A Pilot Study Integrating an AI-driven Chatbot in an Introductory Programming Course
Abstract
As AI software tools become more commonplace, their potential to transform the student experience has greatly increased. By integrating these tools into a course, students can begin to receive real-time, around the clock, instructor moderated support. The potential benefits for students are significant. In addition to increasing their ability to work constructively on their schedule, it has the potential to engage students who might otherwise avoid directly interacting with another person. Before these tools can be meaningfully actualized into a course, work must be done to build a knowledge base about the course. For this research, the team sought to develop an intelligent chatbot interface for an introductory computer programming course. The interface had an initially limited knowledge base with the intent that it would be populated based on students' interactions with the chatbot. This model allowed the bot to evolve with the needs of the students. This paper seeks to present the methodology for how the chatbot was developed and integrated into the course, how the knowledge base was developed, the usage during the pilot, and the next steps for improving the chatbot's interface. Additionally, the paper will discuss the mechanisms added to handle issues such as false-positive responses and how faculty may be able to integrate such tools into their own courses as supplementary assistance.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Lack of student involvement may have resulted in decreased engagement and motivation over time.
“(Verleger and Pembridge, 2018) which may have resulted in decreased engagement and motivation over time.”
From Interacting with educational chatbots: A systematic review (2023) · cites this paper as Verleger & Pembridge, 2018
Some peer agents were based on a Question and Answer (Q&A) database and answered specific questions.
“the peer agents in (Verleger & Pembridge, 2018;da Silva Oliveira et al., 2019;Mendez et al., 2020) were based on a Question and Answer (Q&A) database, and as such answered specific questions.”
From Interacting with educational chatbots: A systematic review (2023) · cites this paper as Verleger & Pembridge, 2018
The study by Verleger and Pembridge (2018) reported lack of training.
“| (Verleger & Pembridge, 2018) Peer agent, chatbot driven 21 | Lack of training | | |”
From Interacting with educational chatbots: A systematic review (2023) · cites this paper as Verleger & Pembridge, 2018
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Interacting with educational chatbots: A systematic review
Kuhail, M. A., Alturki, N., Alramlawi, S., & Alhejori, K. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-11177-3 · Cited by 841 · see citing works
Rediscovering the use of chatbots in education: A systematic literature review
Pérez, J. Q., Daradoumis, T., & Puig, J. M. M. (2020) · Computer Applications in Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/cae.22326 · Cited by 483 · see citing works
Essel, H. B., Vlachopoulos, D., Tachie-Menson, A., Johnson, E. E., & Baah, P. K. (2022) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-022-00362-6 · Cited by 428 · see citing works
Kumar, J. A. (2021) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-021-00302-w · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Chatbot application in a 5th grade science course
Deveci Topal, A., Dilek Eren, C., & Kolburan Geçer, A. (2021) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-021-10627-8 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Generative Artificial Intelligence for Software Engineering—A Research Agenda
Nguyen‐Duc, A., Cabrero‐Daniel, B., Przybylek, A., Arora, C., Khanna, D., Herda, T., Rafiq, U., Melegati, J., Guerra, E., Kemell, K., et al. (2025) · Software: Practice and Experience · doi:10.1002/spe.70005 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
“Using a multiplatform chatbot as an online tutor in a university course.”
Lee, L.-K., Fung, Y.-C., Pun, Y.-W., Wong, K.-K., Yu, M. T.-Y., & Wu, N.-I. (2020) · 2020 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET) · doi:10.1109/iset49818.2020.00021 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Mailach, A., Gorgosch, D., Siegmund, N., & Siegmund, J. (2025) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-024-10561-6 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Verleger, M., & Pembridge, J.
- Affiliations
- Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Daytona Beach Florida Campus (US)
- Venue
- 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2018-10
- Pages
- 1-4
- ISSN
- 0190-5848 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2922030019
- Cited by
- 86
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 2.55
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
- Keywords
- AI chatbots, introductory programming courses, knowledge base, false positive reactions, student engagement, course integration, programming education
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