Exploring the Design Space of Cognitive Engagement Techniques with AI-Generated Code for Enhanced Learning

Novice programmers are increasingly relying on Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate code for learning programming concepts. However, this interaction can lead to superficial engagement, giving learners an illusion of learning and hindering skill development. To address this issue, we conducted a systematic design exploration to develop seven cognitive engagement techniques aimed at promoting deeper engagement with AI-generated code. In this paper, we describe our design process, the initial seven techniques and results from a between-subjects study (N=82). We then iteratively refined the top techniques and further evaluated them through a within-subjects study (N=42). We evaluate the friction each technique introduces, their effectiveness in helping learners apply concepts to isomorphic tasks without AI assistance, and their success in aligning learners' perceived and actual coding abilities. Ultimately, our results highlight the most effective technique: guiding learners through the step-by-step problem-solving process, where they engage in an interactive dialog with the AI, prompting what needs to be done at each stage before the corresponding code is revealed.

Improving Steering and Verification in AI-Assisted Data Analysis with Interactive Task Decomposition

LLM-powered tools like ChatGPT Data Analysis, have the potential to help users tackle the challenging task of data analysis programming, which requires expertise in data processing, programming, and statistics. However, our formative study (n=15) uncovered serious challenges in verifying AI-generated results and steering the AI (i.e., guiding the AI system to produce the desired output). We developed two contrasting approaches to address these challenges. The first (Stepwise) decomposes the problem into step-by-step subgoals with pairs of editable assumptions and code until task completion, while the second (Phasewise) decomposes the entire problem into three editable, logical phases: structured input/output assumptions, execution plan, and code. A controlled, within-subjects experiment (n=18) compared these systems against a conversational baseline. Users reported significantly greater control with the Stepwise and Phasewise systems, and found intervention, correction, and verification easier, compared to the baseline. The results suggest design guidelines and trade-offs for AI-assisted data analysis tools.

CodeAid: Evaluating a Classroom Deployment of an LLM-based Programming Assistant that Balances Student and Educator Needs

Timely, personalized feedback is essential for students learning programming, especially as class sizes expand. LLM-based tools like ChatGPT offer instant support, but reveal direct answers with code, which may hinder deep conceptual engagement. We developed CodeAid, an LLM-based programming assistant delivering helpful, technically correct responses, without revealing code solutions. For example, CodeAid can answer conceptual questions, generate pseudo-code with line-by-line explanations, and annotate student's incorrect code with fix suggestions. We deployed CodeAid in a programming class of 700 students for a 12-week semester. A thematic analysis of 8,000 usages of CodeAid was performed, further enriched by weekly surveys, and 22 student interviews. We then interviewed eight programming educators to gain further insights on CodeAid. Findings revealed students primarily used CodeAid for conceptual understanding and debugging, although a minority tried to obtain direct code. Educators appreciated CodeAid's educational approach, and expressed concerns about occasional incorrect feedback and students defaulting to ChatGPT.