Debugging is an essential skill when learning to program, yet its instruction and emphasis often vary widely across introductory courses. In the era of code-generating large language models (LLMs), the ability for students to reason about code and identify errors is increasingly important. However, students frequently resort to trial-and-error methods to resolve bugs without fully understanding the underlying issues. Developing the ability to identify and hypothesize the cause of bugs is crucial but can be time-consuming to teach effectively through traditional means. This paper introduces BugSpotter, an innovative tool that leverages an LLM to generate buggy code from a problem description and verify the synthesized bugs via a test suite. Students interact with BugSpotter by designing failing test cases, where the buggy code's output differs from the expected result as defined by the problem specification. This not only provides opportunities for students to enhance their debugging skills, but also to practice reading and understanding problem specifications. We deployed BugSpotter in a large classroom setting and compared the debugging exercises it generated to exercises hand-crafted by an instructor for the same problems. We found that the LLM-generated exercises produced by BugSpotter varied in difficulty and were well-matched to the problem specifications. Importantly, the LLM-generated exercises were comparable to those manually created by instructors with respect to student performance, suggesting that BugSpotter could be an effective and efficient aid for learning debugging.

The sudden emergence of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT has had a disruptive impact throughout the computing education community. LLMs have been shown to excel at producing correct code to CS1 and CS2 problems, and can even act as friendly assistants to students learning how to code. Recent work shows that LLMs demonstrate unequivocally superior results in being able to explain and resolve compiler error messages -- for decades, one of the most frustrating parts of learning how to code. However, LLM-generated error message explanations have only been assessed by expert programmers in artificial conditions. This work sought to understand how novice programmers resolve programming error messages (PEMs) in a more realistic scenario. We ran a within-subjects study with $n$ = 106 participants in which students were tasked to fix six buggy C programs. For each program, participants were randomly assigned to fix the problem using either a stock compiler error message, an expert-handwritten error message, or an error message explanation generated by GPT-4. Despite promising evidence on synthetic benchmarks, we found that GPT-4 generated error messages outperformed conventional compiler error messages in only 1 of the 6 tasks, measured by students' time-to-fix each problem. Handwritten explanations still outperform LLM and conventional error messages, both on objective and subjective measures.

Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) are fundamentally reshaping computing, with large language models (LLMs) now effectively being able to generate and interpret source code and natural language instructions. These emergent capabilities have sparked urgent questions in the computing education community around how educators should adapt their pedagogy to address the challenges and to leverage the opportunities presented by this new technology. In this working group report, we undertake a comprehensive exploration of LLMs in the context of computing education and make five significant contributions. First, we provide a detailed review of the literature on LLMs in computing education and synthesise findings from 71 primary articles. Second, we report the findings of a survey of computing students and instructors from across 20 countries, capturing prevailing attitudes towards LLMs and their use in computing education contexts. Third, to understand how pedagogy is already changing, we offer insights collected from in-depth interviews with 22 computing educators from five continents who have already adapted their curricula and assessments. Fourth, we use the ACM Code of Ethics to frame a discussion of ethical issues raised by the use of large language models in computing education, and we provide concrete advice for policy makers, educators, and students. Finally, we benchmark the performance of LLMs on various computing education datasets, and highlight the extent to which the capabilities of current models are rapidly improving. Our aim is that this report will serve as a focal point for both researchers and practitioners who are exploring, adapting, using, and evaluating LLMs and LLM-based tools in computing classrooms.

Reasoning about code and explaining its purpose are fundamental skills for computer scientists. There has been extensive research in the field of computing education on the relationship between a student's ability to explain code and other skills such as writing and tracing code. In particular, the ability to describe at a high-level of abstraction how code will behave over all possible inputs correlates strongly with code writing skills. However, developing the expertise to comprehend and explain code accurately and succinctly is a challenge for many students. Existing pedagogical approaches that scaffold the ability to explain code, such as producing exemplar code explanations on demand, do not currently scale well to large classrooms. The recent emergence of powerful large language models (LLMs) may offer a solution. In this paper, we explore the potential of LLMs in generating explanations that can serve as examples to scaffold students' ability to understand and explain code. To evaluate LLM-created explanations, we compare them with explanations created by students in a large course ($n \approx 1000$) with respect to accuracy, understandability and length. We find that LLM-created explanations, which can be produced automatically on demand, are rated as being significantly easier to understand and more accurate summaries of code than student-created explanations. We discuss the significance of this finding, and suggest how such models can be incorporated into introductory programming education.