Date
Publisher
arXiv
Generative AI (GenAI) models have broad implications for education in
general, impacting the foundations of what we teach and how we assess. This is
especially true in computing, where LLMs tuned for coding have demonstrated
shockingly good performance on the types of assignments historically used in
introductory CS (CS1) courses. As a result, CS1 courses will need to change
what skills are taught and how they are assessed. Computing education
researchers have begun to study student use of LLMs, but there remains much to
be understood about the ways that these tools affect student outcomes. In this
paper, we present the design and evaluation of a new CS1 course at a large
research-intensive university that integrates the use of LLMs as a learning
tool for students. We describe the design principles used to create our new
CS1-LLM course, our new course objectives, and evaluation of student outcomes
and perceptions throughout the course as measured by assessment scores and
surveys. Our findings suggest that 1) student exam performance outcomes,
including differences among demographic groups, are largely similar to
historical outcomes for courses without integration of LLM tools, 2) large,
open-ended projects may be particularly valuable in an LLM context, and 3)
students predominantly found the LLM tools helpful, although some had concerns
regarding over-reliance on the tools.
Study at a glance
- Question: How does integrating generative AI into introductory computer science affect student performance, perceptions, and demographic achievement gaps?
- Setting and data: Introductory computer science course at a large U.S. research university, up to 556 students across surveys and course assessments.
- Method: Mixed methods including benchmarking exam comparison, ordinary least squares regression analysis, and qualitative content analysis of surveys.
Why it matters
Generative AI coding tools challenge traditional introductory computer science instruction, but little evidence exists on how fully redesigning large-scale courses to integrate these tools affects student learning and historical demographic equity gaps.
Key findings
- Students learning with generative AI performed comparably to historical international benchmarks on programming fundamentals, scoring 11% higher on an Explain in Plain English question.
- While racial disparities and prior-experience gaps persisted on exams, demographics did not predict scores on open-ended programming projects where students could use AI.
- Most students found Copilot helpful for writing code and learning, though roughly a quarter expressed concerns about becoming over-reliant on the tool.
Summary drafted with AI from the full paper and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who is the user?
Who age?
Study design
