice to research community: Use of generative artificial intelligence technology in the nsf merit review process. (2023, Dec.). National Science Foundation. https://new.nsf.gov/news/notice-to-the-research-community-on-ai.Google Scholar
Opitz, B., Ferdinand, N., & Mecklinger, A. (2011). Timing matters: The impact of immediate and delayed feedback on artificial language learning. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5(8). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00008Google ScholarPubMed
Park, A., Kietzmann, J., Killoran, J. et al. (2023). Nothing is harder to resist than the temptation of AI. IT Professional, 25(6), 13-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2023.3340529Google Scholar
Pawagi, M., & Kumar, V. (2024). Probeable problems for beginner-level programming-with-AI contests. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research – Volume 1 (pp. 166–176). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3632620.3671108Google Scholar
Petersen, A., Craig, M., & Zingaro, D. (2011). Reviewing CS1 exam question content. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 631–636). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953340Google Scholar
Pierce, J., & Zilles, C. (2017). Investigating student plagiarism patterns and correlations to grades. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 471–476). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, L., & Zingaro, D. (2023). Learn AI-assisted Python programming with Github Copilot and ChatGPT. Shelter Island, NY: Manning. Available at www.manning.com/books/learn-ai-assisted-python-programmingGoogle Scholar
Powers, S. (2023, Feb.). Vanderbilt university staff apologizes after ChatGPT was used to write email about MSU shooting. CBS News. www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/vanderbilt-university-staff-apologizes-after-chatgpt-was-used-to-write-email-about-msu-shooting/.Google Scholar
Pozdniakov, S., Brazil, J., Abdi, S. et al. (2024). Large language models meet user interfaces: The case of provisioning feedback. DOI: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.11072Google Scholar
Prather, J., Denny, P., Leinonen, J. et al. (2023). The robots are here: Navigating the generative AI revolution in computing education. In Proceedings of the 2023 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 108–159). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3623762.3633499Google Scholar
Prather, J., Reeves, B. N., Denny, P. et al. (2023, Nov.). “It’s weird that it knows what I want”: Usability and interactions with Copilot for novice programmers. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, 31(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3617367Google Scholar
Prather, J., Reeves, B. N., Leinonen, J. et al. (2024). The widening gap: The benefits and harms of generative AI for novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research – Volume 1 (p. 469–486). New York, NY Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3632620.3671116Google Scholar
Raj, A. G. S., Gu, P., Zhang, E. et al. (2020). Live-coding vs static code examples: Which is better with respect to student learning and cognitive load? In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp. 152–159). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3373165.3373182Google Scholar
Reeves, B., Sarsa, S., Prather, J. et al. (2023). Evaluating the performance of code generation models for solving Parsons problems with small prompt variations. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education v. 1 (pp. 299–305). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3587102.3588805Google Scholar
Reeves, B. N., Prather, J., Denny, P. et al. (2024). Prompts first, finally. DOI: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.09231Google Scholar
Reid, K. L., & Wilson, G. V. (2005, Feb.). Learning by doing: Introducing version control as a way to manage student assignments. SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(1), 272–276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1047124.1047441Google Scholar
Rubin, M. J. (2013). The effectiveness of live-coding to teach introductory programming. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 651–656). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445388Google Scholar
Sanders, K., & McCartney, R. (2016). Threshold concepts in computing: Past, present, and future. In Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 91–100). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2999541.2999546Google Scholar
Sanford, A. (2024, Feb.). Innocence Project. Available at https://innocenceproject.org/artificial-intelligence-is-putting-innocent-people-at-risk-of-being-incarcerated/Google Scholar
Sarsa, S., Denny, P., Hellas, A., & Leinonen, J. (2022). Automatic generation of programming exercises and code explanations using large language models. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research – Volume 1 (pp. 27–43). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3501385.3543957Google Scholar
Savelka, J., Agarwal, A., An, M., Bogart, C., & Sakr, M. (2023). Thrilled by your progress! Large language models (GPT-4) no longer struggle to pass assessments in higher education programming courses. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research – Volume 1 (pp. 78–92). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3568813.3600142Google Scholar
Savelka, J., Agarwal, A., Bogart, C., & Sakr, M. (2023). From GPT-3 to GPT-4: On the evolving efficacy of LLMs to answer multiple-choice questions for programming classes in higher education. arXiv:2311.09518 [cs.CY]Google Scholar
Shani, I. (2023). Survey reveals AI’s impact on the developer experience – the github blog. Available at https://github.blog/2023-06-13-survey-reveals-ais-impact-onthe-developer-experienceGoogle Scholar
Sheard, J., Denny, P., Hellas, A. et al. (2024). Instructor perceptions of AI code generation tools – a multi-institutional interview study. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education v. 1 (pp. 1223–1229). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3626252.3630880Google Scholar
Sheese, B., Liffiton, M., Savelka, J., & Denny, P. (2024). Patterns of student help-seeking when using a large language model-powered programming assistant. In Proceedings of the 26th Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp. 49–57). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3636243.3636249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. J., Boyer, K. E., Forbes, J., Heckman, S., & Mayer-Patel, K. (2017). My digital hand: A tool for scaling up one-to-one peer teaching in support of computer science learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on CS Education (pp. 549–554). NY: ACM. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017800Google Scholar
Smith, D. H., Denny, P., & Fowler, M. (2024). Prompting for comprehension: Exploring the intersection of explain in plain English questions and prompt writing. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (pp. 39–50). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3657604.3662039Google Scholar
Smith, D. H., Kumar, V., & Denny, P. (2024). Explain in plain language questions with Indic languages: Drawbacks, affordances, and opportunities. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.20297Google Scholar
Smith, D. H., & Zilles, C. (2023). Code generation based grading: Evaluating an auto-grading mechanism for “explain-in-plain-English” questions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.14903 (2023): n. pag.Google Scholar
Smith, M., Chen, Y., Berndtson, R., Burson, K. M., & Griffin, W. (2017). “Office hours are kind of weird”: Reclaiming a resource to foster student–faculty interaction. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 12, 14–29.Google Scholar
Spector, C. (2023, Oct.). What do AI chatbots really mean for students and cheating? Stanford Graduate School of Education. Stanford Graduate School of Education. https://ed.stanford.edu/news/what-do-ai-chatbots-really-mean-students-and-cheating.Google Scholar
Stanly, M. (2023, Feb.). A Colombian judge admits he used ChatGPT for the court ruling, which triggered public. India AI. https://indiaai.gov.in/article/a-colombian-judge-admits-he-used-chatgpt-for-the-court-ruling-which-triggered-public.Google Scholar
Tao, Y., Viberg, O., Baker, R. S., & Kizilcec, R. F. (2024). Cultural bias and cultural alignment of large language models. PNAS Nexus, 3(9), pgae 346.Google ScholarPubMed
Taylor, A., Vassar, A., Renzella, J., & Pearce, H. (2024, March). dcc –help: Transforming the role of the compiler by generating context-aware error explanations with large language models. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (pp. 1314–1320). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3626252.3630822Google Scholar
Thorbecke, C. (2023, Nov.). A year after ChatGPT’s release, the AI revolution is just beginning. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/30/tech/chatgpt-openai-revolution-one-year/index.html.Google Scholar
Tran, M. (2023). Prompt engineering for large language models to support K–8 computer science teachers in creating culturally responsive projects. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research-Volume 2 (pp. 110–112).Google Scholar
Tran, M., Gonzalez-Maldonado, D., Zhou, E., & Franklin, D. (2025). Can GPT help? Supporting teachers to brainstorm customized instructional scratch projects. In Proceedings of the 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education v. 1.Google Scholar
Tran, M., Killen, H., Palmer, J., Weintrop, D., & Franklin, D. (2024). Harmonizing scratch encore: Scaffolding K–8 teachers in customizing culturally responsive computing materials. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education v. 1 (pp. 1335–1341).Google Scholar
Vadaparty, A., Zingaro, D., SmithIV, D. H. et al. (2024). CS1-LLM: Integrating LLMs into CS1 instruction. In Proceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education v. 1 (pp. 297–303). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3649217.3653584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vellukunnel, M., Buffum, P., Boyer, K. E. et al. (2017). Deconstructing the discussion forum: Student questions and computer science learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 603–608). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017745Google Scholar
Venables, A., Tan, G., & Lister, R. (2009). A closer look at tracing, explaining and code writing skills in the novice programmer. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computing Education Research Workshop (pp. 117–128). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1584322.1584336Google Scholar
Verma, P. (2023, Oct). ChatGPT provided better customer service than his staff. He fired them. The Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/10/03/ai-customer-service-jobs/.Google Scholar
Vicci, G. (2023, Feb.). ChatGPT making it easier for students to cheat in school. CBS News. www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/chatgpt-making-it-easier-for-students-to-cheat-in-school/.Google Scholar
Yang, S., Zhao, H., Xu, Y., Brennan, K., & Schneider, B. (2024, Aug.). Debugging with an AI tutor: Investigating novice help-seeking behaviors and perceived learning. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (Vol. 1, pp. 84–94). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3632620.3671092Google Scholar
Zamprogno, L., Holmes, R., & Baniassad, E. (2020, Nov.). Nudging student learning strategies using formative feedback in automatically graded assessments. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on SPLASH-E (pp. 1–11). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/org/10.1145/3426431.3428654Google Scholar
Zeidner, M. (1998). Test Anxiety: State of the Art. Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, P., Jaipersaud, B., Ba, J. et al. (2023). Classifying course discussion board questions using LLMs. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education v. 2 (p. 658). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3587103.3594202Google Scholar
Zilles, C. (2023). Computer-based testing facilities as a means for enabling better assessment pedagogy. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education v. 2 (p. 1258). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3545947.3573226Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Generative AI in Computer Science Education
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Generative AI in Computer Science Education
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Generative AI in Computer Science Education
Available formats
×