What You Say = What You Want? Teaching Humans to Articulate Requirements for LLMs

Prompting ChatGPT to achieve complex goals (e.g., creating a customer support chatbot) often demands meticulous prompt engineering, including aspects like fluent writing and chain-of-thought techniques. While emerging prompt optimizers can automatically refine many of these aspects, we argue that clearly conveying customized requirements (e.g., how to handle diverse inputs) remains a human-centric challenge. In this work, we introduce Requirement-Oriented Prompt Engineering (ROPE), a paradigm that focuses human attention on generating clear, complete requirements during prompting. We implement ROPE through an assessment and training suite that provides deliberate practice with LLM-generated feedback. In a study with 30 novices, we show that requirement-focused training doubles novices' prompting performance, significantly outperforming conventional prompt engineering training and prompt optimization. We also demonstrate that high-quality LLM outputs are directly tied to the quality of input requirements. Our work paves the way for more effective task delegation in human-LLM collaborative prompting.

Generating Situated Reflection Triggers about Alternative Solution Paths: A Case Study of Generative AI for Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

An advantage of Large Language Models (LLMs) is their contextualization capability - providing different responses based on student inputs like solution strategy or prior discussion, to potentially better engage students than standard feedback. We present a design and evaluation of a proof-of-concept LLM application to offer students dynamic and contextualized feedback. Specifically, we augment an Online Programming Exercise bot for a college-level Cloud Computing course with ChatGPT, which offers students contextualized reflection triggers during a collaborative query optimization task in database design. We demonstrate that LLMs can be used to generate highly situated reflection triggers that incorporate details of the collaborative discussion happening in context. We discuss in depth the exploration of the design space of the triggers and their correspondence with the learning objectives as well as the impact on student learning in a pilot study with 34 students.

ChaTA: Towards an Intelligent Question-Answer Teaching Assistant using Open-Source LLMs

Responding to the thousands of student questions on online QA platforms each semester has a considerable human cost, particularly in computing courses with rapidly growing enrollments. To address the challenges of scalable and intelligent question-answering (QA), we introduce an innovative solution that leverages open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) from the LLaMA-2 family to ensure data privacy. Our approach combines augmentation techniques such as retrieval augmented generation (RAG), supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and learning from human preferences data using Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). Through extensive experimentation on a Piazza dataset from an introductory CS course, comprising 10,000 QA pairs and 1,500 pairs of preference data, we demonstrate a significant 30% improvement in the quality of answers, with RAG being a particularly impactful addition. Our contributions include the development of a novel architecture for educational QA, extensive evaluations of LLM performance utilizing both human assessments and LLM-based metrics, and insights into the challenges and future directions of educational data processing. This work paves the way for the development of CHATA, an intelligent QA assistant customizable for courses with an online QA platform

Is AI the better programming partner? Human-Human Pair Programming vs. Human-AI pAIr Programming

The emergence of large-language models (LLMs) that excel at code generation and commercial products such as GitHub's Copilot has sparked interest in human-AI pair programming (referred to as "pAIr programming") where an AI system collaborates with a human programmer. While traditional pair programming between humans has been extensively studied, it remains uncertain whether its findings can be applied to human-AI pair programming. We compare human-human and human-AI pair programming, exploring their similarities and differences in interaction, measures, benefits, and challenges. We find that the effectiveness of both approaches is mixed in the literature (though the measures used for pAIr programming are not as comprehensive). We summarize moderating factors on the success of human-human pair programming, which provides opportunities for pAIr programming research. For example, mismatched expertise makes pair programming less productive, therefore well-designed AI programming assistants may adapt to differences in expertise levels.