Live coding is a pedagogical technique in which an instructor writes and executes code in front of students to impart skills like incremental development and debugging. Although live coding offers many benefits, instructors face many challenges in the classroom, like cognitive challenges and psychological stress, most of which have yet to be formally studied. To understand the obstacles faced by instructors in CS classes, we conducted (1) a formative interview with five teaching assistants in exercise sessions and (2) a contextual inquiry study with four lecturers for large-scale classes. We found that the improvisational and unpredictable nature of live coding makes it difficult for instructors to manage their time and keep students engaged, resulting in more mental stress than presenting static slides. We discussed opportunities for augmenting existing IDEs and presentation setups to help enhance live coding experience.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based in-application assistants, or copilots, can automate software tasks, but users often prefer learning by doing, raising questions about the optimal level of automation for an effective user experience. We investigated two automation paradigms by designing and implementing a fully automated copilot (AutoCopilot) and a semi-automated copilot (GuidedCopilot) that automates trivial steps while offering step-by-step visual guidance. In a user study (N=20) across data analysis and visual design tasks, GuidedCopilot outperformed AutoCopilot in user control, software utility, and learnability, especially for exploratory and creative tasks, while AutoCopilot saved time for simpler visual tasks. A follow-up design exploration (N=10) enhanced GuidedCopilot with task-and state-aware features, including in-context preview clips and adaptive instructions. Our findings highlight the critical role of user control and tailored guidance in designing the next generation of copilots that enhance productivity, support diverse skill levels, and foster deeper software engagement.

Providing feedback is widely recognized as crucial for refining students’ writing skills. Recent advances in language models (LMs) have made it possible to automatically generate feedback that is actionable and well-aligned with human-specified attributes. However, it remains unclear whether the feedback generated by these models is truly effective in enhancing the quality of student revisions. Moreover, prompting LMs with a precise set of instructions to generate feedback is nontrivial due to the lack of consensus regarding the specific attributes that can lead to improved revising performance. To address these challenges, we propose PROF that PROduces Feedback via learning from LM simulated student revisions. PROF aims to iteratively optimize the feedback generator by directly maximizing the effectiveness of students’ overall revising performance as simulated by LMs. Focusing on an economic essay assignment, we empirically test the efficacy of PROF and observe that our approach not only surpasses a variety of baseline methods in effectiveness of improving students’ writing but also demonstrates enhanced pedagogical values, even though it was not explicitly trained for this aspect.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in educational tasks such as providing writing suggestions to students. Despite their potential, LLMs are known to harbor inherent biases which may negatively impact learners. Previous studies have investigated bias in models and data representations separately, neglecting the potential impact of LLM bias on human writing. In this paper, we investigate how bias transfers through an AI writing support pipeline. We conduct a large-scale user study with 231 students writing business case peer reviews in German. Students are divided into five groups with different levels of writing support: one in-classroom group with recommender system feature-based suggestions and four groups recruited from Prolific – a control group with no assistance, two groups with suggestions from fine-tuned GPT-2 and GPT-3 models, and one group with suggestions from pre-trained GPT-3.5. Using GenBit gender bias analysis and Word Embedding Association Tests (WEAT), we evaluate the gender bias at various stages of the pipeline: in reviews written by students, in suggestions generated by the models, and in model embeddings directly. Our results demonstrate that there is no significant difference in gender bias between the resulting peer reviews of groups with and without LLM suggestions. Our research is therefore optimistic about the use of AI writing support in the classroom, showcasing a context where bias in LLMs does not transfer to students’ responses.