Cited by 193Teaching and Learning ProgrammingSoftware Engineering ResearchArtificial Intelligence in Education

Using GitHub Copilot to Solve Simple Programming Problems

Open access
Wermelinger, Michel·2023·Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1

Abstract

The teaching and assessment of introductory programming involves writing code that solves a problem described by text. Previous research found that OpenAI's Codex, a natural language machine learning model trained on billions of lines of code, performs well on many programming problems, often generating correct and readable Python code. GitHub's version of Codex, Copilot, is freely available to students. This raises pedagogic and academic integrity concerns. Educators need to know what Copilot is capable of, in order to adapt their teaching to AI-powered programming assistants. Previous research evaluated the most performant Codex model quantitatively, e.g. how many problems have at least one correct suggestion that passes all tests. Here I evaluate Copilot instead, to see if and how it differs from Codex, and look qualitatively at the generated suggestions, to understand the limitations of Copilot. I also report on the experience of using Copilot for other activities asked of students in programming courses: explaining code, generating tests and fixing bugs. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the observed capabilities for the teaching of programming.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3545945.3569830

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Concerns regarding academic honesty and student learning have dominated discourse on GenAI in higher education.

    “Given the ability of GenAI tools to generate human-like content, such as language and code, concerns regarding academic honesty and student learning have dominated discourse [16, 29, 33, 36, 55, 115, 117].”

    From "I'd Never Actually Realized How Big An Impact It Had Until Now": Perspectives of University Students with Disabilities on Generative Artificial Intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as [115]

    The Abstract says that students’ access to Copilot raises pedagogic and academic-integrity concerns, and §7 (Concluding Remarks; page unavailable) discusses implications for student learning. The paper addresses introductory programming, however, and does not establish that these concerns have dominated discourse about GenAI across higher education. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Students may spend excessive time on prompt engineering in the hope of hitting on a successful solution rather than making progress towards the solution, as observed in the 'shepherding' interaction pattern.

    “Wermelinger [191] speculated that students may spend excessive time on prompt engineering in the hope of hitting on a successful solution rather than making progress towards the solution, which was indeed observed in the study by Prather et al. [159] in the 'shepherding' interaction pattern.”
  • Automatically generated tests may be partially complete, leading students to inadequately test their code.

    “Automatically generated tests may be partially complete, leading students to inadequately test their code [191].”
  • Explanations generated by Copilot focused on a line-by-line description of what the code did rather than how it achieved the goal desired.

    “Wermelinger [191] observed that explanations generated by Copilot focused on a line-by-line description of what the code did rather than how it achieved the goal desired.”
  • Solutions generated by AI might not be easily identified as AI-generated, which requires teachers to adapt and develop new teaching strategies to ensure academic integrity is maintained.

    “The solutions generated by AI might not be easily identified as AI-generated [160], which requires teachers to adapt and develop new teaching strategies to ensure academic integrity is maintained [191].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wermelinger, M.
Affiliations
The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
Venue
Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1
Publisher
ACM
Published
2023-03-02
Pages
172-178
OpenAlex
W4324138978
Cited by
191
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 40
FWCI
57.69
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Online (The Open University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
GitHub Copilot, OpenAI Codex, large language models, programming education, introductory programming, academic integrity, code generation, code explanation, test case generation, bug fixes, AI-assisted programming

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