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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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.

Overview

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

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Mark Chen Jerry Tworek Heewoo Jun Qiming Yuan Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto Jared Kaplan Harri Edwards Yuri Burda Nicholas Joseph Greg Brockman Alex Ray Raul Puri Gretchen Krueger Michael Petrov Heidy Khlaaf Girish Sastry Pamela Mishkin Brooke Chan Scott Gray Nick Ryder Mikhail Pavlov Alethea Power Lukasz Kaiser Mohammad Bavarian Clemens Winter Philippe Tillet Felipe Petroski Such Dave Cummings Matthias Plappert Fotios Chantzis Elizabeth Barnes Ariel Herbert-Voss William Hebgen Guss Alex Nichol Alex Paino Nikolas Tezak Jie Tang Igor Babuschkin Suchir Balaji Shantanu Jain William Saunders Christopher Hesse Andrew N. Carr Jan Leike Josh Achiam Vedant Misra Evan Morikawa Alec Radford Matthew Knight Miles Brundage Mira Murati Katie Mayer Peter Welinder Bob McGrew Dario Amodei Sam McCandlish Ilya Sutskever and Wojciech Zaremba. 2021. Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2107.03374 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Yujia Li David Choi Junyoung Chung Nate Kushman Julian Schrittwieser Rémi Leblond Tom Eccles James Keeling Felix Gimeno Agustin Dal Lago Thomas Hubert Peter Choy Cyprien de Masson d'Autume Igor Babuschkin Xinyun Chen Po-Sen Huang Johannes Welbl Sven Gowal Alexey Cherepanov James Molloy Daniel J. Mankowitz Esme Sutherland Robson Pushmeet Kohli Nando de Freitas Koray Kavukcuoglu and Oriol Vinyals. 2022. Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCode. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2203.07814 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–193 of 193

Metadata

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
  • Social Sciences › Education › 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