Brent N. Reeves

The rise of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has sparked a rapid change in computing curricula and teaching approaches. GenAI coding tools can accurately complete assignments, answer test questions, and perform other tasks traditionally associated with learning programming, especially at the introductory level. Because GenAI is still so new, researchers investigating student usage of GenAI have used informal rubrics and questionnaires. To advance, the field needs validated instruments that measure student perception and use of GenAI. This paper presents the development and initial validation of an instrument to measure self-efficacy while using GenAI to learn programming. Self-efficacy is an important construct in education research because it robustly correlates with student success, across disciplines and ages, including undergraduate computing education. Computing education researchers have presented several validated self-efficacy instruments, most recently by Steinhorst et al. in 2020. Critically, this instrument was created before the rise of GenAI’s popularity in 2022. To complement this instrument, we created a GenAI scale similar in style to the Steinhorst self-efficacy instrument, consisting originally of 11 items and revised to 5 items. We report two important findings in this paper. First, we found strong support for the validity of the existing Steinhorst instrument in a new context, specifically an introductory programming course that fully integrates GenAI. Second, the new GenAI scale shows strong internal reliability, discriminant validity with items in the Steinhorst subscales, and criterion validity with students’ GenAI usage patterns. Based on statistical analysis and cognitive probing interviews, we argue for the validity of the five-item scale to measure students’ GenAI self-efficacy in the context of programming.

Generative AI (GenAI) is advancing rapidly, and the literature in computing education is expanding almost as quickly. Initial responses to GenAI tools were mixed between panic and utopian optimism. Many were fast to point out the opportunities and challenges of GenAI. Researchers reported that these new tools are capable of solving most introductory programming tasks and are causing disruptions throughout the curriculum. These tools can write and explain code, enhance error messages, create resources for instructors, and even provide feedback and help for students like a traditional teaching assistant. In 2024, new research started to emerge on the effects of GenAI usage in the computing classroom. These new data involve the use of GenAI to support classroom instruction at scale and to teach students how to code with GenAI. In support of the former, a new class of tools is emerging that can provide personalized feedback to students on their programming assignments or teach both programming and prompting skills at the same time. With the literature expanding so rapidly, this report aims to summarize and explain what is happening on the ground in computing classrooms. We provide a systematic literature review; a survey of educators and industry professionals; and interviews with educators using GenAI in their courses, educators studying GenAI, and researchers who create GenAI tools to support computing education. The triangulation of these methods and data sources expands the understanding of GenAI usage and perceptions at this critical moment for our community.

Novice programmers often struggle through programming problem solving due to a lack of metacognitive awareness and strategies. Previous research has shown that novices can encounter multiple metacognitive difficulties while programming, such as forming incorrect conceptual models of the problem or having a false sense of progress after testing their solution. Novices are typically unaware of how these difficulties are hindering their progress. Meanwhile, many novices are now programming with generative AI (GenAI), which can provide complete solutions to most introductory programming problems, code suggestions, hints for next steps when stuck, and explain cryptic error messages. Its impact on novice metacognition has only started to be explored. Here we replicate a previous study that examined novice programming problem solving behavior and extend it by incorporating GenAI tools. Through 21 lab sessions consisting of participant observation, interview, and eye tracking, we explore how novices are coding with GenAI tools. Although 20 of 21 students completed the assigned programming problem, our findings show an unfortunate divide in the use of GenAI tools between students who did and did not struggle. Some students who did not struggle were able to use GenAI to accelerate, creating code they already intended to make, and were able to ignore unhelpful or incorrect inline code suggestions. But for students who struggled, our findings indicate that previously known metacognitive difficulties persist, and that GenAI unfortunately can compound them and even introduce new metacognitive difficulties. Furthermore, struggling students often expressed cognitive dissonance about their problem solving ability, thought they performed better than they did, and finished with an illusion of competence. Based on our observations from both groups, we propose ways to scaffold the novice GenAI experience and make suggestions for future work.

Generative AI (GenAI) has seen great advancements in the past two years and the conversation around adoption is increasing. Widely available GenAI tools are disrupting classroom practices as they can write and explain code with minimal student prompting. While most acknowledge that there is no way to stop students from using such tools, a consensus has yet to form on how students should use them if they choose to do so. At the same time, researchers have begun to introduce new pedagogical tools that integrate GenAI into computing curricula. These new tools offer students personalized help or attempt to teach prompting skills without undercutting code comprehension. This working group aims to detail the current landscape of education-focused GenAI tools and teaching approaches, present gaps where new tools or approaches could appear, identify good practice-examples, and provide a guide for instructors to utilize GenAI as they continue to adapt to this new era.

We explored how undergraduate introductory programming students naturalistically used generative AI to solve programming problems. We focused on the relationship between their use of AI to their self-regulation strategies, self-efficacy, and fear of failure in programming. In this repeated-measures, mixed-methods research, we examined students' patterns of using generative AI with qualitative student reflections and their self-regulation, self-efficacy, and fear of failure with quantitative instruments at multiple times throughout the semester. We also explored the relationships among these variables to learner characteristics, perceived usefulness of AI, and performance. Overall, our results suggest that student factors affect their baseline use of AI. In particular, students with higher self-efficacy, lower fear of failure, or higher prior grades tended to use AI less or later in the problem-solving process and rated it as less useful than others. Interestingly, we found no relationship between students' self-regulation strategies and their use of AI. Students who used AI less or later in problem-solving also had higher grades in the course, but this is most likely due to prior characteristics as our data do not suggest that this is a causal relationship.