AI-Generated Traces for Novice Programmers: Learning Effects and Learner Differences in a Multi-Institutional Study

Generative AI tools provide novice programmers with instant, personalized support, but also raise concerns about whether AI use supports or bypasses students' regulation of problem-solving. Existing work has largely focused on correctness, usability, or overall usage frequency, with less attention to how student--AI help-seeking unfolds. This study addresses this gap by analyzing AI-assisted help-seeking trajectories in university-level programming. Using an SRL-informed analytical framework that links prompt-level help-seeking codes to conceptual, implementation, debugging, and reflective forms of support, we analyzed 1,290 task-specific student prompts linked to 17,190 code submissions from 71 students in introductory Python programming courses. Specifically, we examined how help-seeking interactions were structured across turns and attempts, and how trajectory patterns related to task scores and the number of code submissions. Results indicate that many students primarily used AI for reactive troubleshooting rather than for planned, self-regulated problem-solving. Although trajectory patterns were not associated with significant differences in task scores, they differed substantially in the number of code submissions required. These findings suggest that the educational significance of AI support lies not only in whether students use AI, but in how their help-seeking trajectories develop during programming problem-solving.

Generative AI is reshaping programming education, yet educators often infer students' AI-supported learning from classroom observations alone. This experience report presents a trio-ethnography involving two computing educators with different teaching philosophies and one undergraduate computer science student to examine how these interpretations evolve through dialogue. Across three conversations, the educators reflected on students' AI use, discussed changes to programming pedagogy, and revisited their assumptions after engaging with the student's lived experiences. Rather than simply confirming or contradicting the educators' perspectives, the student's narratives revealed learning processes that were largely invisible in the classroom, prompting both educators to reconsider assumptions about AI use, assessment, transparency, and programming instruction. We argue that trio-ethnography offers a valuable reflective approach for helping computing educators move beyond observable student behaviors toward a richer understanding of AI-supported learning and for informing instructional adaptation in the era of generative AI.

Current AI-assisted programming tools are predominantly linear and chat-based, which deviates from the iterative and branching nature of programming itself. Our preliminary study with developers using AI assistants suggested that they often struggle to explore alternatives, manage prompting sequences, and trace changes. Informed by these insights, we created EvoGraph, an IDE plugin that integrates AI interactions and code changes as a lightweight and interactive development graph. EvoGraph automatically records a branching AI-assisted coding history and allows developers to manipulate the graph to compare, merge, and revisit prior collaborative AI programming states. Our user study with 20 participants revealed that EvoGraph addressed developers' challenges identified in our preliminary study while imposing lower cognitive load. Participants also found the graph-based representation supported safe exploration, efficient iteration, and reflection on AI-generated changes. Our work highlights design opportunities for tools to help developers make sense of and act on their problem-solving progress in the emerging AI-mediated programming context.