arXiv subjects

Barbara J. Ericson

Publications and source records attributed to Barbara J. Ericson.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

AI Literacy in K-12 and Higher Education in the Wake of Generative AI: An Integrative Review

Even though AI literacy has emerged as a prominent education topic in the wake of generative AI, its definition remains vague. There is little consensus among researchers and practitioners on how to discuss and design AI literacy interventions. The term has been used to describe both learning activities that train undergraduate students to use ChatGPT effectively and having kindergarten children interact with social robots. This paper applies an integrative review method to examine empirical and theoretical AI literacy studies published since 2020. In synthesizing the 124 reviewed studies, three ways to conceptualize literacy-functional, critical, and indirectly beneficial-and three perspectives on AI-technical detail, tool, and sociocultural-were identified, forming a framework that reflects the spectrum of how AI literacy is approached in practice. The framework highlights the need for more specialized terms within AI literacy discourse and indicates research gaps in certain AI literacy objectives.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Personalized Parsons Puzzles as Scaffolding Enhance Practice Engagement Over Just Showing LLM-Powered Solutions

As generative AI products could generate code and assist students with programming learning seamlessly, integrating AI into programming education contexts has driven much attention. However, one emerging concern is that students might get answers without learning from the LLM-generated content. In this work, we deployed the LLM-powered personalized Parsons puzzles as scaffolding to write-code practice in a Python learning classroom (PC condition) and conducted an 80-minute randomized between-subjects study. Both conditions received the same practice problems. The only difference was that when requesting help, the control condition showed students a complete solution (CC condition), simulating the most traditional LLM output. Results indicated that students who received personalized Parsons puzzles as scaffolding engaged in practicing significantly longer than those who received complete solutions when struggling.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

CodeTailor: LLM-Powered Personalized Parsons Puzzles for Engaging Support While Learning Programming

Learning to program can be challenging, and providing high-quality and timely support at scale is hard. Generative AI and its products, like ChatGPT, can create a solution for most intro-level programming problems. However, students might use these tools to just generate code for them, resulting in reduced engagement and limited learning. In this paper, we present CodeTailor, a system that leverages a large language model (LLM) to provide personalized help to students while still encouraging cognitive engagement. CodeTailor provides a personalized Parsons puzzle to support struggling students. In a Parsons puzzle, students place mixed-up code blocks in the correct order to solve a problem. A technical evaluation with previous incorrect student code snippets demonstrated that CodeTailor could deliver high-quality (correct, personalized, and concise) Parsons puzzles based on their incorrect code. We conducted a within-subjects study with 18 novice programmers. Participants perceived CodeTailor as more engaging than just receiving an LLM-generated solution (the baseline condition). In addition, participants applied more supported elements from the scaffolded practice to the posttest when using CodeTailor than baseline. Overall, most participants preferred using CodeTailor versus just receiving the LLM-generated code for learning. Qualitative observations and interviews also provided evidence for the benefits of CodeTailor, including thinking more about solution construction, fostering continuity in learning, promoting reflection, and boosting confidence. We suggest future design ideas to facilitate active learning opportunities with generative AI techniques.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Integrating Personalized Parsons Problems with Multi-Level Textual Explanations to Scaffold Code Writing

Novice programmers need to write basic code as part of the learning process, but they often face difficulties. To assist struggling students, we recently implemented personalized Parsons problems, which are code puzzles where students arrange blocks of code to solve them, as pop-up scaffolding. Students found them to be more engaging and preferred them for learning, instead of simply receiving the correct answer, such as the response they might get from generative AI tools like ChatGPT. However, a drawback of using Parsons problems as scaffolding is that students may be able to put the code blocks in the correct order without fully understanding the rationale of the correct solution. As a result, the learning benefits of scaffolding are compromised. Can we improve the understanding of personalized Parsons scaffolding by providing textual code explanations? In this poster, we propose a design that incorporates multiple levels of textual explanations for the Parsons problems. This design will be used for future technical evaluations and classroom experiments. These experiments will explore the effectiveness of adding textual explanations to Parsons problems to improve instructional benefits.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Understanding the Effects of Using Parsons Problems to Scaffold Code Writing for Students with Varying CS Self-Efficacy Levels

Introductory programming courses aim to teach students to write code independently. However, transitioning from studying worked examples to generating their own code is often difficult and frustrating for students, especially those with lower CS self-efficacy in general. Therefore, we investigated the impact of using Parsons problems as a code-writing scaffold for students with varying levels of CS self-efficacy. Parsons problems are programming tasks where students arrange mixed-up code blocks in the correct order. We conducted a between-subjects study with undergraduate students (N=89) on a topic where students have limited code-writing expertise. Students were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. Students in one condition practiced writing code without any scaffolding, while students in the other condition were provided with scaffolding in the form of an equivalent Parsons problem. We found that, for students with low CS self-efficacy levels, those who received scaffolding achieved significantly higher practice performance and in-practice problem-solving efficiency compared to those without any scaffolding. Furthermore, when given Parsons problems as scaffolding during practice, students with lower CS self-efficacy were more likely to solve them. In addition, students with higher pre-practice knowledge on the topic were more likely to effectively use the Parsons scaffolding. This study provides evidence for the benefits of using Parsons problems to scaffold students' write-code activities. It also has implications for optimizing the Parsons scaffolding experience for students, including providing personalized and adaptive Parsons problems based on the student's current problem-solving status.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

How Novices Use LLM-Based Code Generators to Solve CS1 Coding Tasks in a Self-Paced Learning Environment

As Large Language Models (LLMs) gain in popularity, it is important to understand how novice programmers use them. We present a thematic analysis of 33 learners, aged 10-17, independently learning Python through 45 code-authoring tasks using Codex, an LLM-based code generator. We explore several questions related to how learners used these code generators and provide an analysis of the properties of the written prompts and the generated code. Specifically, we explore (A) the context in which learners use Codex, (B) what learners are asking from Codex, (C) properties of their prompts in terms of relation to task description, language, and clarity, and prompt crafting patterns, (D) the correctness, complexity, and accuracy of the AI-generated code, and (E) how learners utilize AI-generated code in terms of placement, verification, and manual modifications. Furthermore, our analysis reveals four distinct coding approaches when writing code with an AI code generator: AI Single Prompt, where learners prompted Codex once to generate the entire solution to a task; AI Step-by-Step, where learners divided the problem into parts and used Codex to generate each part; Hybrid, where learners wrote some of the code themselves and used Codex to generate others; and Manual coding, where learners wrote the code themselves. The AI Single Prompt approach resulted in the highest correctness scores on code-authoring tasks, but the lowest correctness scores on subsequent code-modification tasks during training. Our results provide initial insight into how novice learners use AI code generators and the challenges and opportunities associated with integrating them into self-paced learning environments. We conclude with various signs of over-reliance and self-regulation, as well as opportunities for curriculum and tool development.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Studying the effect of AI Code Generators on Supporting Novice Learners in Introductory Programming

AI code generators like OpenAI Codex have the potential to assist novice programmers by generating code from natural language descriptions, however, over-reliance might negatively impact learning and retention. To explore the implications that AI code generators have on introductory programming, we conducted a controlled experiment with 69 novices (ages 10-17). Learners worked on 45 Python code-authoring tasks, for which half of the learners had access to Codex, each followed by a code-modification task. Our results show that using Codex significantly increased code-authoring performance (1.15x increased completion rate and 1.8x higher scores) while not decreasing performance on manual code-modification tasks. Additionally, learners with access to Codex during the training phase performed slightly better on the evaluation post-tests conducted one week later, although this difference did not reach statistical significance. Of interest, learners with higher Scratch pre-test scores performed significantly better on retention post-tests, if they had prior access to Codex.

cs.HC↗