Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 79 references

SPIRAL integration of generative AI in an undergraduate creative media course: effects on self-efficacy and career outcome expectations

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that teaching creative media skills without AI first, then revisiting the same tasks with AI plus explicit critical-use instruction, raises students' self-efficacy in both the domain and AI use while reducing fear that…

desk verdict A modest, honest mixed-methods study of a sensible AI-integration sequence; the SPIRAL pattern is worth taking seriously, but the causal claims need a softer frame. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18771 v1 pith:JBNXSH6K submitted 2025-05-24 cs.HC

Troy Schotter , Saba Kawas , James Prather , Juho Leinonen , Jon Ippolito , Greg L Nelson This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords generativeAIineducationSPIRALcurriculumself-efficacycareeroutcomeexpectationscreativemediasocio-cognitivetheorymixedmethodscriticaluse
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that a SPIRAL sequence, in which students first practice creative media skills independently and then revisit the same tasks with generative AI and explicit instruction in critical and ethical use, improves both creative media self-efficacy and generative AI use self-efficacy while easing career-related fears. If true, this matters because many current approaches either ban AI or integrate it from the very first exercise, leaving open whether sequencing and instruction can shape self-efficacy and career outcome expectations. The study of 31 students in an introductory creative media course found statistically significant gains in creative media self-efficacy and in confidence for using AI helpfully, mixed changes in ethical-use confidence, and a qualitative pattern of demystification from fear of AI replacing creative jobs to a more calibrated view. The authors position the SPIRAL design as a novel integration strategy that can mitigate negative impacts of AI while supporting career formation.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the SPIRAL instructional sequence (Skills Practiced Independently, Revisited with AI Later). In the first half of the semester, students completed creative media tasks such as essays, brainstorming, portfolio design, game avatars, composite photographs, storyboards, and soundscapes without generative AI; in the second half, they revisited the same categories of tasks with AI. Each AI task followed a five-step structure: a worked example using a prompt template whose output deliberately contained quality issues like confabulated citations; a demonstration of critical use with iterative prompt engineering and verification; an in-class paired or small-group activity with shared reflection; a follow-up homework assignment; and a weekly reflection on experiences, benefits, downsides, and ethical considerations. This design is meant to build domain self-efficacy first so students can judge AI outputs, and to provide the vicarious experiences that socio-cognitive career theory identifies as shaping outcome expectations.

What would settle it

Conduct a controlled comparison in which students' AI use before and outside class is monitored, and randomly assign one section to SPIRAL (skills first, AI later) and another to AI-from-the-start; if the SPIRAL section does not show larger gains in creative media self-efficacy and AI-use self-efficacy, and a shift from career fear to calibrated confidence, then the claim that the SPIRAL sequencing produces these effects is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a dual-mastery SPIRAL design, where students demonstrate domain competence without AI for the first half of the course and then revisit those tasks with generative AI in the second half, produced positive shifts in self-efficacy and career outlooks. In the Fall 2023 course with 31 participants, creative media self-efficacy improved significantly (Wilcoxon paired test, p<.018, Cohen's d=.43) and generative AI use self-efficacy improved significantly (p<.01, d=.63), while ethical-use self-efficacy changed unevenly with a small net positive effect that was not statistically significant. Longitudinal interviews with nine students showed a demystification trajectory: students moved from initial fear that AI would take over their fields to doubting AI's capability to do so or expecting society to push back, often through personal use and vicarious observation. For career outcome expectations, the integration appeared to have either a neutral or positive influence, including widening perceived career options, depending on how students expected AI to affect their particular field.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the week-7 pre-survey captures a true no-generative-AI baseline, but compliance was only by instruction and several interviewees had already used ChatGPT, so some measured gains could reflect prior exposure or concurrent outside use rather than the SPIRAL sequence itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Students who develop domain skills before encountering AI can gain confidence in both the domain and in AI use at the same time, countering over-reliance and the illusion of competence.
  • Explicit instruction with flawed AI outputs and iterative prompt engineering can demystify AI, moving students from fears of replacement to more calibrated views of AI capability.
  • Career outcome expectations need not be harmed by integrating AI into a course; they may remain neutral or improve, including by widening perceived career options.
  • Ethical AI self-efficacy may not rise uniformly, in part because learning more about AI ethics can reveal more concerns than students initially recognized.
  • The SPIRAL design lets instructors measure whether AI use weakens unassisted ability, because the same tasks are completed both without and with AI within one course.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The demystification result may depend on the creative-media labor context, where students observed a writers' strike and a sound-design guest speaker; the same sequence might produce weaker career-fear reduction in programming courses that lack visible collective resistance.
  • The paper's observation that writing self-efficacy and writing-with-AI self-efficacy responses converged after the course suggests students may now interpret ordinary self-efficacy items as implicitly including AI access, implying that pre-AI validated instruments need re-examination.
  • A testable extension of the SPIRAL principle is that the optimal length of the no-AI first phase varies with task complexity; comparing different first-half durations would identify when students have enough domain competence to judge AI output.
  • The mixed ethical-use self-efficacy result might reflect a distinction between confidence in acting ethically and awareness of ethical issues; an instrument separating these two constructs could clarify whether ethics instruction is lowering confidence or raising concern.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a mixed-methods study of a SPIRAL (Skills Practiced Independently, Revisited with AI Later) approach to integrating generative AI in an undergraduate creative media course (n=31). Students first completed domain tasks without AI for half the semester, then revisited those tasks with AI plus explicit instruction on critical and ethical use. The authors report significant pre-post increases in creative media self-efficacy (MSLQ, d=.43) and in a single-item measure of generative AI use self-efficacy (d=.63), a non-significant change in ethical-use self-efficacy, and a qualitative theme of 'demystification' in which students moved from fear of AI job replacement to a more calibrated view. Career-interest effects were mixed, with reported positive, neutral, and career-widening influences. The paper claims that careful pedagogical sequencing can mitigate negative impacts of AI on students' confidence and career formation.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful early exploratory contribution to the emerging literature on integrating generative AI in computing-adjacent courses, particularly because it addresses creative media (an understudied context) and because it examines career outcome expectations, not just performance. The study has notable strengths: a longitudinal interview design (up to four interviews per participant), a pre-registered analysis plan stated in Section 4.3, use of two externally validated self-efficacy instruments, transparent handling of limitations (Section 6), and full reporting of distributions in Figure 1. The main quantitative findings are statistically supported with modest effect sizes, but the single-arm, no-comparison design and the unverified week-7 baseline mean that the causal attribution to the SPIRAL sequencing is not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 4.2; Section 5.3.2] The abstract's claim that 'careful pedagogical sequencing can mitigate some potential negative impacts of AI' implies a causal effect of the SPIRAL ordering, but the design is a single-arm pre-post study with no control or comparison condition. The week-7 pre-survey is treated as a no-generative-AI baseline, yet compliance with the instruction not to use AI before that point is not verified, and Section 5.3.2 itself documents that interviewees J, D, and A had already used or observed others using ChatGPT before the course. Even under perfect compliance, the second half of the course included continued domain practice, guest speakers, and career discussions, so the MSLQ increase (d=.43) and GenAI self-efficacy increase (d=.63) could reflect time, practice, or those other components rather than the SPIRAL sequencing per se. I recommend either adding a comparison condition (e.g., a non-SPIRAL or concurrent-AI course) or substantially softening the causal language and reframing the paper as an exploratory longitudinal case study.
  2. [Section 4.2 and 4.2.1; Section 5.2; Section 6] The headline result for generative AI use self-efficacy (p<.01, d=.63) rests on an unvalidated four-item instrument that was developed by the authors for this study. Section 4.2 notes that the pre-survey mistakenly contained only two of the four items, and Section 6 acknowledges that the measure has no validity argument beyond face validity. Because this is one of the two primary quantitative findings, the manuscript should report the two items that were common to both time points separately, present a sensitivity analysis using only those two items, and clearly label the GenAI self-efficacy finding as exploratory rather than confirmatory. Without this, readers cannot judge whether the effect is an artifact of the ad hoc measure or a genuine change in the intended construct.
  3. [Section 5.1; Figure 1] For the MSLQ and GenAI use self-efficacy results, the paper reports only p-values and Cohen's d, but the paired Wilcoxon test compares medians, and the change-score distributions in Figure 1 are clearly non-normal (e.g., GenAI use SE change is heavily left-skewed with an outlier at -2). Reporting Cohen's d for non-normal paired data without confidence intervals can be misleading. I recommend reporting the median difference with a nonparametric confidence interval (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank confidence interval) and the exact p-values, and noting the small sample size (n=31) as a reason to interpret the effect sizes as imprecise.
  4. [Section 5.3 and 5.3.2] The qualitative demystification theme is presented as a course-induced transition, but the sample is small (n=9), self-selected, and explicitly includes participants who had already reached the 'demystified' state before the course (J and D in Section 5.3.2, and A via a prior course). The authors should provide a more systematic analysis of how many interviewees showed the transition during the course, how many had already demystified earlier, and how many did not change. This would allow readers to assess the strength of the claim that the SPIRAL course itself caused the change, rather than that the class coincided with a trajectory that was already underway.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5.1] There is a typo: 'Shaprio-Wilks test' should be 'Shapiro-Wilk test'.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] The caption refers to 'MLSQ' but the instrument is MSLQ; please correct.
  3. [Section 4.2] The text alternates between 'MAWSES' and 'MAWESS' for the same instrument; standardize the abbreviation throughout.
  4. [Section 5.2] Please report exact p-values (e.g., p = .008) rather than only inequality bounds such as p < .01, especially given the small sample and the use of a one-item measure.
  5. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'We gave a pre-survey in week 7 at the middle of the course before generative AI was integrated into the class' is slightly ambiguous because the weekly-survey list that follows starts at 'week 7' and includes AI-related questions; clarify the exact timeline of the pre-survey relative to the first AI class session.
  6. [Section 6] The limitation that 'Our AI self efficacy measure does not have a validity argument beyond face validity' is appropriately acknowledged, but it should also be stated in the Results section when the GenAI self-efficacy finding is first presented, to avoid giving it equal epistemic weight as the validated MSLQ result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the empirical outcomes are independent of the intervention definition, and the acknowledged validity limitations are not circularity.

full rationale

This paper makes no formal derivation and fits no parameters; its evidence chain is empirical. The SPIRAL intervention is defined by a curriculum sequence (Section 3.2), while the quantitative outcomes rest on externally published instruments (MSLQ, MAWESS) and a self-authored generative-AI self-efficacy scale (Section 4.2.1). The self-authored scale is the only potential concern: its items ask about confidence in using generative AI helpfully, ethically, and critically, which is exactly what the course explicitly taught. That alignment is a construct-valid outcome measure, not a reduction of the conclusion to its input, and the paper candidly states the scale "does not have a validity argument beyond face validity" (Section 6). Threats such as an unverified week-7 no-AI baseline, prior generative-AI exposure documented in Section 5.3.2, the absence of a comparison condition, and the small self-selected interview sample are internal-validity limitations that affect causal attribution, but they are not circularity: the paper's claims do not presuppose the truth of the outcome, and no prior work by the same authors is used as load-bearing justification for the empirical results. The analysis is self-contained against its data, so no circular step can be quoted and exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative claims rest on the validity of the MSLQ and MAWESS, the unvalidated four-item GenAI self-efficacy scale, and the assumption that week-7 self-reports capture a no-AI baseline. The qualitative career claims rest on SCCT as the interpretive lens and on the representativeness of nine self-selected interviewees. There are no fitted parameters or invented entities. The most fragile premises are the no-AI baseline and the causal attribution in a single-arm design.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Socio-cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) is an appropriate lens for interpreting career interest changes.
    Used as the guiding framework for RQ2 and RQ3 in Section 2.2 and for the deductive coding phase; the paper does not test SCCT itself.
  • domain assumption The MSLQ and MAWESS instruments validly measure creative media and writing self-efficacy in this population.
    Scores are treated as interval-like for Wilcoxon tests and effect sizes; instrument validity is cited from prior work in Section 4.2.1.
  • ad hoc to paper The four-item generative AI self-efficacy scale measures the intended construct despite lacking a formal validity argument.
    Section 6 Limitations states the measure does not have a validity argument beyond face validity. The wording closely mirrors the behaviors taught in the intervention.
  • domain assumption Students did not use generative AI before the week-7 pre-survey.
    Section 4.2 says students were instructed not to use generative AI in class before that point, but compliance is unverified and Section 5.3.2 shows prior AI exposure for several interviewees.
  • domain assumption Observed pre-post differences are attributable to the SPIRAL intervention rather than maturation, practice, or outside AI use.
    Single-arm design with no comparison group; the authors hedge in Limitations but the research questions use causal wording.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SPIRAL integration of generative AI in an undergraduate creative media course: effects on self-efficacy and career outcome expectations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JBNXSH6K

@misc{pith2026250518771,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SPIRAL integration of generative AI in an undergraduate creative media course: effects on self-efficacy and career outcome expectations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JBNXSH6K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18771}
}
read the original abstract

Computing education and computing students are rapidly integrating generative AI, but we know relatively little about how different pedagogical strategies for intentionally integrating generative AI affect students' self-efficacy and career interests. This study investigates a SPIRAL integration of generative AI (Skills Practiced Independently, Revisited with AI Later), implemented in an introductory undergraduate creative media and technology course in Fall 2023 (n=31). Students first developed domain skills for half the semester, then revisited earlier material integrating using generative AI, with explicit instruction on how to use it critically and ethically. We contribute a mixed methods quantitative and qualitative analysis of changes in self-efficacy and career interests over time, including longitudinal qualitative interviews (n=9) and thematic analysis. We found positive changes in both students' creative media self-efficacy and generative AI use self-efficacy, and mixed changes for ethical generative AI use self-efficacy. We also found students experienced demystification, transitioning from initial fear about generative AI taking over their fields and jobs, to doubting AI capability to do so and/or that society will push back against AI, through personal use of AI and observing others' use of AI vicariously. For career interests, our SPIRAL integration of generative AI use appeared to have either a neutral or positive influence on students, including widening their perceived career options, depending on their view of how AI would influence the career itself. These findings suggest that careful pedagogical sequencing can mitigate some potential negative impacts of AI, while promoting ethical and critical AI use that supports or has a neutral effect on students' career formation. To our knowledge our SPIRAL integration strategy applied to generative AI integration is novel.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18771 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plots of the MLSQ (7 point Likert scale from 1=“Not at all true of me” to 7=“Very true of me”), and our single questions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plots of each person’s MAWESS (scores made from questions from 1=“quite confident that I cannot perform this” to 10=“quite [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Al-Ali, S., Tlili, A., and Al-Ali, A. R. LAIK your classroom: A practical framework to integrate generative AI in higher education classrooms. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching 7 , 2 (Aug. 2024), 61–76

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Alshahrani, A., Ross, I., and Wood, M. I. Using Social Cognitive Career Theory to Understand Why Students Choose to Study Computer Science. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (Espoo Finland, Aug. 2018), ACM, pp. 205–214

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    A Socially Relevant Focused AI Curriculum Designed for Female High School Students

    Alvarez, L., Gransbury, I., Cateté, V., Barnes, T., Ledéczi, Á., and Grover, S. A Socially Relevant Focused AI Curriculum Designed for Female High School Students. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (June 2022), vol. 36, pp. 12698–12705

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Amoozadeh, M., Daniels, D., Nam, D., Kumar, A., Chen, S., Hilton, M., Srinivasa Ragavan, S., and Alipour, M. A. Trust in generative ai among students: An exploratory study. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (2024), pp. 67–73

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Artino, A. R. Academic self-efficacy: From educational theory to instructional practice. Perspectives on Medical Education 1 , 2 (May 2012), 76–85

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    B., and Polikarpova, N

    Barke, S., James, M. B., and Polikarpova, N. Grounded copilot: How programmers interact with code-generating models. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages 7 , OOPSLA1 (2023), 85–111

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    A., Denny, P., Finnie-Ansley, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Prather, J., and Santos, E

    Becker, B. A., Denny, P., Finnie-Ansley, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Prather, J., and Santos, E. A. Programming is hard-or at least it used to be: Educational opportunities and challenges of ai code generation. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (2023), pp. 500–506

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    M., and Stout, J

    Blaney, J. M., and Stout, J. G. Examining the Relationship Between Introductory Computing Course Experiences, Self-Efficacy, and Belonging Among First-Generation College Women. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Mar. 2017), 69–74

    work page 2017

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    Boguslawski, S., Deer, R., and Dawson, M. G. Programming education and learner motivation in the age of generative AI: Student and educator perspectives. Information and Learning Sciences 126 , 1/2 (Feb. 2025), 91–109

    2025

  2. [10]

    D., Smith, G., and Telliel, Y

    Boucher, J. D., Smith, G., and Telliel, Y. D. Is Resistance Futile?: Early Career Game Developers, Generative AI, and Ethical Skepticism. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu HI USA, May 2024), ACM, pp. 1–13

    2024

  3. [11]

    E., Latini, N., and Strømsø, H

    Bråten, I., Haverkamp, Y. E., Latini, N., and Strømsø, H. I. Measuring multiple-source based academic writing self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology 14 (July 2023), 1212567

    2023

  4. [12]

    Bruner, J. S. The Process of Education . Harvard U.P. ; Oxford U.P, 1960

    1960

  5. [13]

    Chan, C. K. Y. A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning.International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 20 , 1 (July 2023), 38

    2023

  6. [14]

    Insights from the Frontline: GenAI Utilization Among Software Engineering Students, Dec

    Choudhuri, R., Ramakrishnan, A., Chatterjee, A., Trinkenreich, B., Steinmacher, I., Gerosa, M., and Sarma, A. Insights from the Frontline: GenAI Utilization Among Software Engineering Students, Dec. 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    A., Finnie-Ansley, J., Hellas, A., Leinonen, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Reeves, B

    Denny, P., Prather, J., Becker, B. A., Finnie-Ansley, J., Hellas, A., Leinonen, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Reeves, B. N., Santos, E. A., and Sarsa, S. Computing education in the era of generative ai. Commun. ACM 67, 2 (Jan. 2024), 56–67

    2024

  8. [16]

    Junior Software Developers’ Perspectives on Adopting LLMs for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review, Mar

    Ferino, S., Hoda, R., Grundy, J., and Treude, C. Junior Software Developers’ Perspectives on Adopting LLMs for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review, Mar. 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    A., Luxton-Reilly, A., and Prather, J

    Finnie-Ansley, J., Denny, P., Becker, B. A., Luxton-Reilly, A., and Prather, J. The robots are coming: Exploring the implications of openai codex on introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 24th Australasian Computing Education Conference (New York, NY, USA, 2022), ACE ...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Analyzing the Role of Generative AI in Fostering Self-directed Learning Through Structured Prompt Engineering

    Garg, A., and Rajendran, R. Analyzing the Role of Generative AI in Fostering Self-directed Learning Through Structured Prompt Engineering. In Generative Intelligence and Intelligent Tutoring Systems (2024), Springer, Cham, pp. 232–243

    2024

  11. [19]

    The Impact of Structured Prompt-Driven Generative AI on Learning Data Analysis in Engineering Students:

    Garg, A., and Rajendran, R. The Impact of Structured Prompt-Driven Generative AI on Learning Data Analysis in Engineering Students:. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (Angers, France, 2024), SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology ...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Coding with ai: How are tools like chatgpt being used by students in foundational programming courses

    Ghimire, A., and Edwards, J. Coding with ai: How are tools like chatgpt being used by students in foundational programming courses. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (2024), Springer, pp. 259–267

    2024

  13. [21]

    Is learning really just believing? A meta-analysis of self-efficacy and achievement in SLA

    Goetze, J., and Driver, M. Is learning really just believing? A meta-analysis of self-efficacy and achievement in SLA. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 12, 2 (June 2022), 233–259

    2022

  14. [22]

    V., Man, O., and MacNeil, S

    Hou, I., Nguyen, H. V., Man, O., and MacNeil, S. The Evolving Usage of GenAI by Computing Students, Dec. 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Achievement goals and self-efficacy: A meta-analysis

    Huang, C. Achievement goals and self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review 19 (Nov. 2016), 119–137

    2016

  16. [24]

    Understanding the effect size and its measures

    Ialongo, C. Understanding the effect size and its measures. Biochemia Medica 26, 2 (June 2016), 150–163

    2016

  17. [25]

    The impact of large language models on programming education and student learning outcomes

    Jošt, G., Taneski, V., and Karakatič, S. The impact of large language models on programming education and student learning outcomes. Applied Sciences 14, 10 (2024), 4115

    2024

  18. [26]

    From Theory Bias to Theory Dialogue: Embracing Cognitive, Situated, and Critical Framings of Computational Thinking in K-12 CS Education

    Kafai, Y., Proctor, C., and Lui, D. From Theory Bias to Theory Dialogue: Embracing Cognitive, Situated, and Critical Framings of Computational Thinking in K-12 CS Education. Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (July 2019), 101–109

    2019

  19. [27]

    Kazemitabaar, M., Chow, J., Ma, C. K. T., Ericson, B. J., Weintrop, D., and Grossman, T. Studying the effect of ai code generators on supporting novice learners in introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2023),...

    2023

  20. [28]

    Students’ Perceptions and Use of Manuscript submitted to ACM Generative AI Tools for Programming Across Different Computing Courses, Nov

    Keuning, H., Alpizar-Chacon, I., Lykourentzou, I., Beehler, L., Köppe, C., de Jong, I., and Sosnovsky, S. Students’ Perceptions and Use of Manuscript submitted to ACM Generative AI Tools for Programming Across Different Computing Courses, Nov. 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Students’ perceptions and use of generative ai tools for programming across different computing courses

    Keuning, H., Alpizar-Chacon, I., Lykourentzou, I., Beehler, L., Köppe, C., de Jong, I., and Sosnovsky, S. Students’ perceptions and use of generative ai tools for programming across different computing courses. InProceedings of the 24th Koli Calling International Conference on...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Knoth, N., Tolzin, A., Janson, A., and Leimeister, J. M. AI literacy and its implications for prompt engineering strategies. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 6 (June 2024), 100225

    2024

  23. [31]

    A Human-Centered Learning and Teaching Framework Using Generative Artificial Intelligence for Self-Regulated Learning Development Through Domain Knowledge Learning in K–12 Settings

    Kong, S.-C., and Y ang, Y. A Human-Centered Learning and Teaching Framework Using Generative Artificial Intelligence for Self-Regulated Learning Development Through Domain Knowledge Learning in K–12 Settings. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 17 (2024), 1562–1573

    2024

  24. [32]

    Will I be replaced?

    Kuhail, M. A., Mathew, S. S., Khalil, A., Berengueres, J., and Shah, S. J. H. “Will I be replaced?” Assessing ChatGPT’s effect on software development and programmer perceptions of AI tools. Science of Computer Programming 235 (July 2024), 103111

    2024

  25. [33]

    ban it till we understand it

    Lau, S., and Guo, P. From" ban it till we understand it" to" resistance is futile": How university programming instructors plan to adapt as more students use ai code generation and explanation tools such as chatgpt and github copilot. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference ...

    2023

  26. [34]

    ban it till we understand it

    Lau, S., and Guo, P. From "ban it till we understand it" to "resistance is futile": How university programming instructors plan to adapt as more students use ai code generation and explanation tools such as chatgpt and github copilot. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference ...

    2023

  27. [35]

    Prompt engineering in higher education: A systematic review to help inform curricula

    Lee, D., and Palmer, E. Prompt engineering in higher education: A systematic review to help inform curricula. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 22 , 1 (Feb. 2025), 7

    2025

  28. [36]

    H., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., and Wilson, N

    Lee, H.-P. H., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., and Wilson, N. The impact of generative ai on critical thinking: Self-reported reductions in cognitive effort and confidence effects from a survey of knowledge workers

  29. [37]

    W., and Brown, S

    Lent, R. W., and Brown, S. D. Social cognitive model of career self-management: Toward a unifying view of adaptive career behavior across the life span. Journal of Counseling Psychology 60 , 4 (2013), 557–568

    2013

  30. [38]

    W., and Brown, S

    Lent, R. W., and Brown, S. D. Social cognitive career theory at 25: Empirical status of the interest, choice, and performance models. Journal of Vocational Behavior 115 (Dec. 2019), 103316

    2019

  31. [39]

    W., Brown, S

    Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., and Hackett, G. Toward a Unifying Social Cognitive Theory of Career and Academic Interest, Choice, and Performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior 45 , 1 (Aug. 1994), 79–122

    1994

  32. [40]

    W., Lopez, A

    Lent, R. W., Lopez, A. M., Lopez, F. G., and Sheu, H.-B. Social cognitive career theory and the prediction of interests and choice goals in the computing disciplines. Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 , 1 (Aug. 2008), 52–62

    2008

  33. [41]

    Liu, R., Zenke, C., Liu, C., Holmes, A., Thornton, P., and Malan, D. J. Teaching cs50 with ai: leveraging generative artificial intelligence in computer science education. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM technical symposium on computer science education V. 1 (2024), pp. 750–756

    2024

  34. [42]

    E., Prather, J., Reeves, B

    Margulieux, L. E., Prather, J., Reeves, B. N., Becker, B. A., Cetin Uzun, G., Loksa, D., Leinonen, J., and Denny, P. Self-regulation, self-efficacy, and fear of failure interactions with how novices use llms to solve programming problems. In Proceedings of the 2024 on Innovati...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Mislevy, R. J. Sociocognitive Foundations of Educational Measurement . Routledge, New York, Mar. 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    Subgoals, Context, and Worked Examples in Learning Computing Problem Solving

    Morrison, B., Margulieux, L., and Guzdial, M. Subgoals, Context, and Worked Examples in Learning Computing Problem Solving. In Proceedings of the eleventh annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research - ICER ’15 (2015), ACM Press, pp. 267–268

    2015

  37. [45]

    The Impact of Prompt Engineering and a Generative AI-Driven Tool on Autonomous Learning: A Case Study

    Mzwri, K., and Turcsányi-Szabo, M. The Impact of Prompt Engineering and a Generative AI-Driven Tool on Autonomous Learning: A Case Study. Education Sciences 15, 2 (Feb. 2025), 199

    2025

  38. [46]

    Ng, D. T. K., Lee, M., Tan, R. J. Y., Hu, X., Downie, J. S., and Chu, S. K. W. A review of AI teaching and learning from 2000 to 2020. Education and Information Technologies 28, 7 (July 2023), 8445–8501

    2000

  39. [47]

    S., and Aruleba, K

    Oyelere, S. S., and Aruleba, K. A comparative study of student perceptions on generative ai in programming education across sub-saharan africa. Computers and Education Open 8 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    Insights from Social Shaping Theory: The Appropriation of Large Language Models in an Undergraduate Programming Course

    Padiyath, A., Hou, X., Pang, A., Viramontes V argas, D., Gu, X., Nelson-Fromm, T., Wu, Z., Guzdial, M., and Ericson, B. Insights from Social Shaping Theory: The Appropriation of Large Language Models in an Undergraduate Programming Course. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Confere...

    2024

  41. [49]

    The Artificial Intelligence Assessment Scale (AIAS): A Framework for Ethical Integration of Generative AI in Educational Assessment

    Perkins, M., Furze, L., Roe, J., and MacV augh, J. The Artificial Intelligence Assessment Scale (AIAS): A Framework for Ethical Integration of Generative AI in Educational Assessment. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 21 , 06 (Apr. 2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    R., et al

    Pintrich, P. R., et al. A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (mslq)

  43. [51]

    R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., and McKeachie, W

    Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., and McKeachie, W. A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor. Michigan 48109, August 2016 (1991), 1259

    1991

  44. [52]

    Learn AI-Assisted Python Programming: With Github Copilot and ChatGPT

    Porter, L., and Zingaro, D. Learn AI-Assisted Python Programming: With Github Copilot and ChatGPT . Simon and Schuster, 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    A., Albluwi, I., Craig, M., Keuning, H., Kiesler, N., Kohn, T., Luxton-Reilly, A., MacNeil, S., Petersen, A., Pettit, R., Reeves, B

    Prather, J., Denny, P., Leinonen, J., Becker, B. A., Albluwi, I., Craig, M., Keuning, H., Kiesler, N., Kohn, T., Luxton-Reilly, A., MacNeil, S., Petersen, A., Pettit, R., Reeves, B. N., and Savelka, J. The robots are here: Navigating the generative ai revolution in computing e...

    2023

  46. [54]

    G., Lau, S., MacNeil, S., Norouzi, N., Opel, S., Pettit, V., Porter, L., et al

    Prather, J., Leinonen, J., Kiesler, N., Benario, J. G., Lau, S., MacNeil, S., Norouzi, N., Opel, S., Pettit, V., Porter, L., et al. Beyond the hype: A Manuscript submitted to ACM comprehensive review of current trends in generative ai research, teaching practices, and tools. a...

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    G., Lau, S., MacNeil, S., Norouzi, N., Opel, S., Pettit, V., Porter, L., Reeves, B

    Prather, J., Leinonen, J., Kiesler, N., Benario, J. G., Lau, S., MacNeil, S., Norouzi, N., Opel, S., Pettit, V., Porter, L., Reeves, B. N., Savelka, J., IV, D. H. S., Strickroth, S., and Zingaro, D. Beyond the Hype: A Comprehensive Review of Current Trends in Generative AI Res...

    2024

  48. [56]

    it’s weird that it knows what i want

    Prather, J., Reeves, B. N., Denny, P., Becker, B. A., Leinonen, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Powell, G., Finnie-Ansley, J., and Santos, E. A. “it’s weird that it knows what i want”: Usability and interactions with copilot for novice programmers. ACM transactions on computer-human in...

    2023

  49. [57]

    N., Leinonen, J., MacNeil, S., Randrianasolo, A

    Prather, J., Reeves, B. N., Leinonen, J., MacNeil, S., Randrianasolo, A. S., Becker, B. A., Kimmel, B., Wright, J., and Briggs, B. The widening gap: The benefits and harms of generative ai for novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Compu...

    2024

  50. [58]

    T., and McCormack, J

    Rajcic, N., Llano Rodriguez, M. T., and McCormack, J. Towards a Diffractive Analysis of Prompt-Based Generative AI. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu HI USA, May 2024), ACM, pp. 1–15

    2024

  51. [59]

    Development and validation of scores on a computer programming Self-Efficacy scale and group analyses of novice programmer Self-Efficacy

    Ramalingam, V., and Wiedenbeck, S. Development and validation of scores on a computer programming Self-Efficacy scale and group analyses of novice programmer Self-Efficacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research 19 , 4 (1998), 367–381

    1998

  52. [60]

    T., and Ju, W

    Sandhaus, H., Parreira, M. T., and Ju, W. Student Reflections on Self-Initiated GenAI Use in HCI Education, May 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    How novice programmers use and experience chatgpt when solving programming exercises in an introductory course

    Scholl, A., and Kiesler, N. How novice programmers use and experience chatgpt when solving programming exercises in an introductory course. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20792 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Flextensions: Exploring the Impact of Flexible Extensions

    Shakir, Fuzail, Fox, Armando, and Garcia, Dan . Flextensions: Exploring the Impact of Flexible Extensions. Tech. Rep. UCB/EECS-2023-117

    2023

  55. [63]

    Shibani, A., Knight, S., Kitto, K., Karunanayake, A., and Shum, S. B. Untangling Critical Interaction with AI in Students Written Assessment. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (May 2024), pp. 1–6

    2024

  56. [64]

    R., Zhang, S., Tian, X., Boyer, K

    Song, Y., Weisberg, L. R., Zhang, S., Tian, X., Boyer, K. E., and Israel, M. A framework for inclusive AI learning design for diverse learners. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 6 (June 2024), 100212

    2024

  57. [65]

    Supporting children’s career aspirations under changing career conditions: A systematic review of intervention approaches

    Sowa, S., Xia, J., Smith, J., and Manches, A. Supporting children’s career aspirations under changing career conditions: A systematic review of intervention approaches. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance (Apr. 2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    Against Artificial Education: Towards an Ethical Framework for Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use in Education

    Swindell, A., Greeley, L., Farag, A., and Verdone, B. Against Artificial Education: Towards an Ethical Framework for Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use in Education. Online Learning 28, 2 (June 2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    Yes, I Can!

    Täschner, J., Dicke, T., Reinhold, S., and Holzberger, D. “Yes, I Can!” A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Intervention Studies Promoting Teacher Self-Efficacy. Review of Educational Research 95 , 1 (Feb. 2025), 3–52

    2025

  60. [68]

    Trujillo, G., and Tanner, K. D. Considering the Role of Affect in Learning: Monitoring Students’ Self-Efficacy, Sense of Belonging, and Science Identity. CBE—Life Sciences Education 13 , 1 (Mar. 2014), 6–15

    2014

  61. [69]

    H., Padala, M., Alvarado, C., Gorson Benario, J., and Porter, L

    V adaparty, A., Zingaro, D., Smith IV, D. H., Padala, M., Alvarado, C., Gorson Benario, J., and Porter, L. Cs1-llm: Integrating llms into cs1 instruction. In Proceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 . 2024, pp. 297–303

    2024

  62. [70]

    AI Rivalry as a Craft: How Resisting and Embracing Generative AI Reshape Writing Professions

    V aranasi, R., Wiesenfeld, B., and Nov, O. AI Rivalry as a Craft: How Resisting and Embracing Generative AI Reshape Writing Professions. In CHI Proceedings 2025 (2025)

    2025

  63. [71]

    Review of Large Vision Models and Visual Prompt Engineering

    W ang, J., Liu, Z., Zhao, L., Wu, Z., Ma, C., Yu, S., Dai, H., Y ang, Q., Liu, Y., Zhang, S., Shi, E., Pan, Y., Zhang, T., Zhu, D., Li, X., Jiang, X., Ge, B., Yuan, Y., Shen, D., Liu, T., and Zhang, S. Review of Large Vision Models and Visual Prompt Engineering

  64. [72]

    White, J., Fu, Q., Hays, S., Sandborn, M., Olea, C., Gilbert, H., Elnashar, A., Spencer-Smith, J., and Schmidt, D. C. A Prompt Pattern Catalog to Enhance Prompt Engineering with ChatGPT. ArXiv (Feb. 2023)

    2023

  65. [73]

    J., Deliang W ang, Yung, T., and Guo, K

    Woo, D. J., Deliang W ang, Yung, T., and Guo, K. Effects of a Prompt Engineering Intervention on Undergraduate Students’ AI Self-Efficacy, AI Knowledge, and Prompt Engineering Ability: A Mixed Methods Study

  66. [74]

    Wood, D., and Moss, S. H. Evaluating the impact of students’ generative AI use in educational contexts. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning 17, 2 (Aug. 2024), 152–167

    2024

  67. [75]

    Yilmaz, R., and Yilmaz, F. G. K. The effect of generative artificial intelligence (ai)-based tool use on students’ computational thinking skills, programming self-efficacy and motivation. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 4 (2023), 100147

    2023

  68. [76]

    Generative ai in computing education: Perspectives of students and instructors

    Zastudil, C., Rogalska, M., Kapp, C., V aughn, J., and MacNeil, S. Generative ai in computing education: Perspectives of students and instructors. In 2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (2023), IEEE, pp. 1–9

    2023

  69. [77]

    Zhang, H., Xie, J., Wu, C., Cai, J., Kim, C., and Carroll, J. M. The Future of Learning: Large Language Models through the Lens of Students, July 2024

    2024

  70. [78]

    A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Research on Applying Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education

    Zhang, X., Zhang, P., Shen, Y., Liu, M., W ang, Q., Gašević, D., and Fan, Y. A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Research on Applying Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education. Frontiers of Digital Education 1 , 3 (Sept. 2024), 223–245

    2024

  71. [79]

    The Impact of ChatGPT on Learning Motivation: A Study Based on Self-Determination Theory

    Zhou, L., and Li, J. The Impact of ChatGPT on Learning Motivation: A Study Based on Self-Determination Theory. Education Science and Management 1, 1 (May 2023), 19–29. Manuscript submitted to ACM

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.