How Do Programming Students Use Generative AI?
Christian Rahe, Walid Maalej
Abstract
Programming students have a widespread access to powerful Generative AI tools like ChatGPT. While this can help understand the learning material and assist with exercises, educators are voicing more and more concerns about an overreliance on generated outputs and lack of critical thinking skills. It is thus important to understand how students actually use generative AI and what impact this could have on their learning behavior. To this end, we conducted a study including an exploratory experiment with 37 programming students, giving them monitored access to ChatGPT while solving a code authoring exercise. The task was not directly solvable by ChatGPT and required code comprehension and reasoning. While only 23 of the students actually opted to use the chatbot, the majority of those eventually prompted it to simply generate a full solution. We observed two prevalent usage strategies: to seek knowledge about general concepts and to directly generate solutions. Instead of using the bot to comprehend the code and their own mistakes, students often got trapped in a vicious cycle of submitting wrong generated code and then asking the bot for a fix. Those who self-reported using generative AI regularly were more likely to prompt the bot to generate a solution. Our findings indicate that concerns about potential decrease in programmers' agency and productivity with Generative AI are justified. We discuss how researchers and educators can respond to the potential risk of students uncritically over-relying on Generative AI. We also discuss potential modifications to our study design for large-scale replications.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 573693de-a66c-47ac-b394-4b790738153aBuilds on4
- The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking: Self-Reported Reductions in Cognitive Effort and Confidence Effects From a Survey of Knowledge WorkersHao-Ping (Hank) Lee, Advait Sarkar, Lev Tankelevitch, Ian Drosos et al.CHI 2025 · 690 citations
- Studying the effect of AI Code Generators on Supporting Novice Learners in Introductory ProgrammingMajeed Kazemitabaar, Justin Chow, Carl Ka To Ma, Barbara J. Ericson et al.CHI 2023 · 348 citations
- Is Stack Overflow Obsolete? An Empirical Study of the Characteristics of ChatGPT Answers to Stack Overflow QuestionsSamia Kabir, David N. Udo-Imeh, Bonan Kou, Tianyi ZhangCHI 2024 · 149 citations
- Knowledgeable or Educated Guess? Revisiting Language Models as Knowledge BasesBoxi Cao, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun et al.ACL 2021
Related papers
- An Empirical Study to Understand How Students Use ChatGPT for Writing EssaysAndrew Jelson, Daniel Manesh, Alice Jang, Daniel Dunlap et al.CHI 2026 · 3 citations
- The Promise and Peril of ChatGPT in Higher Education: Opportunities, Challenges, and Design ImplicationsHyanghee Park, Daehwan AhnCHI 2024 · 80 citations
- CodeAid: Evaluating a Classroom Deployment of an LLM-based Programming Assistant that Balances Student and Educator NeedsMajeed Kazemitabaar, Runlong Ye, Xiaoning Wang, Austin Zachary Henley et al.CHI 2024 · 246 citations
- CreAItive Collaboration? Users' Misjudgment of AI-Creativity Affects Their Collaborative PerformanceMia Magdalena Bangerl, Leonie Disch, Tamara David, Viktoria Pammer-SchindlerCHI 2025 · 13 citations
- Testing, Socializing, Exploring: Characterizing Middle Schoolers' Approaches to and Conceptions of ChatGPTYasmine Belghith, Atefeh Mahdavi Goloujeh, Brian Magerko, Duri Long et al.CHI 2024 · 30 citations
