Search and Filter

Repository Feedback

Your feedback helps us improve the repository's content relevance and usability. Please share your thoughts to help us better serve researchers and practitioners.

Submit feedback

Submit a research study

Contribute to the repository:

Add a paper

Learning by Teaching: Engaging Students as Instructors of Large Language Models in Computer Science Education

Date
Publisher
arXiv
While Large Language Models (LLMs) are often used as virtual tutors in computer science (CS) education, this approach can foster passive learning and over-reliance. This paper presents a novel pedagogical paradigm that inverts this model: students act as instructors who must teach an LLM to solve problems. To facilitate this, we developed strategies for designing questions with engineered knowledge gaps that only a student can bridge, and we introduce Socrates, a system for deploying this method with minimal overhead. We evaluated our approach in an undergraduate course and found that this active-learning method led to statistically significant improvements in student performance compared to historical cohorts. Our work demonstrates a practical, cost-effective framework for using LLMs to deepen student engagement and mastery.
Study at a glance
  • Question: Does having students teach AI models to solve problems improve their performance in an undergraduate computer science course?
  • Setting and data: Undergraduate computer organization course at CUNY Queens College, 49 to 80 students compared to 133 to 237 historical students.
  • Method: Quasi-experimental comparison of cohort outcomes before and after introducing four teaching assignments (quasi-experimental design).
Why it matters

Using AI models as virtual tutors can foster passive learning and over-reliance. Reversing roles so students must teach the model could deepen engagement and understanding.

Key findings
  • Undergraduate students using the learning-by-teaching system achieved statistically significant improvements on course assignments (86.4% vs. 82.9%) and projects (85.4% vs. 78.4%) compared to historical cohorts.
  • Exam score differences between the participating cohort (72.5%) and historical cohorts (71.3%) were not statistically significant.
  • GPT-4o achieved the highest grading correctness across most assignments but cost substantially more than GPT-3.5-turbo and Gemini-1.0-pro.

Summary drafted with AI from the full paper and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.

Who is the user?
Who age?