Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2306.03289

Exploring the Role of AI Assistants in Computer Science Education: Methods, Implications, and Instructor Perspectives

Abstract

The use of AI assistants, along with the challenges they present, has sparked significant debate within the community of computer science education. While these tools demonstrate the potential to support students' learning and instructors' teaching, they also raise concerns about enabling unethical uses by students. Previous research has suggested various strategies aimed at addressing these issues. However, they concentrate on the introductory programming courses and focus on one specific type of problem. The present research evaluated the performance of ChatGPT, a state-of-the-art AI assistant, at solving 187 problems spanning three distinct types that were collected from six undergraduate computer science. The selected courses covered different topics and targeted different program levels. We then explored methods to modify these problems to adapt them to ChatGPT's capabilities to reduce potential misuse by students. Finally, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 computer science instructors. The aim was to gather their opinions on our problem modification methods, understand their perspectives on the impact of AI assistants on computer science education, and learn their strategies for adapting their courses to leverage these AI capabilities for educational improvement. The results revealed issues ranging from academic fairness to long-term impact on students' mental models. From our results, we derived design implications and recommended tools to help instructors design and create future course material that could more effectively adapt to AI assistants' capabilities.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Tianjia Wang, Daniel Vargas-Díaz, Chris Brown, Yan Chen. 2023-11-13. Exploring the Role of AI Assistants in Computer Science Education: Methods, Implications, and Instructor Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1109/vl-hcc57772.2023.00018

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Are explainable AI (XAI) evaluation strategies aligned? Comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical evaluation measures using saliency maps

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) approaches often relies on three families of methods: subjective measures (e.g., questionnaires on trust or satisfaction), objective measures (e.g., task performance metrics), and mathematical metrics (e.g., for faithfulness). Yet, it remains unclear how these families align or diverge in practice. In a{preregistered} between-subjects study (N=166), we use three established saliency map techniques (LIME, Grad-CAM, Guided Backpropagation) as a testbed to examine this issue. We find that each family of methods leads to different conclusions: participants reported no differences in trust or satisfaction, Grad-CAM improved user performance, while mathematical metrics favored Guided Backpropagation. At the same time, mathematical metrics were only partially related to user performance, and these relationships were sometimes counterintuitive. Our findings highlight the methodological importance of comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical approaches when evaluating XAI, illustrating both tensions and aspects that are aligned. We discuss implications for XAI evaluation frameworks.

cs.HC

Mind Your Ps and Qs: Positive Moderation Practice in the Positive Queue

Online communities rely on volunteer moderators to maintain order. Despite their key role, moderators are given a toolbox of punishments and far less support for encouraging contributions they want to see more of. We introduce the Positive Queue as a positive counterpart to Reddit's modqueue: a dedicated space for moderators to discover contributions and behaviors they want to encourage and positively reinforce. With five moderators, four with 6-14 years of experience, we use the Positive Queue to examine how moderators operationalize positive reinforcement. Moderators combined predicted community reception, observed engagement, and their own judgment; used prediction-engagement mismatches to identify overlooked content; and repurposed positive features for punitive and retrospective work. These findings surface tensions around labor, attribution, and community fit. We contribute the Positive Queue as a working system and conceptualize positive moderation as recognition infrastructure that shapes what moderators notice, whose judgment becomes visible, and how recognition reaches contributors.

cs.HC

PILOT: Control Surfaces for Authoring Social Media Feeds

Personalized social media feeds infer preferences from behavior, leaving people little direct control over what they see. Existing controls range from post-level reactions to rules and natural language, but little is known about how people use them together or how added expressiveness changes effort. We built PILOT, a Bluesky feed-authoring system that turns in-feed actions into explicit preferences, deterministic ranking, and inspectable outcomes. A study with seven participants informed an expanded implementation, which we organized into three nested control surfaces that ten participants compared within subjects. Participants assigned controls to distinct jobs: broad controls set direction, in-post actions refined results, and filters removed content. Richer surfaces did not necessarily feel more effortful, and participants' experiences depended more on whether they could verify and repair outcomes. Our findings show that usable feed control requires not simply more controls, but orchestration across mechanisms that support expression, inspection, repair, and episodic use.

cs.HC