Programming Education

AI teaching assistants (AI TAs) backed by large language models (LLMs) and pedagogical guardrails are increasingly being integrated into programming courses, providing students with scalable access to hints, conceptual explanations, and code-level feedback. However, guardrails may also create friction. If students feel that the support provided is overly restrictive or poorly contextualized to their current progress, they may bypass approved tools for general-purpose LLMs. To investigate how AI TA design affects students' learning experiences, we conducted a randomized controlled trial with 132 students in an introductory programming course. Students completed three tasks related to code-writing and debugging and were randomly assigned to one of four AI TAs varied across two dimensions: pedagogical guidance style (Socratic vs. Direct instruction) and context awareness (no context vs. full context of the problem and student solution). We examined students' perceptions, interaction behaviors, and evidence of post-task comprehension. Students rated the Socratic AI TA with full context least favorably, reporting significantly lower perceived support for task completion. Descriptively, this condition also showed the highest observed interaction stress, the highest rate of external LLM use, and the lowest proportion of post-task explanations demonstrating full comprehension, though these differences were not statistically significant. These findings suggest that guardrailed AI TAs are not automatically better for learning. Instead, their effectiveness depends on how pedagogical guidance and contextual awareness are balanced in ways that students experience as useful, supportive, and worth continuing to use.

The public visibility of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is growing rapidly, driven by the positive impact of its applications across diverse fields of knowledge. In this new chapter, courses that cover the foundations of AI and machine learning become essential for understanding their role and potential in contemporary society. Therefore, understanding fundamental concepts and elementary algorithms through the close integration of theory with practice is essential in AI courses. In this essay, we report our experience designing machine learning exercises for automated assessment tools in programming. It is worth mentioning that we are not developing a novel form of automated grading system. Instead, we propose a perspective that frames machine learning problems as input-output assessment tasks. From this perspective, each exercise admits a unique and deterministic answer and enables automated programming assessment tools (e.g., VPL for Moodle, Codeforces, and MOJ) to effectively support AI education. We believe this essay can encourage instructors to foster educational innovation by adopting more dynamic and interactive approaches to AI courses that integrate theory and practice. Importantly, this essay does not introduce an innovation in the use of AI for education; rather, it introduces an innovative approach to improving the learning of AI, particularly, machine learning.

The transition from block-based to text-based programming requires learners to convert visible program structures into abstract textual expressions, which may create a cognitive gap between understanding computational concepts and expressing them in Python syntax. To support this transition, we designed and implemented BlockPython. The platform centers on bidirectional translation between blocks and Python and guides learners through four stages: Task Decomposition, Block-Based Practice, Code Challenge, and Extended Interaction. Across these stages, learners progressively establish connections among program structure, runtime behavior, and textual code. During learning, the platform continuously collects process evidence, including block artifacts, code versions, run outcomes, use of support, and dialogue. Deterministic diagnosis, program visualization, and the learning assistant use this evidence to identify different difficulties in computational understanding and Python expression. The rule-based system is responsible for program execution, objective evaluation, and stage control, while the learning assistant uses verified evidence to provide explanations, prompts, and guiding questions. This report describes the design rationale, learning workflow, and process-aware support mechanisms of BlockPython and provides a system-design reference for supporting the transition from block-based to text-based programming and for analyzing learning processes.

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.

The promise of AI literacy ``for all'' confronts a structural challenge embedded in how nations organise secondary computer science education. In most systems, a general-track subject -- Digital Literacy, ICT, TIC, or SNT -- bears the weight of universal AI literacy, while a specialist Informatics course serves STEM pathways separately. Yet the content and depth of the general track are shaped by governance decisions made largely with reference to the specialist one. This paper presents a comparative analysis of curricula and examination frameworks across fifteen countries, identifying two structural challenges. First, in several systems a significant portion of students completes secondary education without any formal programming exposure. Second, among those who do receive CS education, a \emph{Syntax Ceiling} emerges: Python-based instruction reaches most students, while the algorithmic depth associated with C++ remains concentrated in elite STEM tracks. Drawing on reform cases spanning centralised mandates (France, China, Japan), assessment-driven systems (Poland, Romania, South Korea), and recent universal reforms (Switzerland, Kazakhstan), we show that governance structures and high-stakes examinations are the primary drivers of both challenges -- and that specialist and general-track language choices are rarely independent, linked through shared teacher pipelines that curriculum policy seldom acknowledges. Achieving genuine AI literacy for all requires confronting not just curriculum content, but the access architectures and resource constraints that determine who receives it -- and at what depth.

Large language models are increasingly explored as AI tutors, yet deploying them in K-12 settings raises concerns around privacy, cost, and reliance on proprietary models. Small language models (SLMs) offer a promising alternative, but selecting the right model for a specific educational context remains difficult, particularly when the target domain, such as block-based programming, is largely absent from model training data. We introduce CSTutorBench, a benchmark for evaluating language models as CS tutors in VEX VR, a block-based robotics environment. The benchmark comprises 17 scenario-based questions scored against a pedagogical rubric grounded in established tutoring and feedback research, with a human-in-the-loop LLM-as-judge pipeline for evaluation. Preliminary findings across 11 models (4B-120B parameters) reveal that models perform well on surface-level criteria such as vocabulary and tone but struggle with deeper pedagogical behaviors, particularly avoiding answer leakage and engaging with student debugging histories. In our sample, model family and instruction-tuning approach appear to be better predictors of tutoring quality than parameter count alone, though the small number of models limits the strength of this conclusion. A targeted prompt revision grounded in recent educational prompt engineering research improved scores for 10 of 11 models. These results underscore the value of context-specific, pedagogically grounded benchmarks for SLM selection in educational deployment.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) can provide personalized support in learning, several studies have raised concerns regarding their use in education. Importantly, learning depends on how students engage with LLMs. This study examined how two types of LLM-based tutors shape students' prompting practices, learning, and subsequent LLM-use: a Socratic-Guidance (SG) tutor, which structures interaction through dialogic questioning, and a Prompt-Refinement (PR) tutor that guides the formulation of effective prompts. We conducted a two-phase study in a graduate-level mobile robotics course: 66 students used either the SG or PR tutor during a 6-week intervention, followed by 52 students using an unconstrained LLM during a 3-week course project. Results show that while the SG- and PR tutors led to similar task performance and prompting patterns during guided use, they differ in learning outcomes and later LLM-use. SG-students, relative to PR-student, achieved higher learning gains in later sessions, and were more likely to adopt understanding-driven prompting strategies, which are predictive of higher understanding, when using an unconstrained LLM. Although learners perceived the SG tutor as less efficient, the findings suggest that Socratic guidance supports the development of students' capacity to learn with LLMs over time, highlighting its importance for LLM tutor design.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown the potential to generate code explanations that surpass those of peers in quality, offering promising opportunities for computer science education. While these explanations may not yet match the depth and clarity of instructor-provided explanations, research in computational creativity highlights that the quantity and diversity of ideas can often outweigh a singular focus on quality. Inspired by this, we explore whether combining multiple diverse explanations, each emphasizing distinct aspects (e.g., function, concept, goal), can enhance students' understanding of programming exercises compared to generic explanations that do not emphasize distinct conceptual aspects. In our study 971 first-year computing students were randomly assigned either diverse or generic LLM-generated explanations for two programming exercises. Students completed multiple-choice and open-ended questions for each exercise, followed by Likert-scale questions and open-ended reflections. Our findings outline patterns in student performance and perceived cognitive load across the two explanation conditions. These findings highlight how variation in explanation emphasis may relate to learner engagement and understanding. Across participants, open-ended response accuracy was consistently about 7.7% higher when students received diverse explanations, with no difference in perceived cognitive load.

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.

Undergraduate computer science is governed by international curricular guidelines revised about once a decade, yet programs lack a reliable, reproducible way to measure how completely they cover the current guidelines and how that coverage shifts when the guidelines are restructured. We address this with a human-in-the-loop pipeline that measures a program's coverage of an external body of knowledge, applied longitudinally to one accredited BSc in Computer Science against Computer Science Curricula 2013 (CS2013) and 2023 (CS2023). The pipeline represents the program and each guideline as structured corpora, generates candidate course-to-knowledge-unit matches by semantic retrieval, and confirms them through human judgment under an explicit coverage definition. Of seven benchmarked retrievers, a reciprocal-rank-fusion ensemble was strongest, and a reputed long-context model underperformed a small sentence model, so retriever choice must be measured. Both maps were validated by an independent second rater (Cohen's kappa 0.64 for CS2023, 0.69 for CS2013). The program covers 49.7% of CS2023 and 50.9% of CS2013 knowledge units, near-constant across a decade. Extending the same retrieve-then-confirm design to competency articulation and cognitive depth shows that the program articulates the competency for ~88% of covered units under each guideline, yet delivers it at the recommended depth for 76% of present units under CS2023 against 95% under CS2013, a gap reflecting the newer guideline's raised expectations, not the program. The longitudinal comparison separates persistent structural gaps (parallel and distributed computing, foundations of programming languages, systems fundamentals), uncovered against both guidelines and ABET, from differences that reflect the standard's evolution. The instrument is reusable and available from the authors on request.

Effective programming education requires personalized instruction adapted to diverse learner backgrounds. However, while LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) excel at complex planning, existing planners often lack profile-grounding and pedagogical scaffolding, thereby undermining personalized programming learning. To fill in the gap, we first introduce \textbf{MAP-PPL} (\textbf{M}ulti-\textbf{A}gent \textbf{P}lans for \textbf{P}ersonalized \textbf{P}rogramming \textbf{L}earning), a profile-conditioned multi-agent planning dataset with 3{,}043 query--profile--plan instances from 1{,}730 Stack Overflow question groups and 2{,}738 learner profiles. Each plan specifies agents, subtasks, executable steps, and prerequisite dependencies. Then, we propose \textbf{PersonalPlan}, a two-stage MAS planner that first performs hierarchical SFT with separate LoRA adapters for profile-aware task decomposition and step dependency planning, then applies a Reward-Adaptive GRPO to encourage the model to generate executable, personalized, and pedagogically scaffolded plans. Extensive experiments on MAP-PPL comparing PersonalPlan against frontier LLMs, generic MAS frameworks, and agentic planners demonstrate its superiority. With only 8B and 32B variants, PersonalPlan achieves state-of-the-art plan executability, personalization, and pedagogical quality, effectively orchestrating MAS for agent-student interactions.

Understanding student errors in the programming is a cornerstone of programming education, yet obtaining a representative set of student errors for any newly designed task remains slow and costly, since authentic submissions only accumulate after extensive classroom deployment. This paper explores whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as scalable proxies for students by simulating realistic logical errors in code submissions. Using the CodeWorkout dataset of 74,000+ unique student Java submissions across 37 problems, we evaluate five LLMs under three mainstream prompting strategies: Input-Output (IO), Chain-of-Thought (CoT), and iterative Self-Refine. We assess performance along two key dimensions: diversity (the range of distinct error patterns) and alignment (alignment with authentic student mistakes), and examine how these vary by struggling level of programming tasks. Our quantitative findings reveal that while all models generate diverse errors, their alignment to human submissions diverges: Claude Sonnet 4 achieves the most balanced performance. In addition, we conducted a blinded expert annotation study (N = 401) comparing synthetic and authentic errors. This qualitative analysis confirms that the generated errors are functionally indistinguishable from authentic student errors. Moreover, higher-struggling-level problems elicit more diverse but less student-like errors. These results highlight trade-offs in using LLMs to simulate human learners and suggest design considerations for integrating synthetic errors into teachable agents, intelligent tutoring systems, and large-scale learning analytics.

Introductory programming instruction relies on hands-on practice and short learning activities to support mastery of foundational concepts. Although many such learning resources exist, organizing and linking these items in instructionally meaningful ways is challenging without time-intensive expert curation. This study investigates the use of pattern-based Knowledge Components (KCs) to automatically identify code-based learning resources targeting similar concepts. In our approach, pattern-based KCs are extracted from each code sample, and related activities are identified by measuring similarity between the KC sets associated with each activity. By leveraging alignment at the level of semantically important programming patterns, this method supports contextually appropriate and pedagogically useful recommendations. We evaluate our approach on an expert-organized corpus of introductory Python materials in which instructors grouped items into bundles based on conceptual similarity. Results show that our pattern-based KC approach retrieves resources that align with this expert organization, and outperformed representative KC- and embedding-based baselines across standard ranking evaluations. Overall, the framework supports targeted, concept-oriented guidance for programming learners and can help instructors organize, bundle, and recommend instructional content at scale.

Introductory programming (CS1) courses often struggle to support students' understanding of program execution. While visualizations can make execution processes explicit, their effectiveness depends on design and context, and empirical evidence for AI-generated visualizations remains limited. We propose Generated Animated Traces (GATs), AI-generated, analogy-based, narrated animations that coordinate source code, execution state, and conceptual analogies. We conduct a study at two institutions in CS1 courses (Python, N=961; Java N=151) comparing GATs to textual explanations. We measure immediate learning performance and experience, end-of-course engagement and exam performance. Results show that GATs can yield selective benefits for immediate learning, but benefits are context-dependent and short-term. We observe that GATs' influence on performance is moderated by learner engagement profiles. This finding underscores the importance of personalized approaches.

Programming social robots is challenging for novice robot programmers due to required expertise in planning, interaction design, and programming. While large language models (LLMs) hold significant promise through code generation from natural-language descriptions, they can obscure critical elements of programming and supplant designer intent, eventually resulting in over-reliance instead of developing programming skills. In this paper, we explore how LLM-based social-robot-programming tools can support novice robot programmers through a Research through Design (RtD) process. We designed and prototyped Robo-Blocks, a block-based programming environment that leverages LLMs to offer novice robot programmers generative scaffolding through structured narratives that connect high-level ideas to executable robot behaviors. Through deployment with novices, we discovered emerging user personas and usage patterns for generative scaffolding and showed how this scaffolding shapes end-user design and programming strategies. We present design insights for the effective use of generative scaffolding and its integration into the practice of social-robot programming.

Worked examples are step-by-step solutions to problems in a specific domain, offered to students to acquire domain-specific problem-solving skills. The effectiveness of worked examples could be enhanced by combining them with self-explanations, which ask students to explain rather than passively study each problem-solving step. The main challenge of this approach is assessing the correctness of the student's explanations. In the prevailing approach, student explanations are judged by their semantic similarity to an instructor's or domain expert's explanation. Given recent advances in LLM-based automated scoring, it remains unclear whether semantic similarity methods are still the most effective technique to automatically score textual student responses like essays or code explanations. Comparing these methods also requires quality datasets that offer distinctive features such as balanced class distributions and domain-specific labeled data for automated scoring tasks. In this paper, we present a rigorous comparison between LLMs and semantic similarity used for automated scoring, framed as a binary classification task.

Computational thinking (CT) is increasingly promoted as a core literacy, yet learners and teachers face challenges in connecting abstract program logic to meaningful outcomes. We design and evaluate RoboBlockly Studio, an integrated interactive system that combines block-based programming, a conversational AI teaching agent, and embodied robot execution. RoboBlockly Studio creates a tight iterative loop of authoring, running, observing, and revising. Informed by interviews with five programming teachers, the system was designed to support four goals: (1) preserving learner agency in computational thinking, (2) making program behavior transparent and interpretable, (3) grounding programming in embodied, classroom-aligned tasks, and (4) scaffolding reflection through pedagogically grounded AI dialogue. We deployed RoboBlockly Studio with 32 high school students, observing how robot and AI feedback influenced students' interactions with code, reflections on problem-solving strategies, and understanding of CT concepts. We discuss design insights and implications for creating interactive, embodied learning environments that integrate AI and robotics to support CT learning in computing education.

Active learning is widely recognized as an effective approach for improving learning outcomes in introductory programming courses. However, insufficient instructional support often limits students' access to timely, personalized feedback, which is crucial for mastering foundational programming concepts. Although recent advances in AI, particularly large language models, offer scalable opportunities for feedback, concerns about explainability and reliability remain. In this paper, we present an AI-driven classroom assistant that leverages an explainable AI model to analyze student code, map logical errors to instructor-identified misconceptions, and deliver instructor-authored feedback, thereby grounding reliability in instructor-defined pedagogical knowledge. To evaluate the effectiveness of our framework, we conducted an expert evaluation to examine its alignment with instructor-verified feedback and deployed the system in a classroom setting to assess students' perceptions of its usability. Results indicate that the assistant can provide accurate, instructor-verified feedback to students while fostering a positive experience.

Early 2025 we ran a series of vibe coding challenges across four different student cohorts. The cohorts included 54 ICT students, 24 digital marketing students, and 7 journalism students at Fontys University of Applied Sciences (Netherlands), and 22 BA Communication students at North-West University (South Africa). From the student reflections, five major patterns emerged. Students reported that AI tools shifted their focus from syntax to higher-order thinking; they also described a skill shift from memorizing to evaluating; they viewed AI proficiency as career-essential; they framed their relationship with AI as partnership rather than replacement; and finally non-technical students showed the strongest appreciation for the accessibility these tools provide. This practitioner report documents what we observed during the classroom experiments, we reflect on how the landscape has shifted in the year since, and shares practical lessons for educators considering similar experiments. We present the observations as what they are: patterns from practice, not proven conclusions, in the beleif that sharing early stage experiences contributes to the overall field of AI and education.

Programming Knowledge Tracing (PKT) has recently advanced through hybrid approaches that integrate attention-based feature modeling for code representation with RNN-based sequential prediction. While these models report strong empirical performance, their reliability can be sensitive to subtle implementation and experimental design choices. This study revisits representative PKT models and shows that reported gains can be substantially influenced by model configuration and sequence construction practices. We identify issues in attention dimension settings that affect performance estimates, and demonstrate that improper ordering of student attempts, such as ignoring ServerTimestamp, can violate temporal causality and lead to overly optimistic results. To ensure consistent evaluation, hyperparameters are selected via grid search guided by a single designated fold and then fixed uniformly across all folds during cross-validation. We further analyze the role of assignment-wise characteristics and systematically explore the impact of maximum sequence length. Using this protocol, we re-evaluate PKT models on the CodeWorkout dataset. Our results show that, under controlled and consistent settings, the performance gap between attention-enhanced models and standard DKT is significantly reduced, and increased architectural complexity does not consistently translate into superior performance. Beyond individual model comparisons, this work provides practical guidance for reliable and comparable evaluation in programming knowledge tracing.

GenAI systems such as ChatGPT are increasingly discussed in programming education, but the ways in which the research literature conceptualizes and frames their role remain unclear. This chapter applies text mining to publications indexed in a leading academic database to map scholarly discourse on ChatGPT in programming education. Term frequency analysis, phrase pattern extraction, and topic modeling reveal four dominant themes: pedagogical implementation, student-centered learning and engagement, AI infrastructure and human-AI collaboration, and assessment, prompting, and model evaluation. The literature prioritizes classroom practice and learner interaction, with comparatively limited attention to assessment design and institutional governance. Across studies, ChatGPT is positioned both as a learning aid that supports explanation, feedback, and efficiency and as a pedagogical risk linked to overreliance, unreliable outputs, and academic integrity concerns. These findings support responsible integration and highlight the need for stronger assessment and governance mechanisms.

Generative AI is reshaping higher education programming through vibe coding, where students collaborate with AI via natural language rather than writing code line-by-line. We conceptualize this practice as help-seeking, analyzing 19,418 interaction turns from 110 undergraduate students. Using inductive coding and Heterogeneous Transition Network Analysis, we examined interaction sequences to compare top- and low-performing students. Results reveal that top performers engaged in instrumental help-seeking -- inquiry and exploration -- eliciting tutor-like AI responses. In contrast, low performers relied on executive help-seeking, frequently delegating tasks and prompting the AI to assume an executor role focused on ready-made solutions. These findings indicate that currently generative AI mirrors student intent (whether productive or passive) rather than optimizing for learning. To evolve from tools to teammates, AI systems must move beyond passive compliance. We argue for pedagogically aligned design that detect unproductive delegation and adaptively steer educational interactions toward inquiry, ensuring student-AI partnerships augment rather than replace cognitive effort.

Adaptive programming practice often relies on fixed libraries of worked examples and practice problems, which require substantial authoring effort and may not correspond well to the logical errors and partial solutions students produce while writing code. As a result, students may receive learning content that does not directly address the concepts they are working to understand, while instructors must either invest additional effort in expanding content libraries or accept a coarse level of personalization. We present an approach for knowledge-component (KC) guided educational content generation using pattern-based KCs extracted from student code. Given a problem statement and student submissions, our pipeline extracts recurring structural KC patterns from students' code through AST-based analysis and uses them to condition a generative model. In this study, we apply this approach to worked example generation, and compare baseline and KC-conditioned outputs through expert evaluation. Results suggest that KC-conditioned generation improves topical focus and relevance to students' underlying logical errors, providing evidence that KC-based steering of generative models can support personalized learning at scale.

Practice and extensive exercises are essential in programming education. Intelligent tutoring systems (ITSs) are a viable option to provide individualized hints and advice to programming students even when human tutors are not available. However, prior ITS for programming rarely support the Python programming language, mostly focus on introductory programming, and rarely take recent developments in generative models into account. We aim to establish a novel ITS for Python programming that is highly adaptable, serves both as a teaching and research platform, provides interfaces to plug in hint mechanisms (e.g.\ via large language models), and works inside the particularly challenging regulatory environment of Germany, that is, conforming to the European data protection regulation, the European AI act, and ethical framework of the German Research Foundation. In this paper, we present the description of the current state of the ITS along with future development directions, as well as discuss the challenges and opportunities for improving the system.