From "Ban It Till We Understand It" to "Resistance is Futile": How University Programming Instructors Plan to Adapt as More Students Use AI Code Generation and Explanation Tools such as ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past year (2022–2023), recently-released AI tools such as ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot have gained significant attention from computing educators. Both researchers and practitioners have discovered that these tools can generate correct solutions to a variety of introductory programming assignments and accurately explain the contents of code. Given their current capabilities and likely advances in the coming years, how do university instructors plan to adapt their courses to ensure that students still learn well? To gather a diverse sample of perspectives, we interviewed 20 introductory programming instructors (9 women + 11 men) across 9 countries (Australia, Botswana, Canada, Chile, China, Rwanda, Spain, Switzerland, United States) spanning all 6 populated continents. To our knowledge, this is the first empirical study to gather instructor perspectives about how they plan to adapt to these AI coding tools that more students will likely have access to in the future. We found that, in the short-term, many planned to take immediate measures to discourage AI-assisted cheating. Then opinions diverged about how to work with AI coding tools longer-term, with one side wanting to ban them and continue teaching programming fundamentals, and the other side wanting to integrate them into courses to prepare students for future jobs. Our study findings capture a rare snapshot in time in early 2023 as computing instructors are just starting to form opinions about this fast-growing phenomenon but have not yet converged to any consensus about best practices. Using these findings as inspiration, we synthesized a diverse set of open research questions regarding how to develop, deploy, and evaluate AI coding tools for computing education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it