Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

How Novices Use LLM-Based Code Generators to Solve CS1 Coding Tasks in a Self-Paced Learning Environment

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2309.14049 v1 pith:P5Y6BMJH submitted 2023-09-25 cs.HC

classification cs.HC
keywords codelearnerscodextasksanalysiscodingcorrectnessgenerate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

As Large Language Models (LLMs) gain in popularity, it is important to understand how novice programmers use them. We present a thematic analysis of 33 learners, aged 10-17, independently learning Python through 45 code-authoring tasks using Codex, an LLM-based code generator. We explore several questions related to how learners used these code generators and provide an analysis of the properties of the written prompts and the generated code. Specifically, we explore (A) the context in which learners use Codex, (B) what learners are asking from Codex, (C) properties of their prompts in terms of relation to task description, language, and clarity, and prompt crafting patterns, (D) the correctness, complexity, and accuracy of the AI-generated code, and (E) how learners utilize AI-generated code in terms of placement, verification, and manual modifications. Furthermore, our analysis reveals four distinct coding approaches when writing code with an AI code generator: AI Single Prompt, where learners prompted Codex once to generate the entire solution to a task; AI Step-by-Step, where learners divided the problem into parts and used Codex to generate each part; Hybrid, where learners wrote some of the code themselves and used Codex to generate others; and Manual coding, where learners wrote the code themselves. The AI Single Prompt approach resulted in the highest correctness scores on code-authoring tasks, but the lowest correctness scores on subsequent code-modification tasks during training. Our results provide initial insight into how novice learners use AI code generators and the challenges and opportunities associated with integrating them into self-paced learning environments. We conclude with various signs of over-reliance and self-regulation, as well as opportunities for curriculum and tool development.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 9 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Personalized Parsons Puzzles as Scaffolding Enhance Practice Engagement Over Just Showing LLM-Powered Solutions

    cs.HC 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Personalized Parsons puzzles as help scaffolding led to significantly longer practice time than showing complete LLM solutions in a randomized Python classroom study.

  2. The New Calculator? Practices, Norms, and Implications of Generative AI in Higher Education

    cs.HC 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Interviews show university students self-govern their GenAI use under unclear guidelines, developing unspoken rules and reliance strategies amid plagiarism-focused institutional messaging.

  3. Investigating Student Interaction Patterns with Large Language Model-Powered Course Assistants in Computer Science Courses

    cs.CY 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A deployed LLM course assistant served 589 students across three CS courses; logs show heavy evening use and homework questions, while only about 11% of responses included AI follow-ups that students mostly ignored.

Pith tools