Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 43 references

From Automation to Cognition: Redefining the Roles of Educators and Generative AI in Computing Education

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Grade how students use AI, not just the code they submit

desk verdict A clear, honest experience report from a group that has actually deployed GenAI activities, but the two headline strategies are a synthesis of prior work plus anecdote, not an empirical validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11419 v1 pith:NLU7ABT3 submitted 2024-12-16 cs.CY

Tony Haoran Feng , Andrew Luxton-Reilly , Burkhard C. Wünsche , Paul Denny This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CY
keywords GenerativeArtificialIntelligenceGenAIComputingEducationAssignmentsMetacognitionAssessmentsPromptEngineeringTeachingAssistants
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the response to generative AI in computing education should be neither prohibition nor passive acceptance, but a deliberate shift in what is assessed and what educators teach. Drawing on several years of teaching first-year programming and upper-level courses, the authors claim that take-home assignments should be redesigned to require students to collaborate with tools like ChatGPT in a visible process — writing prompts, critiquing generated code, and reflecting on differences — rather than submitting only a final solution. They further argue that the educator's central job becomes cultivating metacognitive skills such as critical thinking, self-evaluation, and fact-checking of AI output. The paper's proposals matter because they offer a credible middle path between unreliable AI-detection and the threat of meaningless take-home work.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the process-oriented assignment: a take-home task redesigned so that students must externalize their interaction with GenAI — submitting prompts, intermediate explanations, comparisons of solutions, and self-critiques — and are graded on that record of engagement rather than on the final artifact. This mechanism is supported by a stable of concrete activities the authors deployed, such as Prompt Problems, where students write natural-language prompts that generate working code; BugSpotter, where students design failing test cases for AI-generated buggy code; and CodeHelp, an AI assistant that gives scaffolding feedback without revealing solutions. These activities carry the argument by showing that process can be elicited, observed, and automatically or semi-automatically assessed at scale.

What would settle it

A controlled comparison in an introductory programming course: one cohort completes process-oriented assignments that incorporate GenAI (prompts, comparisons, critiques) while a matched cohort completes traditional product-only assignments, both followed by the same secure invigilated exam. If the process-oriented cohort shows no higher exam performance or metacognitive skill, or if students in that cohort can be shown to fabricate convincing process artifacts without understanding the code, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the learning crisis created by generative AI in computing education is best addressed by redefining both assessment and the educator's role. For assessment, the authors propose that at least some take-home assignments should be redesigned to incorporate GenAI use and be graded on the process — the prompts students write, the comparisons they make between their own and AI-generated code, and their critiques of AI output — rather than on the final product alone. For teaching, they propose that educators should emphasize metacognition: teaching students how to craft effective prompts, how to verify AI-generated information, and how to monitor their own understanding. Secure, invigilated assessments remain necessary for accreditation, but the design of learning tasks should treat GenAI as an allowed, scaffolded tool. The argument is grounded in the authors' classroom experiences, including Prompt Problems, AI-generated debugging exercises, code comprehension through prompting, and a guard-railed AI teaching assistant, which they present as existence proofs that such redesigned activities are feasible in large courses.

Load-bearing premise

The whole proposal rests on the premise that grading the process — the prompts, reflections, and critiques students produce while using GenAI — will actually reflect and encourage genuine learning, and that students cannot cheaply fake that process the way they could copy a final solution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Take-home assessments in programming courses will need to be redesigned so that using GenAI is explicit and visible, with the student's prompts, comparisons, and critiques forming part of the graded submission.
  • Secure, in-person, GenAI-prohibited assessments will remain a necessary component for credentialing, even as assignments openly incorporate GenAI.
  • Educators will spend more time teaching prompt crafting, fact-checking, and how to evaluate AI-generated code, and less time on delivering routine explanations that students now obtain from GenAI.
  • Grading process artifacts at scale will require new tools, such as proxies that record student interactions with GenAI for automated or semi-automated assessment.
  • Courses should teach students to request explanations rather than full solutions from GenAI, and to verify generated information against trusted resources.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If process-oriented assessment becomes the norm, a new class of academic-integrity risk appears: students may fabricate plausible process artifacts (prompts, reflections, critiques) without genuinely engaging, so the approach would need its own validation against secure summative measures.
  • The same redesign logic plausibly extends beyond computing to any discipline where GenAI can produce acceptable products, such as writing, data analysis, and design, though the specific process artifacts would differ.
  • The paper's proposal implies a research agenda with a concrete test: comparing learning gains and metacognitive growth between students in process-oriented GenAI-integrated courses and those in traditional product-only courses, using secure assessments as the outcome measure.
  • The emphasis on metacognition suggests that training educators to teach prompting and fact-checking may be as important as training students, and could be studied as a teacher-professional-development problem.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper is an experience report from four educators at a large research-intensive institution, describing how they have adapted their computing courses since the widespread adoption of generative AI. It recounts observations of students using GenAI in take-home assignments, summarizes six LLM-based classroom activities developed by the authors and their collaborators (Prompt Problems, BugSpotter, EiPL, student-generated analogies, PuzzleMakerPy, and CodeHelp), and then proposes two primary actions for the computing education community: (1) redesign take-home assignments to incorporate GenAI use and assess the process of using GenAI rather than only the final product, and (2) refocus the educator role on metacognitive skills such as critical thinking and self-evaluation. The paper explicitly frames itself as sharing experiences and calls for further research to evaluate the proposed strategies.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and important question: how should computing education respond to the ubiquity of GenAI? Its strengths are its concreteness and transparency. Figures 3–7 give a practical, reproducible example of redesigning a CS1 question, and the proposed emphasis on secure invigilated assessments alongside GenAI-permitted assignments is a balanced position that aligns with a growing body of work in the field. The call for empirical evaluation is appropriate. However, the evidence base is largely anecdotal and self-referential: the observations in Section 2.2 are not systematically collected, and the six activities in Section 2.3 are prior works by the same group. If the paper is positioned as a position/experience report, these limitations are acceptable if explicitly acknowledged; if it is positioned as an empirically validated proposal, the evidence is not sufficient.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] The observation that take-home assignment scores were much higher than in-person invigilated scores, and that a few students struggled with print statements despite completing prior assignments, is used to motivate the need for redesigned assignments. Yet these are anecdotal observations with no systematic data, no controls for cohort differences, question difficulty, or prior preparation, and the authors themselves concede that 'there are many reasons that students struggle.' The argument that GenAI misuse caused the score gap is therefore not established. The authors should either provide quantitative evidence (e.g., matched pre-/post- comparisons or analysis of the same cohort on GenAI-permitted vs. secure assessments) or explicitly frame this as a motivating hypothesis rather than a demonstrated cause.
  2. [Section 3.1, Figure 4] The claim that the redesigned question 'lowers the likelihood of students copying and pasting without reading and understanding the responses' is asserted as an intuition, not a measured result. A student seeking to bypass learning could prompt a GenAI tool to generate not only the code but also the summaries, comparisons, and critiques requested in the four-step guide. Process artifacts are not inherently harder to fake than final products. The authors should soften this claim or provide evidence from their deployments that students actually engaged with the steps as intended.
  3. [Section 3.1] The feasibility of grading process-based assessments at scale is unresolved. The paper acknowledges the increased grading workload and proposes 'a proxy for students to access GenAI tools that store interactions that may be used to automate grading purposes,' but this is speculative and no design, reliability analysis, or comparison with traditional grading is given. Since Strategy 1 recommends broad adoption of process-oriented assignments, the lack of a validated grading mechanism is a load-bearing gap. The authors should either report on a concrete pilot of such a proxy or present this as an open research problem rather than part of the recommended course of action.
  4. [Sections 2.2 and 3.2] The paper cites Prather et al.'s 'Widening Gap' finding that struggling students face persistent metacognitive difficulties when using GenAI, yet it does not address how the proposed process-oriented assignments and metacognition emphasis would help rather than further disadvantage these students. If struggling students are the ones most likely to use GenAI superficially, a redesign that relies on self-reported prompts, reflections, and critiques may compound the gap unless it is scaffolded. The authors should discuss this tension explicitly and explain what course-level support would be needed.
  5. [Section 2.3] The six activities presented as evidence that GenAI can be integrated into classroom learning (Prompt Problems, BugSpotter, EiPL, analogies, PuzzleMakerPy, CodeHelp) are all prior works by the same group of authors. This is understandable for an experience report, but the manuscript currently reads as if these activities are established effective practices. The authors should clearly distinguish 'we have experience implementing this' from 'this is shown to improve learning outcomes.' Adding an explicit statement about the self-referential nature of the evidence would help readers calibrate the strength of the recommendations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1] The phrase 'scaffolding rather then simply producing solutions' contains a typo; 'then' should be 'than'.
  2. [Section 3.1] The tool name 'Coderunner' appears with inconsistent capitalization; elsewhere in the paper it is spelled 'CodeRunner' (e.g., Section 2.1). Please use one spelling consistently.
  3. [Section 2.2] The sentence 'We are aware that there are many reasons that students struggle and the difficulties observed are not all necessarily caused by GenAI' is grammatically awkward. Consider rewording to 'We are aware that students struggle for many reasons and that not all observed difficulties are necessarily caused by GenAI.'
  4. [Figure 4] The redesigned question assumes students have access to ChatGPT. The paper should mention that equivalent LLM tools can be used or that instructors should provide alternatives to address equity and access concerns.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Experience-based position paper with self-cited examples; no prediction reduces to its input by construction, so no significant circularity.

full rationale

This paper is an experience report and position piece, not a formal derivation. Its two proposed actions are explicitly presented as stances drawn from the authors' classroom experiences rather than as equations, fitted quantities, or uniqueness theorems. The evidence base is indeed heavily self-referential: Prompt Problems, BugSpotter, EiPL, recursion analogies, PuzzleMakerPy, and CodeHelp are all prior works by the same group, and the classroom observations are their own. However, these are cited as completed, peer-reviewed evaluations and are used as illustrative examples, not as a substitute for the paper's conclusions. The paper repeatedly acknowledges the evidentiary limit, stating that 'concrete methods to implement these strategies must still be developed, evaluated and deployed at scale,' and it explicitly advocates for future research evaluating validity and effectiveness. The claim that the redesigned Figure 4 question 'lowers the likelihood of students copying and pasting' is an untested intuition, but that is a correctness or evidence concern, not circularity: no quantity is fitted and then renamed as a prediction, no definition embeds the target outcome, and no load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation chain. Therefore, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no numeric free parameters or invented entities. It does rest on several domain assumptions about how GenAI affects learning and how process-focused assessment will improve outcomes.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Process-focused assessment with GenAI improves learning more than product-focused assessment.
    Central recommendation in Section 3.1; not empirically tested in this paper.
  • domain assumption Observed gaps between take-home and invigilated scores are substantially attributable to GenAI misuse.
    Section 2.2 anecdote; authors acknowledge other causes.
  • domain assumption Educators can effectively teach metacognitive skills such as critical thinking and self-evaluation.
    Section 3.2 relies on this for Strategy 2.
  • domain assumption Students who outsource solutions to GenAI without engagement fail to develop competence.
    Background premise for the problem statement in Section 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Automation to Cognition: Redefining the Roles of Educators and Generative AI in Computing Education." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NLU7ABT3

@misc{pith2026241211419,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Automation to Cognition: Redefining the Roles of Educators and Generative AI in Computing Education},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NLU7ABT3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11419}
}
read the original abstract

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) offers numerous opportunities to revolutionise teaching and learning in Computing Education (CE). However, educators have expressed concerns that students may over-rely on GenAI and use these tools to generate solutions without engaging in the learning process. While substantial research has explored GenAI use in CE, and many Computer Science (CS) educators have expressed their opinions and suggestions on the subject, there remains little consensus on implementing curricula and assessment changes. In this paper, we describe our experiences with using GenAI in CS-focused educational settings and the changes we have implemented accordingly in our teaching in recent years since the popularisation of GenAI. From our experiences, we propose two primary actions for the CE community: 1) redesign take-home assignments to incorporate GenAI use and assess students on their process of using GenAI to solve a task rather than simply on the final product; 2) redefine the role of educators to emphasise metacognitive aspects of learning, such as critical thinking and self-evaluation. This paper presents and discusses these stances and outlines several practical methods to implement these strategies in CS classrooms. Then, we advocate for more research addressing the concrete impacts of GenAI on CE, especially those evaluating the validity and effectiveness of new teaching practices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11419 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Providing automated feedback to students on their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of a response from the CodeHelp digital [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A typical programming question used in assign [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The redesigned version of the question in Figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A general prompt asking a CS1 question and an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An effective prompt (requesting for further details) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Brett A Becker, Paul Denny, James Finnie-Ansley, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, James Prather, and Eddie Antonio Santos. 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. 500–506

    work page 2023

  2. [3]

    Lydia Cao and Chris Dede. 2023. Navigating a world of generative AI: Suggestions for educators. The Next Level Lab at Harvard Graduate School of Education. President and Fellows of Harvard College: Cambridge (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [5]

    Paul Denny, Viraj Kumar, and Nasser Giacaman. 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 Educa- tion V. 1. 1136–1142

    work page 2023

  4. [6]

    Becker, and Brent N

    Paul Denny, Juho Leinonen, James Prather, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Thezyrie Amarouche, Brett A. Becker, and Brent N. Reeves. 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 (Portland, OR, USA) (SIGCSE 2024). Association for Computing Machinery, ...

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [8]

    Becker, James Finnie-Ansley, Arto Hellas, Juho Leinonen, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Brent N

    Paul Denny, James Prather, Brett A. Becker, James Finnie-Ansley, Arto Hellas, Juho Leinonen, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Brent N. Reeves, Eddie Antonio Santos, and Sami Sarsa. 2024. Computing Education in the Era of Generative AI.Commun. ACM 67, 2 (Jan. 2024), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/3624720

    doi:10.1145/3624720 2024

  6. [9]

    Tony Haoran Feng, Paul Denny, Burkhard Wuensche, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Steffan Hooper. 2024. More Than Meets the AI: Evaluating the performance of GPT-4 on Computer Graphics assessment questions. In Proceedings of the 26th Australasian Computing Education Conference. 182–191

    work page 2024

  7. [10]

    Tony Haoran Feng, Paul Denny, Burkhard C Wünsche, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Jacqueline Whalley. 2024. An Eye for an AI: Evaluating GPT-4o’s Visual Perception Skills and Geometric Reasoning Skills Using Computer Graphics Questions. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2024 Educator’s Forum . 1–8

    work page 2024

  8. [11]

    Wünsche, Paul Denny, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Steffan Hooper

    Tony Haoran Feng, Burkhard C. Wünsche, Paul Denny, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Steffan Hooper. 2024. Can GPT-4 Trace Rays. In Eurographics 2024 - Educa- tion Papers, Beatriz Sousa Santos and Eike Anderson (Eds.). The Eurographics Association. https://doi.org/10.2312/eged.20241003

    work page doi:10.2312/eged.20241003 2024

Show all 43 references
  1. [12]

    James Finnie-Ansley, Paul Denny, Brett A Becker, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and James Prather. 2022. The robots are coming: Exploring the implications of openai codex on introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 24th Australasian Computing Education Conference. Association fo...

    2022

  2. [13]

    Steffan Hooper, Burkhard C Wünsche, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Paul Denny, and Tony Haoran Feng. 2024. Advancing Automated Assessment Tools-Opportunities for Innovations in Upper-level Computing Courses: A Position Paper. In Proceed- ings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Comp...

    2024

  3. [14]

    Irene Hou, Sophia Mettille, Owen Man, Zhuo Li, Cynthia Zastudil, and Stephen MacNeil. 2024. The Effects of Generative AI on Computing Students’ Help- Seeking Preferences. In Proceedings of the 26th Australasian Computing Education Conference. 39–48

    2024

  4. [15]

    Xinying Hou, Zihan Wu, Xu Wang, and Barbara J. Ericson. 2024. CodeTailor: LLM- Powered Personalized Parsons Puzzles for Engaging Support While Learning Programming. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (Atlanta, GA, USA) (L@S ’24). Association for ...

    2024

  5. [16]

    Theresia Devi Indriasari, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Paul Denny. 2020. A Review of Peer Code Review in Higher Education. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 3, Article 22 (Sept. 2020), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3403935

    2020 doi

  6. [17]

    Breanna Jury, Angela Lorusso, Juho Leinonen, Paul Denny, and Andrew Luxton- Reilly. 2024. Evaluating LLM-generated Worked Examples in an Introductory Programming Course. In Proceedings of the 26th Australasian Computing Educa- tion Conference (Sydney, NSW, Australia)(ACE ’24)....

    2024

  7. [18]

    Henley, and Tovi Grossman

    Majeed Kazemitabaar, Oliver Huang, Sangho Suh, Austin Z. Henley, and Tovi Grossman. 2024. Exploring the Design Space of Cognitive Engagement Tech- niques with AI-Generated Code for Enhanced Learning. arXiv:2410.08922 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.08922 Australasian Comput...

    2024 arXiv

  8. [19]

    Majeed Kazemitabaar, Runlong Ye, Xiaoning Wang, Austin Z Henley, Paul Denny, Michelle Craig, and Tovi Grossman. 2024. CodeAid: Evaluating a Classroom Deployment of an LLM-based Programming Assistant that Balances Student and Educator Needs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.11314 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  9. [20]

    Smith, James Prather, Juho Leinonen, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Stephen MacNeil

    Chris Kerslake, Paul Denny, David H. Smith, James Prather, Juho Leinonen, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Stephen MacNeil. 2024. Integrating Natural Language Prompting Tasks in Introductory Programming Courses. In Proceedings of the 2024 on ACM Virtual Global Computing Education Con...

    2024

  10. [21]

    Khan Academy. 2024. GPT-4o (Omni) math tutoring demo on Khan Academy - YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvXZCocyU_M. [Accessed 22-05-2024]

    2024

  11. [22]

    Kumar, Rajendra K

    Amruth N. Kumar, Rajendra K. Raj, Sherif G. Aly, Monica D. Anderson, Brett A. Becker, Richard L. Blumenthal, Eric Eaton, Susan L. Epstein, Michael Goldweber, Pankaj Jalote, Douglas Lea, Michael Oudshoorn, Marcelo Pias, Susan Reiser, Christian Servin, Rahul Simha, Titus Winters...

    2024

  12. [23]

    Arun-Balajiee Lekshmi-Narayanan, Priti Oli, Jeevan Chapagain, Mohammad Hassany, Rabin Banjade, Peter Brusilovsky, and Vasile Rus. 2024. Explain- ing Code Examples in Introductory Programming Courses: LLM vs Humans. arXiv:2403.05538 [cs.CY] https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.05538

    2024 arXiv

  13. [24]

    Richard Lobb and Jenny Harlow. 2016. Coderunner: A tool for assessing computer programming skills. ACM Inroads 7, 1 (2016), 47–51

    2016

  14. [25]

    Che Yee Lye and Lyndon Lim. 2024. Generative Artificial Intelligence in Ter- tiary Education: Assessment Redesign Principles and Considerations. Education Sciences 14, 6 (2024), 569

    2024

  15. [26]

    Qianou Ma, Hua Shen, Kenneth Koedinger, and Sherry Tongshuang Wu. 2024. How to Teach Programming in the AI Era? Using LLMs as a Teachable Agent for Debugging. In Artificial Intelligence in Education , Andrew M. Olney, Irene- Angelica Chounta, Zitao Liu, Olga C. Santos, and Ig ...

    2024

  16. [27]

    Stephen MacNeil, Andrew Tran, Arto Hellas, Joanne Kim, Sami Sarsa, Paul Denny, Seth Bernstein, and Juho Leinonen. 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 Sy...

    2023

  17. [28]

    Silvia Milano, Joshua A McGrane, and Sabina Leonelli. 2023. Large language models challenge the future of higher education. Nature Machine Intelligence 5, 4 (2023), 333–334

    2023

  18. [29]

    OpenAI. 2024. ChatGPT. https://chatgpt.com/. [Accessed 10-12-2024]

    2024

  19. [30]

    Michael Sheinman Orenstrakh, Oscar Karnalim, Carlos Anibal Suarez, and Michael Liut. 2023. Detecting llm-generated text in computing education: A comparative study for chatgpt cases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07411 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  20. [31]

    Mike Perkins. 2023. Academic Integrity considerations of AI Large Language Models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond. Journal of university teaching & learning practice 20, 2 (2023), 07

    2023

  21. [32]

    James Prather, Brett A Becker, Michelle Craig, Paul Denny, Dastyni Loksa, and Lauren Margulieux. 2020. What do we think we think we are doing? Metacogni- tion and self-regulation in programming. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM confer- ence on international computing education r...

    2020

  22. [33]

    James Prather, Paul Denny, Juho Leinonen, Brett A Becker, Ibrahim Albluwi, Michelle Craig, Hieke Keuning, Natalie Kiesler, Tobias Kohn, Andrew Luxton- Reilly, et al. 2023. The robots are here: Navigating the generative ai revolution in computing education. In Proceedings of th...

    2023

  23. [34]

    Becker, Bailey Kimmel, Jared Wright, and Ben Briggs

    James Prather, Brent N Reeves, Juho Leinonen, Stephen MacNeil, Arisoa S Randrianasolo, Brett A. Becker, Bailey Kimmel, Jared Wright, and Ben Briggs

  24. [35]

    Victor-Alexandru Pădurean, Paul Denny, and Adish Singla. 2024. BugSpotter: Automated Generation of Code Debugging Exercises. arXiv:2411.14303 [cs.SE] https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.14303

    2024 arXiv

  25. [36]

    Sami Sarsa, Paul Denny, Arto Hellas, and Juho Leinonen. 2022. Automatic Generation of Programming Exercises and Code Explanations Using Large Lan- guage Models. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Com- puting Education Research - Volume 1 (Lugano and Vir...

    2022

  26. [37]

    Jaromir Savelka, Arav Agarwal, Christopher Bogart, Yifan Song, and Majd Sakr

  27. [38]

    Brad Sheese, Mark Liffiton, Jaromir Savelka, and Paul Denny. 2024. Patterns of Student Help-Seeking When Using a Large Language Model-Powered Pro- gramming Assistant. In Proceedings of the 26th Australasian Computing Education Conference. 49–57

    2024

  28. [39]

    Ruixiang Tang, Yu-Neng Chuang, and Xia Hu. 2024. The Science of Detecting LLM-Generated Text. Commun. ACM 67, 4 (2024), 50–59

    2024

  29. [40]

    Smith, and Stephen MacNeil

    Andrew Tran, Kenneth Angelikas, Egi Rama, Chiku Okechukwu, David H. Smith, and Stephen MacNeil. 2023. Generating Multiple Choice Questions for Comput- ing Courses Using Large Language Models. In 2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/FI...

    2023

  30. [41]

    Smith IV, Mounika Padala, Christine Alvarado, Jamie Gorson Benario, and Leo Porter

    Annapurna Vadaparty, Daniel Zingaro, David H. Smith IV, Mounika Padala, Christine Alvarado, Jamie Gorson Benario, and Leo Porter. 2024. CS1-LLM: Integrating LLMs into CS1 Instruction. In Proceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 (M...

    2024

  31. [42]

    Junchao Wu, Shu Yang, Runzhe Zhan, Yulin Yuan, Derek F Wong, and Lidia S Chao. 2023. A survey on llm-gernerated text detection: Necessity, methods, and future directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14724 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  32. [43]

    Burkhard C Wünsche, Zhen Chen, Lindsay Shaw, Thomas Suselo, Kai-Cheung Leung, Davis Dimalen, Wannes van der Mark, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Richard Lobb. 2018. Automatic assessment of OpenGL computer graphics assignments. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual ACM conference on inn...

    2018

  33. [44]

    Burkhard C Wünsche, Edward Huang, Lindsay Shaw, Thomas Suselo, Kai-Cheung Leung, Davis Dimalen, Wannes van der Mark, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Richard Lobb. 2019. CodeRunnerGL-An interactive web-based tool for computer graphics teaching and assessment. In 2019 International Co...

    2019

  34. [2023]

    In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Inno- vation and Technology in Computer Science Education V

    Can generative pre-trained transformers (gpt) pass assessments in higher education programming courses?. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Inno- vation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 . 117–123

    2023

  35. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Interna- tional Computing Education Research - Volume 1 (Melbourne, VIC, Australia) (ICER ’24)

    The Widening Gap: The Benefits and Harms of Generative AI for Novice Programmers. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Interna- tional Computing Education Research - Volume 1 (Melbourne, VIC, Australia) (ICER ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.