Search for: All records

Novice programming students frequently engage in help-seeking to find information and learn about programming concepts. Among the available resources, generative AI (GenAI) chatbots appear resourceful, widely accessible, and less intimidating than human tutors. Programming instructors are actively integrating these tools into classrooms. However, our understanding of how novice programming students trust GenAI chatbots-and the factors influencing their usage-remains limited. To address this gap, we investigated the learning resource selection process of 20 novice programming students tasked with studying a programming topic. We split our participants into two groups: one using ChatGPT (n=10) and the other using a human tutor via Discord (n=10). We found that participants held strong positive perceptions of ChatGPT's speed and convenience but were wary of its inconsistent accuracy, making them reluctant to rely on it for learning entirely new topics. Accordingly, they generally preferred more trustworthy resources for learning (e.g., instructors, tutors), preferring ChatGPT for low-stakes situations or more introductory and common topics. We conclude by offering guidance to instructors on integrating LLM-based chatbots into their curricula-emphasizing verification and situational use-and to developers on designing chatbots that better address novices' trust and reliability concerns. 

Large Language Model (LLM) conversational agents are increasingly used in programming education, yet we still lack insight into how novices engage with them for conceptual learning compared with human tutoring. This mixed‑methods study compared learning outcomes and interaction strategies of novices using ChatGPT or human tutors. A controlled lab study with 20 students enrolled in introductory programming courses revealed that students employ markedly different interaction strategies with AI versus human tutors: ChatGPT users relied on brief, zero‑shot prompts and received lengthy, context‑rich responses but showed minimal prompt refinement, while those working with human tutors provided more contextual information and received targeted explanations. Although students distrusted ChatGPT’s accuracy, they paradoxically preferred it for basic conceptual questions due to reduced social anxiety. We offer empirically grounded recommendations for developing AI literacy in computer science education and designing learning‑focused conversational agents that balance trust‑building with maintaining the social safety that facilitates uninhibited inquiry.