Generative AI and large language models hold great promise in enhancing programming education by generating individualized feedback and hints for learners. Recent works have primarily focused on improving the quality of generated feedback to achieve human tutors' quality.

With the increasing reliance on LLMs as research agents, distinguishing between LLM and human-generated ideas has become crucial for understanding the cognitive nuances of LLMs' research capabilities. While detecting LLM-generated text has been extensively studied, distinguishing human vs LLM-generated scientific idea remains an unexplored area. In this work, we systematically evaluate the ability of state-of-the-art (SOTA) machine learning models to differentiate between human and LLM-generated ideas, particularly after successive paraphrasing stages. Our findings highlight the challenges SOTA models face in source attribution, with detection performance declining by an average of 25.4\% after five consecutive paraphrasing stages. Additionally, we demonstrate that incorporating the research problem as contextual information improves detection performance by up to 2.97%. Notably, our analysis reveals that detection algorithms struggle significantly when ideas are paraphrased into a simplified, non-expert style, contributing the most to the erosion of distinguishable LLM signatures.

Abstract--The rise of Generative AI (GenAI) tools like Chat-GPT has created new opportunities and challenges for computing education. Existing research has primarily focused on GenAI's ability to complete educational tasks and its impact on student performance, often overlooking its effects on knowledge gains. In this study, we investigate how GenAI assistance compares to conventional online resources in supporting knowledge gains across different proficiency levels. We conducted a controlled user experiment with 24 undergraduate students of two different levels of programming experience (beginner, intermediate) to examine how students interact with ChatGPT while solving programming tasks. We analyzed task performance, conceptual understanding, and interaction behaviors. Our findings reveal that generating complete solutions with GenAI significantly improves task performance, especially for beginners, but does not consistently result in knowledge gains. Importantly, usage strategies differ by experience: beginners tend to rely heavily on GenAI toward task completion often without knowledge gain in the process, while intermediates adopt more selective approaches. We find that both over-reliance and minimal use result in weaker knowledge gains overall. Based on our results, we call on students and educators to adopt GenAI as a learning rather than a problem solving tool. Our study highlights the urgent need for guidance when integrating GenAI into programming education to foster deeper understanding. The rapid development of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) has led to its widespread adoption across various domains to boost productivity and streamline workflows. Large Language Models (LLMs), such as OpenAI's ChatGPT and Codex, Google Gemini, and GitHub Copilot, have been integrated into domains including software engineering [1], [2], healthcare [3], education [4], creative writing [5], [6], and digital music [7], offering capabilities such as code generation, question answering, and image generation. These authors contributed equally to this work. Some studies evaluated GenAI's performance on programming tasks [8], user interface design education [9], and computer vision coursework [10]. Others focused on assessing the accuracy and usability of GenAIgenerated responses [11], [12].

Abstract--The use of AI code-generation tools is becoming increasingly common, making it important to understand how software developers are adopting these tools. In this study, we investigate how developers engage with Amazon's Code-Whisperer, an LLM-based code-generation tool. We conducted two user studies with two groups of 10 participants each, interacting with CodeWhisperer - the first to understand which interactions were critical to capture and the second to collect low-level interaction data using a custom telemetry plugin. Our mixed-methods analysis identified four behavioral patterns: 1) incremental code refinement, 2) explicit instruction using natural language comments, 3) baseline structuring with model suggestions, and 4) integrative use with external sources. We provide a comprehensive analysis of these patterns . Several IDE-based code generation tools have been released in the past few years, such as GitHub's Copilot [8], Kite [14], Amazon's Code Whisperer [20], Tabnine [22], and WPCode [28]. Research reveals that being able to achieve their full potential requires a certain level of guidance to ensure that the tool's output aligns with the user's goal [21].

Generative AI and large language models hold great promise in enhancing programming education by generating individualized feedback and hints for learners. Recent works have primarily focused on improving the quality of generated feedback to achieve human tutors' quality.

The broad adoption of Generative AI (GenAI) is impacting Computer Science education, and recent studies found its benefits and potential concerns when students use it for programming learning. However, most existing explorations focus on GenAI tools that primarily support text-to-text interaction. With recent developments, GenAI applications have begun supporting multiple modes of communication, known as multimodality. In this work, we explored how undergraduate programming novices choose and work with multimodal GenAI tools, and their criteria for choices. We selected a commercially available multimodal GenAI platform for interaction, as it supports multiple input and output modalities, including text, audio, image upload, and real-time screen-sharing. Through 16 think-aloud sessions that combined participant observation with follow-up semi-structured interviews, we investigated student modality choices for GenAI tools when completing programming problems and the underlying criteria for modality selections. With multimodal communication emerging as the future of AI in education, this work aims to spark continued exploration on understanding student interaction with multimodal GenAI in the context of CS education.

Significant advancements have been made in the capabilities of code large language models, leading to their rapid adoption and application across a wide range of domains. However, their further advancements are often constrained by the scarcity of real-world coding problems. To bridge this gap, we propose a novel framework for synthesizing code problems that emulate authentic real-world scenarios. This framework systematically integrates domain knowledge, domain skills, and coding skills, all of which are meticulously extracted from real-world programming-related datasets, including Stack Overflow and Kaggle. The extracted elements serve as the foundational building blocks for constructing code problems. To align the generated problems with practical applications, application scenarios are also mined from the aforementioned datasets. These scenarios are then utilized to construct a scenario-centric graph that interconnects domain knowledge, domain skills, and coding skills. Based on this structured representation, a sampling strategy on the graph is designed, which effectively controls the generation of a code problem with complexity and diversity, reflects real-world challenges. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method consistently achieves superior performance over state-of-the-art open-source large language models of varying sizes and functionalities, including both coders and general-purpose models, across a diverse set of real-world benchmarks.

Generative AI is transforming computing education by enabling the automatic generation of personalized content and feedback. We investigate its capabilities in providing high-quality programming tasks to students. Despite promising advancements in task generation, a quality gap remains between AI-generated and expert-created tasks. The AI-generated tasks may not align with target programming concepts, could be incomprehensible to students, or may contain critical issues such as incorrect tests. Existing works often require interventions from human teachers for validation. We address these challenges by introducing PyTaskSyn, a novel synthesis technique that first generates a programming task and then decides whether it meets certain quality criteria to be given to students. The key idea is to break this process into multiple stages performed by expert and student agents simulated using both strong and weaker generative models. Through extensive evaluation, we show that PyTaskSyn significantly improves task quality compared to baseline techniques and showcases the importance of each specialized agent type in our validation pipeline. Additionally, we conducted user studies using our publicly available web application and show that PyTaskSyn can deliver high-quality programming tasks comparable to expert-designed ones while reducing workload and costs, and being more engaging than programming tasks that are available in online resources.