As Artificial Intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly integrated into daily life, there is a growing need to equip the next generation with the ability to apply, interact with, evaluate, and collaborate with AI systems responsibly. Prior research highlights the urgent demand from K-12 educators to teach students the ethical and effective use of AI for learning. To address this need, we designed a Large-Language Model (LLM)-based module to teach prompting literacy. This includes scenario-based deliberate practice activities with direct interaction with intelligent LLM agents, aiming to foster secondary school students' responsible engagement with AI chatbots. We conducted two iterations of classroom deployment in 11 authentic secondary education classrooms, and evaluated 1) AI-based auto-grader's capability; 2) students' prompting performance and confidence changes towards using AI for learning; and 3) the quality of learning and assessment materials. Results indicated that the AI-based auto-grader could grade student-written prompts with satisfactory quality. In addition, the instructional materials supported students in improving their prompting skills through practice and led to positive shifts in their perceptions of using AI for learning. Furthermore, data from Study 1 informed assessment revisions in Study 2. Analyses of item difficulty and discrimination in Study 2 showed that True/False and open-ended questions could measure prompting literacy more effectively than multiple-choice questions for our target learners. These promising outcomes highlight the potential for broader deployment and highlight the need for broader studies to assess learning effectiveness and assessment design.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is rapidly entering K-12 classrooms worldwide, initiating urgent debates about its potential to either reduce or exacerbate educational inequalities. Drawing on interviews with 30 K-12 teachers across the United States, South Africa, and Taiwan, this study examines how teachers navigate this GenAI tension around educational equalities. We found teachers actively framed GenAI education as an equality-oriented practice: they used it to alleviate pre-existing inequalities while simultaneously working to prevent new inequalities from emerging. Despite these efforts, teachers confronted persistent systemic barriers, i.e., unequal infrastructure, insufficient professional training, and restrictive social norms, that individual initiative alone could not overcome. Teachers thus articulated normative visions for more inclusive GenAI education. By centering teachers’ practices, constraints, and future envisions, this study contributes a global account of how GenAI education is being integrated into K-12 contexts and highlights what is required to make its adoption genuinely equal.

Background and Context. There are growing efforts to increase the percentage of secondary students who take computing courses. However, U.S. women identifying as Black/African American, Hispanic/Latina, and/or Native American remain underrepresented in computing and face persistent challenges in learning to program. Moreover, it remains underexplored what types of programming learning support minoritized high school women desire.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into CS education, with students using them to generate problem solutions. Although LLMs can produce correct solutions, do their approaches align with the diversity of approaches in student code? This work aims to propose an analytical workflow for investigating this topic. We proposed a workflow and evaluated it using 999 student Java code submissions from two questions in a CS1 dataset, along with matched zero-shot solutions generated by OpenAI GPT-4. Zero-shot prompting was chosen to mirror students' typical use of LLMs. Our preliminary results indicate that students consistently demonstrated greater diversity in problem-solving methods than the LLM, especially on more complex tasks. These findings reinforce concerns that heavy reliance on LLMs might reduce students' creativity when solving programming tasks. They also inspire design implications across several future directions, including cheating detection, the use of simulated students, and pedagogy refinement to promote more diverse approaches to students.

This Birds of a Feather (BoF) session aims to build a community of graduate student researchers who study Computer Science Education (CSEd) during SIGCSE TS and continue beyond the conference. Given the interdisciplinary nature of CSEd research, graduate students may enter the field from varied departments such as computer science, education, information, and engineering education. Therefore, many graduate students lack a CSEd research community within their own institution. This BoF session will provide a space for SIGCSE TS graduate students to build their community across institutions, both during and after the conference. In this session, we will discuss key topics to improve graduate study experiences, including relationships with advisors, research topic selection, mentoring, and navigating conferences. The second half of the session will focus on discussing post-BoF activities to keep students engaged throughout the year, including future paper outlining and peer review sessions, as well as inviting former graduate students to share their career paths and experiences. During the BoF session, attendees will meet fellow graduate students in the same research field and brainstorm future activities. They will then have the opportunity to participate in follow-up sessions based on their ideas.

While generative AI has demonstrated potential for personalized learning, concerns have emerged about the risk of student overreliance and passive use, such as submitting the AI-generated code without even reading it. Parsons puzzles require students to select and arrange mixed-up code blocks into the correct sequence. They provide a simplified yet authentic problem-solving experience that offers targeted support for students struggling to program independently while fostering cognitive engagement. We developed a tool that generates personalized Parsons puzzles based on students' written code, designed to assist students who find it difficult to write short code solutions on their own. Such personalization can occur at both the solution & block levels, or at the solution level alone. This tool is embedded in a free ebook platform, Runestone Academy. Runestone has over 90 free ebooks for computing and math classes and was used by over 80,000 students in 2024-2025. The tool supports two main programming languages: Python and Java. In this workshop, we will guide instructors in using Runestone, creating personalized Parsons puzzles, and creating, reviewing, and grading assignments. Participants should bring laptops (with access to power and tables) and have their own valid API keys to access AI models.

The broad adoption of Generative AI (GenAI) is impacting Computer Science education, and recent studies found its benefits and potential concerns when students use it for programming learning. However, most existing explorations focus on GenAI tools that primarily support text-to-text interaction. With recent developments, GenAI applications have begun supporting multiple modes of communication, known as multimodality. In this work, we explored how undergraduate programming novices choose and work with multimodal GenAI tools, and their criteria for choices. We selected a commercially available multimodal GenAI platform for interaction, as it supports multiple input and output modalities, including text, audio, image upload, and real-time screen-sharing. Through 16 think-aloud sessions that combined participant observation with follow-up semi-structured interviews, we investigated student modality choices for GenAI tools when completing programming problems and the underlying criteria for modality selections. With multimodal communication emerging as the future of AI in education, this work aims to spark continued exploration on understanding student interaction with multimodal GenAI in the context of CS education.

This Birds of a Feather (BoF) session serves to build a community of graduate student researchers in Computer Science Education (CSEd) at SIGCSE TS and beyond. Many graduate students lack a CSEd research community within their own institution. This BoF session will serve to provide a space for SIGCSE TS graduate students to build their community across institutions, both during and after the conference. During the session, we will discuss the successes and challenges that come with being a CSEd graduate student, including work/life balance, advisor-student relationships, and developing collaborations. Attendees will leave with an opportunity to connect with other CSEd graduate students beyond the conference through a dedicated CSEd graduate student Slack channel.

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.

The capability of large language models (LLMs) to generate, debug, and explain code has sparked the interest of researchers and educators in undergraduate programming, with many anticipating their transformative potential in programming education. However, decisions about why and how to use LLMs in programming education may involve more than just the assessment of an LLM’s technical capabilities. Using the social shaping of technology theory as a guiding framework, our study explores how students’ social perceptions influence their own LLM usage. We then examine the correlation of self-reported LLM usage with students’ self-efficacy and midterm performances in an undergraduate programming course. Triangulating data from an anonymous end-of-course student survey (n = 158), a mid-course self-efficacy survey (n=158), student interviews (n = 10), self-reported LLM usage on homework, and midterm performances, we discovered that students’ use of LLMs was associated with their expectations for their future careers and their perceptions of peer usage. Additionally, early self-reported LLM usage in our context correlated with lower self-efficacy and lower midterm scores, while students’ perceived over-reliance on LLMs, rather than their usage itself, correlated with decreased self-efficacy later in the course.

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.

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.

Novice programmers struggle with writing code from scratch. One possible way to help them is by using an equivalent Parsons problem on demand, where learners place mixed-up code blocks in the correct order. In a classroom study with 89 undergraduate students, we examined how using a Parsons problem as scaffolding impacts performance and problem-solving efficiency. Results showed that students in the Parsons as Help group achieved significantly higher practice performance and problem-solving efficiency than students who wrote code without help, while achieving the same level of posttest scores. These results improve the understanding of Parsons problems and contribute to the design of future coding practices.

In this paper, we explore using Parsons problems to scaffold novice programmers who are struggling while solving write-code problems. Parsons problems, in which students put mixed-up code blocks in order, can be created quickly and already serve thousands of students while other types of programming support methods are expensive to develop or do not scale. We conducted two studies in which novices were given equivalent Parsons problems as optional scaffolding while solving write-code problems. We investigated when, why, and how students used the Parsons problems as well as their perceptions of the benefits and challenges. A think-aloud observational study with 11 undergraduate students showed that students utilized the Parsons problem before writing a solution to get ideas about where to start; during writing a solution when they were stuck; and after writing a solution to debug errors and look for better strategies. Semi-structured interviews with the same 11 undergraduate students provided evidence that using Parsons problems to scaffold write-code problems helped students to reduce the difficulty, reduce the problem completion time, learn problem-solving strategies, and refine their programming knowledge. However, some students found them less useful if the Parsons solution did not match their approach or if they did not understand the solution. We then conducted a between-subjects classroom study with 81 undergraduate students to investigate the effects on learning. We found that students who received Parsons problems as scaffolding during write-code problems spent significantly less time solving those problems. However, there was no significant learning gain in either condition from pretest to posttest. We also discuss the design implications of our findings.