PreprintCited by 19Teaching and Learning ProgrammingArtificial Intelligence in EducationOnline Learning and Analytics

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

The GPT Surprise: Offering Large Language Model Chat in a Massive Coding Class Reduced Engagement but Increased Adopters Exam Performances

Open access

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are quickly being adopted in a wide range of learning experiences, especially via ubiquitous and broadly accessible chat interfaces like ChatGPT and Copilot. This type of interface is readily available to students and teachers around the world, yet relatively little research has been done to assess the impact of such generic tools on student learning. Coding education is an interesting test case, both because LLMs have strong performance on coding tasks, and because LLM-powered support tools are rapidly becoming part of the workflow of professional software engineers. To help understand the impact of generic LLM use on coding education, we conducted a large-scale randomized control trial with 5,831 students from 146 countries in an online coding class in which we provided some students with access to a chat interface with GPT-4. We estimate positive benefits on exam performance for adopters, the students who used the tool, but over all students, the advertisement of GPT-4 led to a significant average decrease in exam participation. We observe similar decreases in other forms of course engagement. However, this decrease is modulated by the student's country of origin. Offering access to LLMs to students from low human development index countries increased their exam participation rate on average. Our results suggest there may be promising benefits to using LLMs in an introductory coding class, but also potential harms for engagement, which makes their longer term impact on student success unclear. Our work highlights the need for additional investigations to help understand the potential impact of future adoption and integration of LLMs into classrooms.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2407.09975

Cites

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?

  • Emerging evidence indicates that the impact of GenAI on learning engagement, agency, and performance can be complicated and mixed.

    “Emerging evidence indicates that the impact on learning engagement, agency, and performance can paint a complicated and mixed picture (e.g., lack of learning gains after removing GenAI supports) [19,20].”

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Nie, A., Chandak, Y., Suzara, M., Malik, A., Woodrow, J., Peng, M., Sahami, M., Brunskill, E., & Piech, C.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
OpenAlex
W4395445411
Cited by
19
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
Keywords
large language models, ChatGPT, GPT-4, programming education, introductory programming, student engagement, exam performance, student participation

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