ChatGPT 和 Python 编程作业

IF 0.8 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Decision Sciences-Journal of Innovative Education Pub Date : 2024-01-19 DOI:10.1111/dsji.12306
Michael E. Ellis, K. Mike Casey, Geoffrey Hill
{"title":"ChatGPT 和 Python 编程作业","authors":"Michael E. Ellis,&nbsp;K. Mike Casey,&nbsp;Geoffrey Hill","doi":"10.1111/dsji.12306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Large Language Model (LLM) artificial intelligence tools present a unique challenge for educators who teach programming languages. While LLMs like ChatGPT have been well documented for their ability to complete exams and create prose, there is a noticeable lack of research into their ability to solve problems using high-level programming languages. Like many other university educators, those teaching programming courses would like to detect if students submit assignments generated by an LLM. To investigate grade performance and the likelihood of instructors identifying code generated by artificial intelligence (AI) tools, we compare code generated by students and ChatGPT for introductory Python homework assignments. Our research reveals mixed results on both counts, with ChatGPT performing like a mid-range student on assignments and seasoned instructors struggling to detect AI-generated code. This indicates that although AI-generated results may not always be identifiable, they do not currently yield results approaching those of diligent students. We describe our methodology for selecting and evaluating the code examples, the results of our comparison, and the implications for future classes. We conclude with recommendations for how instructors of programming courses can mitigate student use of LLM tools as well as articulate the inherent value of preserving students’ individual creativity in producing programming languages.</p>","PeriodicalId":46210,"journal":{"name":"Decision Sciences-Journal of Innovative Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ChatGPT and Python programming homework\",\"authors\":\"Michael E. Ellis,&nbsp;K. Mike Casey,&nbsp;Geoffrey Hill\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/dsji.12306\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Large Language Model (LLM) artificial intelligence tools present a unique challenge for educators who teach programming languages. While LLMs like ChatGPT have been well documented for their ability to complete exams and create prose, there is a noticeable lack of research into their ability to solve problems using high-level programming languages. Like many other university educators, those teaching programming courses would like to detect if students submit assignments generated by an LLM. To investigate grade performance and the likelihood of instructors identifying code generated by artificial intelligence (AI) tools, we compare code generated by students and ChatGPT for introductory Python homework assignments. Our research reveals mixed results on both counts, with ChatGPT performing like a mid-range student on assignments and seasoned instructors struggling to detect AI-generated code. This indicates that although AI-generated results may not always be identifiable, they do not currently yield results approaching those of diligent students. We describe our methodology for selecting and evaluating the code examples, the results of our comparison, and the implications for future classes. We conclude with recommendations for how instructors of programming courses can mitigate student use of LLM tools as well as articulate the inherent value of preserving students’ individual creativity in producing programming languages.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46210,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Decision Sciences-Journal of Innovative Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Decision Sciences-Journal of Innovative Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dsji.12306\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Decision Sciences-Journal of Innovative Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dsji.12306","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

大型语言模型(LLM)人工智能工具为教授编程语言的教育工作者带来了独特的挑战。虽然像 ChatGPT 这样的 LLM 在完成考试和创作散文方面的能力已经得到了很好的证明,但对它们使用高级编程语言解决问题的能力却明显缺乏研究。与许多其他大学教育工作者一样,教授编程课程的人也希望检测学生是否提交了由 LLM 生成的作业。为了调查成绩表现和教师识别人工智能(AI)工具生成的代码的可能性,我们比较了学生和 ChatGPT 生成的 Python 入门作业的代码。我们的研究显示,这两方面的结果参差不齐,ChatGPT 在作业中的表现与中等水平的学生无异,而经验丰富的教师却很难发现人工智能生成的代码。这表明,虽然人工智能生成的结果不一定总能被识别出来,但它们目前产生的结果并不接近勤奋学生的结果。我们将介绍选择和评估代码示例的方法、比较结果以及对未来课程的影响。最后,我们就程序设计课程的讲师如何减少学生使用 LLM 工具提出了建议,并阐明了在制作程序设计语言时保留学生个人创造力的内在价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
ChatGPT and Python programming homework

Large Language Model (LLM) artificial intelligence tools present a unique challenge for educators who teach programming languages. While LLMs like ChatGPT have been well documented for their ability to complete exams and create prose, there is a noticeable lack of research into their ability to solve problems using high-level programming languages. Like many other university educators, those teaching programming courses would like to detect if students submit assignments generated by an LLM. To investigate grade performance and the likelihood of instructors identifying code generated by artificial intelligence (AI) tools, we compare code generated by students and ChatGPT for introductory Python homework assignments. Our research reveals mixed results on both counts, with ChatGPT performing like a mid-range student on assignments and seasoned instructors struggling to detect AI-generated code. This indicates that although AI-generated results may not always be identifiable, they do not currently yield results approaching those of diligent students. We describe our methodology for selecting and evaluating the code examples, the results of our comparison, and the implications for future classes. We conclude with recommendations for how instructors of programming courses can mitigate student use of LLM tools as well as articulate the inherent value of preserving students’ individual creativity in producing programming languages.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Decision Sciences-Journal of Innovative Education
Decision Sciences-Journal of Innovative Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
36.80%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Learning from the pandemic Training, comfort, and perceived effectiveness: Lessons from the pandemic Game changer: Cloud-based classroom interactions powered by Google Sheets Changes to business faculty perceived skills with online teaching tools and educational practices: The pandemic effect
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1