arXiv subjects

Juho Leinonen

Publications and source records attributed to Juho Leinonen.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Mapping the Emerging Curriculum for AI-Assisted Software Engineering via Syllabus Analysis

As Generative AI coding tools reshape professional software development, universities have begun designing courses to prepare students for AI-assisted development workflows. By analyzing the syllabi of these courses, we can gather empirical evidence about these courses, reveal how this emerging curricular area is being defined, and gain guidance for future curriculum design. We analyzed 23 publicly available syllabi and course materials of upper-division, credit-bearing courses that meet specific criteria, including explicitly addressing Generative AI in software engineering. Through iterative qualitative coding, we characterized courses' learning objectives, assessments, topics, and documented AI tools. Our analysis reveals commonalities and differences among these courses that allow researchers and educators to study and develop future courses.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Say What? Examining Text and Voice Input Modalities for Prompt-Based Programming in Computing Education

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into computing education, yet nearly all prior research has focused on text-based interactions. As voice-enabled interfaces become more capable and more common, there is growing interest in understanding how voice input might shape students' use of LLM-powered tools. In this exploratory study, we investigated how introductory programming students interact with Prompt Problems, which are programming tasks that require crafting natural-language prompts to generate correct code. Students (N = 919) solved a series of Prompt Problems with the freedom to select or switch between text and voice input modalities. We collected their prompt submissions as well as post-activity survey responses, then analysed differences in prompt accuracy, persistence, and perspectives by modality. For two of the three problems, we found that students who typed their prompts using text were more likely to have those prompts succeed on the first attempt than students who submitted unedited voice prompts. There was no difference in success rate if students edited their transcribed voice prompts before submission. Across the problems, we found evidence that students who tried voice prompting varied in their usage of modality - perhaps indicating a complementary, or non-preferential approach. However, most students only tried and reported preferring text. Our qualitative analysis revealed how students' perceived the roles of voice and text input in shaping their problem-solving process, as well as the reported drawbacks and advantages of each modality. We discuss implications for future multimodal tools and instructional design in computing education.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Understanding Student Perceptions, Mistakes, and Debugging Approaches when Solving Natural Language Programming Tasks

Learning to communicate with code-generating AI models is an emerging skill for novice programmers. One recent pedagogical approach, Prompt Problems, has students solve computational tasks by writing natural-language prompts for code-generating AI models. However, little is known about the specific prompt-level mistakes novice programmers make, the kinds of computational details they fail to communicate, and what strategies they use to recover when generated code is incorrect. In a CS1 course, we studied attempts by more than 900 students to solve dialogue-based Prompt Problems. We analyzed student reflections, unsuccessful prompts, and reported debugging strategies. Compared to traditional coding tasks, students generally found prompting easier, more enjoyable, and better targeted at developing problem-solving skills. The most common mistakes are related to the omission of key details, suggesting both a failure to acknowledge their importance and over-reliance on AI to infer them. When prompts failed, students focused more on clarifying their intent and reflecting on the provided problem details than on tracing generated code or examining test cases.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

When AI Is Wrong on Purpose: How Students Respond to Buggy GenAI Code

As Generative AI (GenAI) becomes increasingly central to software development, CS education is integrating prompt-centered workflows where students describe intended program behavior in natural language to elicit code. However, professional practice requires careful review and verification of GenAI-generated code that may appear correct while containing subtle faults. This creates a challenge for CS1-level activities, where current models often solve tasks correctly and reduce students' incentive to closely inspect generated outputs. We investigate how prompt-centered programming activities can be adapted to better foster these practices. Specifically, we explore an approach where realistic, runnable bugs are injected into otherwise correct solutions, thus requiring students to read and repair generated outputs. We analyzed 2,636 sessions from 917 students, and examined behavior across instances of naturally occurring prompt-related failures and deliberately injected bugs within each session. Our findings show that students responded differently across bug sources. Deliberately injected bugs more often led to direct code edits and higher next-attempt success, suggesting localized repair of near-miss solutions. Prompt-related failures instead more often led students to refine prompts by clarifying constraints, updating function signatures, adding edge cases, or reframing the task. Student reflections reinforce the emphasis on review and repair, describing useful practice in code understanding, code review, and debugging, as well as a more careful verification mindset and greater awareness of GenAI limitations. Ultimately, prompt-related failures and injected bugs together support a pedagogically useful GenAI workflow, where students practice both specification refinement through prompts and debugging through code editing.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Analyzing the Difficulty of Programming Assignments with Interpretable Knowledge Component Metrics

This research paper examines how Knowledge Components (KCs) - fine-grained concepts or skills required to solve programming tasks - can be used as interpretable signals for understanding assignment difficulty and student struggle in introductory programming courses. While prior work has focused on predictive models based on programming behavior, such models are often difficult to interpret and therefore hard to use for instructional decisions. We analyze KC-based metrics, including the number of KCs per assignment and changes in KC coverage between consecutive assignments. We examine correlations between the number of KCs and student performance on the assignment, and analyze changes in KCs across assignments to identify cases where performance declines without new concepts being introduced. Selected assignments are then qualitatively inspected to understand potential design issues. Our results on data from three introductory programming course datasets show that assignments involving more KCs are generally associated with lower performance, and that sudden shifts in required KCs can coincide with disruptions in learning progression. We also identify assignments where performance declines even though no new KCs are introduced, suggesting potential issues in task design or instruction, which could be examined with qualitative analysis. We propose an interpretable framework for analyzing programming assignments using KC-based metrics, with practical implications for instructors and course designers who want to better understand where and why students struggle, and how course materials might be improved. Our method can use KCs defined by an expert or extracted by an LLM, offering instructors an additional way to assess assignment quality beyond average correctness. It can be applied to any course with ordered assignments and measurable performance.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Exploring the Value of Diverse LLM Explanations in Introductory Programming

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.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

The Effects of Structured LLM-Generated Feedback on Programming Assignment Performance

When programming students encounter errors in their code, compiler messages or static analysis output often provide limited guidance, particularly for novice programmers. Personalized feedback from instructors can be effective but does not scale well. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) enable automated feedback generation at scale. This study examines whether LLM-generated feedback with different levels of guidance is associated with differences in students' problem-solving behavior. We analyze effects on time to solution and number of attempts, and examine whether these effects differ by programming experience. We design three feedback types and compare them to a baseline in which students receive only compiler error messages. Results from an online programming course show that LLM-generated feedback is associated with faster time to solution compared to the no-feedback baseline, with less guided feedback showing slightly stronger effects. Overall, the findings suggest that feedback structure plays an important role in how students progress toward correct solutions and motivate further work on adaptive feedback designs and longer-term learning outcomes.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Teaching Language Models How to Code Like Learners: Conversational Serialization for Student Simulation

Artificial students -- models that simulate how learners act and respond within educational systems -- are a promising tool for evaluating tutoring strategies and feedback mechanisms at scale. However, most existing approaches rely on prompting large, proprietary language models, limiting adaptability to specific courses and raising concerns around privacy, cost, and dependence. In this work, we propose a framework for training open-weight artificial programming learners directly from authentic student process data. Our approach serializes temporal log traces into a conversational format, representing each student's problem-solving process as a dialogue between the learner and their automated assessment system. Student code submissions and environment feedback, such as test outcomes, grades, and error traces, form alternating conversational turns, enabling models to learn from the iterative debugging process. We additionally introduce a training pipeline combining supervised fine-tuning with preference optimization to align models with authentic student debugging behavior. We evaluate our framework by training Qwen models at 4B and 8B scales on a large-scale dataset of real student submissions to Python programming assignments. Our results show that incorporating environment feedback strengthens models' ability to replicate student debugging behavior, improving over both prior code-only approaches and prompted large language models baselines in functional alignment and code similarity. We release our code to support reproducibility.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Retrieval-Augmented Tutoring for Algorithm Tracing and Problem-Solving in AI Education

Students learning algorithms often need support as they interpret traces, debug reasoning errors, and apply procedures across unfamiliar problem instances. In this paper, we present KITE (Knowledge-Informed Tutoring Engine), a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)-based intelligent tutoring system designed to serve as a classroom teaching assistant for algorithmic reasoning and problem-solving tasks. KITE uses an intent-aware Socratic response strategy to tailor support to different student needs, responding with targeted hints, guiding questions, and progressive scaffolding intended to strengthen students' algorithmic problem-solving ability. To keep responses aligned with course content, KITE uses a multimodal RAG pipeline that retrieves relevant information from course materials. We evaluate KITE using three forms of assessment: RAGAs-based metrics for response grounding and quality, expert evaluation of pedagogical quality, and a simulated student pipeline in which a weaker language model interacts with KITE across two-turn dialogues and produces revised answers after receiving feedback. Results indicate that KITE produces contextually grounded and pedagogically appropriate responses. Further, using simulated students, KITE's feedback helped the student models produce more accurate follow-up responses on procedural and tracing questions, suggesting that its scaffolding can support algorithmic problem-solving. This work contributes a tutoring architecture and an evaluation approach for assessing retrieval-grounded explanations and scaffolded problem-solving feedback.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

AI-Generated Slides: Are They Good? Can Students Tell?

As generative AI (GenAI) tools become easily accessible, there is promise in using such tools to support instructors. To that end, this paper examines using GenAI to help generate slides from instructor authored course notes, emphasizing instructor and student perceptions. We examine an end-to-end education tool (NotebookLM), two general-purpose LLMs (Claude, M365 Copilot), and two coding assistants (Cursor, Claude Code). We first analyze whether GenAI generated slides are ``good'' via narrative assessment by educators. We choose the best slides to use (with some modification) in a real course setting, and compare the student perception of human vs. AI generated slides. We find that coding assistant tools produce slides that were most accurate, complete, and pedagogically sound. Additionally, students rate GenAI slides to be of similar quality as instructor-created slides, and cannot reliably identify which slides are AI-generated. Additionally, we find a negative correlation between a high quality rating and a high ``AI-generated'' rating, suggesting students associate poor quality with the source of the slides being AI. These findings highlight promising opportunities for integrating GenAI into instructional design workflows and call for further research on how educators can best harness such tools responsibly and effectively.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Distinguishing Artificial from Authentic: Evaluating LLMs for Detecting LLM-Generated Content

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used by students to generate natural language responses and program code, there is growing interest in whether LLMs themselves can be used to distinguish AI-generated work from human-authored submissions. In this paper, we investigate the extent to which LLMs can detect their own generated content across multiple educational task types, including programming exercises, reflective writing, and short-answer questions. Using authentic student responses and multiple variants of LLM-generated answers, we evaluate detection performance under different prompting strategies and output formats. Our study addresses three research questions: (1) how accurately LLMs can identify their own outputs across task domains, (2) how detection effectiveness is influenced by factors such as prompt design, response length, and task type, and (3) what characteristics of LLM-generated responses contribute to successful or failed detection. Our findings show that LLM-based detection is highly task-dependent: detection is substantially more reliable for programming tasks and longer reflective responses, but performs poorly for short-answer questions, where LLMs frequently judge their own outputs as more human-like than authentic student responses. We further find that prompt framing and response verbosity have a pronounced effect on detectability in reflective writing tasks, with relatively minor prompt variations significantly reducing detection accuracy, while programming-related detection is more robust to prompt changes. Together, these results highlight both the potential and the limitations of LLM self-detection in educational settings and suggest caution in relying on LLMs as standalone tools for identifying AI-generated student work.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

The Missing Evaluation Axis: What 10,000 Student Submissions Reveal About AI Tutor Effectiveness

Current Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based tutoring systems (AI tutors) are primarily evaluated based on the pedagogical quality of their feedback messages. While important, pedagogy alone is insufficient because it ignores a critical question: what do students actually do with the feedback they receive? We argue that AI tutor evaluation should be extended with a behavioral dimension grounded in student interaction data, which complements pedagogical assessment. We propose an evaluation framework and apply it to 10,235 code submissions with corresponding AI tutor feedback from an introductory undergraduate programming course to measure whether students act on tutor feedback and whether those actions are applied correctly. Using this framework to compare two deployed AI tutors across different semesters in a large-scale introductory computer science course reveals substantial differences in student engagement patterns that are not captured by pedagogy-only evaluation. Moreover, these engagement-based behavioral signals are more strongly associated with student perception of helpful feedback than pedagogical quality alone, providing a more complete and actionable picture of AI tutor performance.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

RLearner-LLM: Balancing Logical Grounding and Fluency in Large Language Models via Hybrid Direct Preference Optimization

Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), the efficient alternative to PPO-based RLHF, falls short on knowledge-intensive generation: standard preference signals from human annotators or LLM judges exhibit a systematic verbosity bias that rewards fluency over logical correctness. This blindspot leaves a logical alignment gap -- SFT models reach NLI entailment of only 0.05-0.22 despite producing fluent text. We propose RLearner-LLM with Hybrid-DPO: an automated preference pipeline that fuses a DeBERTa-v3 NLI signal with a verifier LLM score, removing human annotation while overcoming the "alignment tax" of single-signal optimization. Evaluated across five academic domains (Biology, Medicine, Law) with three base architectures (LLaMA-2-13B, Qwen3-8B, Gemma 4 E4B-it), RLearner-LLM yields up to 6x NLI improvement over SFT, with NLI gains in 11 of 15 cells and consistent answer-coverage gains. On Gemma 4 E4B-it (4.5B effective params), Hybrid-DPO lifts NLI in four of five domains (+11.9% to +2.4x) with faster inference across all five, scaling down to compact base models without losing the alignment-tax mitigation. Our Qwen3-8B RLearner-LLM wins 95% of pairwise comparisons against its own SFT baseline; GPT-4o-mini in turn wins 95% against our concise output -- alongside the 69% win the same judge gives a verbose SFT over our DPO model, this replicates verbosity bias on a frontier comparator and motivates logic-aware metrics (NLI, ACR) over LLM-as-a-judge for knowledge-intensive generation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Personalized Worked Example Generation from Student Code Submissions Using Pattern-based Knowledge Components

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.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Fast and Forgettable: A Controlled Study of Novices' Performance, Learning, Workload, and Emotion in AI-Assisted and Human Pair Programming Paradigms

Code-generating Artificial Intelligence has gained popularity within both professional and educational programming settings over the past several years. While research and pedagogy are beginning to cope with this change, computing students are left to bear the unforeseen consequences of AI amidst a dearth of empirical evidence about its effects. Though pair programming between students is well studied and known to be beneficial to self-efficacy and academic achievement, it remains underutilized and further threatened by the proposition that AI can replace a human programming partner. In this paper, we present a controlled pair programming study with 22 participants who wrote Python code under time pressure in teams of two and individually with GitHub Copilot for 20 minutes each. They were incentivized by bonus compensation to balance performance with understanding and were retested individually on the programming tasks after a retention interval of one week. Subjective measures of workload and emotion as well as objective measures of performance and learning (retest performance) were collected. Results showed that participants performed significantly better with GitHub Copilot than their human teammate, and several dimensions of their workload were significantly reduced. However, the emotional effect of the human teammate was significantly more positive and arousing as compared to working with Copilot. Furthermore, there was a nonsignificant absolute retest performance reduction in the AI condition and a larger retest performance decrement in the AI condition. We recommend that educators strongly consider revisiting pair programming as an educational tool in addition to embracing modern AI.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

When Looks Do Not Lie: Discourse Structure Guided In-Context Learning for Faithful Diagram Generation

GenAI is widespread in educational applications; however, it is known to generate content with intrinsic and extrinsic hallucination. We introduce a novel method for ICL diagram generation based on Rhetorical Structure Theory, which improves diagram faithfulness to its source text context. We find that ICL performance depends on task distribution and models' reasoning ability, with higher reasoning allowing better quality and performance for an out-of-distribution task. We perform an expert evaluation of 150 generated diagrams and analyze our findings using Bayesian GLMMs. Additionally, we use our evaluation rubric and samples from the data set for automated diagram evaluation, achieving statistically significant agreement with human evaluation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Interleaving Natural Language Prompting with Code Editing for Solving Programming Tasks with Generative AI Models

Modern computing students often rely on both natural-language prompting and manual code editing to solve programming tasks. Yet we still lack a clear understanding of how these two modes are combined in practice, and how their usage varies with task complexity and student ability. In this paper, we investigate this through a large-scale study in an introductory programming course, collecting 13,305 interactions from 355 students during a three-day lab activity. Our analysis shows that students primarily use prompting to generate initial solutions, and then often enter short edit-run loops to refine their code following a failed execution. Student reflections confirm that prompting is helpful for structuring solutions, editing is effective for making targeted corrections, while both are useful for learning. We find that manual editing becomes more frequent as task complexity increases, but most edits remain concise, with many affecting a single line of code. Higher-performing students succeed with less reliance on editing and fewer overall interactions. These findings highlight the role of manual editing as a form of last-mile repair, complementing prompting in AI-assisted programming workflows.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Humanizing Automated Programming Feedback: Fine-Tuning Generative Models with Student-Written Feedback

The growing need for automated and personalized feedback in programming education has led to recent interest in leveraging generative AI for feedback generation. However, current approaches tend to rely on prompt engineering techniques in which predefined prompts guide the AI to generate feedback. This can result in rigid and constrained responses that fail to accommodate the diverse needs of students and do not reflect the style of human-written feedback from tutors or peers. In this study, we explore learnersourcing as a means to fine-tune language models for generating feedback that is more similar to that written by humans, particularly peer students. Specifically, we asked students to act in the flipped role of a tutor and write feedback on programs containing bugs. We collected approximately 1,900 instances of student-written feedback on multiple programming problems and buggy programs. To establish a baseline for comparison, we analyzed a sample of 300 instances based on correctness, length, and how the bugs are described. Using this data, we fine-tuned open-access generative models, specifically Llama3 and Phi3. Our findings indicate that fine-tuning models on learnersourced data not only produces feedback that better matches the style of feedback written by students, but also improves accuracy compared to feedback generated through prompt engineering alone, even though some student-written feedback is incorrect. This surprising finding highlights the potential of student-centered fine-tuning to improve automated feedback systems in programming education.

cs.CY↗