Date
Publisher
arXiv
The increasing use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) tools in education highlights the need to understand their influence on individuals' thinking processes and agency. This research explored 20 university students' interaction with GAI during programming. Participants completed surveys, recorded their screens during an hour-long programming session, and reflected on their GAI use. To analyse the data, we developed an AI-augmented thinking coding scheme with four dimensions: Question Formulation, Solution Development, Solution Analysis and Evaluation, and Solution Refinement. Participants were categorised into human-led and AI-led groups based on the time ratio of human-generating source code versus copying source code from GAI. T-tests indicated that the human-led group spent significantly more time on Solution Development and Solution Refinement than the AI-led group. Sequential pattern mining revealed distinct patterns of the two groups: the human-led group often refined GAI outputs, while the AI-led group frequently relied on direct answers from GAI. Correlation analyses found that positive attitudes towards AI, critical thinking, and programming self-efficacy positively correlated with Question Formulation; critical thinking was positively related to Solution Refinement; and programming self-efficacy was negatively associated with Solution Analysis and Evaluation. This study enhances understanding of the thinking process in GAI-supported programming.
Study at a glance
- Question: How does generative AI influence students' thinking processes and agency during programming tasks?
- Setting and data: 20 university students; surveys, reflections, and screen recordings from an hour-long programming session.
- Method: Analysis of screen recordings, surveys, and reflections using a coding scheme, statistical comparisons (t-tests), and sequential pattern mining.
Why it matters
The increasing use of generative AI tools in education highlights the need to understand how they influence individuals' thinking processes and agency.
Key findings
- In a programming task with 20 university students, human-led learners spent significantly more time developing and refining solutions than AI-led learners.
- Human-led students frequently refined generative AI outputs, whereas AI-led students regularly relied on direct answers from the tool.
- Critical thinking was positively associated with asking questions and refining solutions, while programming self-efficacy was negatively associated with evaluating solutions.
Summary drafted with AI from the paper’s abstract and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who is the user?
Who age?
Why use AI?
Study design
