arXiv:2607. 24755v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This full research paper examines how different forms of learner-AI interaction relate to learning outcomes in object-oriented programming (OOP) courses.
By Marina Lepp
arXiv:2505. 00100v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Background and Context.
By Ethan Dickey, Andres Bejarano, Rhianna Kuperus, B\'arbara Fagundes
The study evaluates Vibe Coding, an AI‑led conversational programming paradigm that lets developers generate software via natural‑language interaction with large language models. In a mixed‑methods experiment with 30 participants, Vibe Coding improved development efficiency—reducing task completion time by 27% versus traditional coding and 12% versus AI‑assisted coding—while also yielding a good usability score (SUS = 71.4) and moderate cognitive workload (NASA‑TLX = 55.5). However, the gains came with trade‑offs: lower maintainability indices, higher security vulnerabilities, and themes of trust calibration, loss of control, and prompt‑engineering strategy emerged, leading the authors to propose a three‑pillar framework for responsible adoption.
By Sales G. Aribe Jr., Louie Jay S. Labastida
arXiv:2608.21391v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: In this research-to-practice paper we present a survey that can be used to assess students' AI knowledge. As the use of artificial intelligence (AI),...
By Aditya Johri, Cory Brozina, Akriti Bagale
arXiv:2604. 01114v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As generative AI systems are integrated into educational settings, students often encounter AI-generated output while working through learning tasks, either by requesting help or through integrated tools.
By Griffin Pitts, Neha Rani, Weedguet Mildort
The study explores how undergraduate computing students in Saudi Arabia perceive AI‑generated writing feedback when they are explicitly told that ChatGPT, not a human instructor, produced the score and comments. Through qualitative reflections, four themes emerged: students found the feedback useful for surface‑level revisions, recognized AI’s contextual and pedagogical limits, trusted the feedback conditionally—separating its utility from its authority—and reaffirmed the human instructor’s role as the ultimate grading authority. The findings highlight a clear distinction students make between feedback usefulness and evaluative authority, treating them as separate judgments rather than opposing ends of a single approval scale.
By Rayed AlGhamdi