CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 346Teaching and Learning ProgrammingArtificial Intelligence in EducationSoftware Engineering Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Augmented intelligence in programming learning: Examining student views on the use of ChatGPT for programming learning

Open access
Yilmaz, Ramazan, Karaoglan Yilmaz, Fatma Gizem·2023·Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans
DOI 10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

With the diversification of generative artificial intelligence (AI) applications, the interest in their use in every segment and field of society in recent years has been increasing rapidly. One of these areas is programming learning and program writing processes. One of the generative AI tools used for this purpose is ChatGPT. The use of ChatGPT in program writing processes has become widespread, and this tool has a certain potential in the programming process. However, when the literature is examined, research results related to using ChatGPT for this purpose have yet to be found. The existing literature has a gap that requires exploration. This study aims to analyze the students' perspectives on using ChatGPT in the field of programming and programming learning. The study encompassed a cohort of 41 undergraduate students enrolled in a public university's Computer Technology and Information Systems department. The research was carried out within the scope of the Object-Oriented Programming II course for eight weeks. Throughout the research process, students were given project assignments related to the course every week, and they were asked to use ChatGPT while solving them. The research data was collected using a form consisting of open-ended questions and analyzed through content analysis. The research findings revealed both the advantages and disadvantages of ChatGPT usage, as perceived by the students. The students stated that the main benefits of using ChatGPT in programming learning are providing fast and mostly correct answers to questions, improving thinking skills, facilitating debugging, and increasing self-confidence. On the other hand, the main limitations of using ChatGPT in programming education were getting students used to laziness, being unable to answer some questions, or giving incomplete/incorrect answers, causing professional anxiety in students. Based on the results of the research, it can be said that it would be useful to integrate generative AI tools into programming courses considering the advantages they provide in programming teaching. However, appropriate measures should be taken regarding the limitations it brings. Based on the research findings, several recommendations were proposed regarding the integration of ChatGPT into lessons.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100005

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 48 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Agbo, 2019, November). A systematic review of computational thinking approach for programming education in higher education institutions, 1
  2. Zinovieva, 2021, March). The use of online coding platforms as additional distance tools in programming education, Vol. 1840

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Yilmaz, R., & Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G.
ORCID
Yilmaz, Ramazan
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-08
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
100005
ISSN
2949-8821 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100005
OpenAlex
W4384461076
Cited by
344
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 94 · 2025: 130 · 2024: 103 · 2023: 16
FWCI
78.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
Keywords
ChatGPT, generative AI, programming education, student perceptions, augmented intelligence, object-oriented programming, debugging, professional anxiety, AI-assisted programming, computer science undergraduates

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review