arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2507.17226

A "watch your replay videos" reflection assignment on comparing programming without versus with generative AI: learning about programming, critical AI use and limitations, and reflection

Abstract

Generative AI is disrupting computing education. Most interventions focus on teaching GenAI use rather than helping students understand how AI changes their programming process. We designed and deployed a novel comparative video reflection assignment adapting the Describe, Examine, then Articulate Learning (DEAL) framework. In an introductory software engineering course, students recorded themselves programming during their team project two times: first without, then with using generative AI. Students then analyzed their own videos using a scaffolded set of reflection questions, including on their programming process and human, internet, and AI help-seeking. We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of the reflections, finding students developed insights about planning, debugging, and help-seeking behaviors that transcended AI use. Students reported learning to slow down and understand before writing or generating code, recognized patterns in their problem-solving approaches, and articulated specific process improvements. Students also learned and reflected on AI limits and downsides, and strategies to use AI more critically, including better prompting but also to benefit their learning instead of just completing tasks. Unexpectedly, the comparative reflection also scaffolded reflection on programming not involving AI use, and even led to students spontaneously setting future goals to adopt video and other regular reflection. This work demonstrates structured reflection on programming session videos can develop metacognitive skills essential for programming with and without generative AI and also lifelong learning in our evolving field.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sarah "Magz" Fernandez, Greg L Nelson. 2025-07-23. A "watch your replay videos" reflection assignment on comparing programming without versus with generative AI: learning about programming, critical AI use and limitations, and reflection. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.17226

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

ShellVis: Sandboxed Live Programming for Shell Scripts

Live programming provides visibility to programmers by running and tracing programs as they are edited. However, for programs with potentially harmful side effects, liveness can turn mistakes into disasters. We propose enabling live programming in environments with side effects via sandboxing: confining effects to a simulation of the true environment. We apply sandboxed live programming in the challenging context of shell scripting: a ubiquitous and powerful---yet notoriously opaque and error-prone---tool. ShellVis provides line-by-line feedback on a shell script's run-time behavior, with file operations sandboxed via a safe overlay of the file system. A qualitative user evaluation finds ShellVis to be helpful to participants, replacing tedious existing practices and instilling confidence. Participant responses also reveal areas for future research, particularly bridging the gulf of execution alongside the gulf of evaluation. ShellVis serves as a case study of how sandboxing can bring live-programming techniques into the many real-world programming contexts where side effects are important.

cs.HC

Visual-Motion-Induced Modulation of Pedestrian Trajectories Using Spatially Distributed Multi-Display Signage in Public Spaces

Multi-display signage (MDS), now ubiquitous in urban environments, has the potential to influence human behavior and experience in public spaces. However, despite its unique capability to present spatially distributed dynamic visual stimuli, its current use is mainly limited to advertising. In this study, we propose a perception-based approach for laterally modulating pedestrian trajectories as a nonverbal means of guiding pedestrians in public spaces. The approach is motivated by vection, the illusion of self-motion, and uses laterally moving monochrome stripes, a standard stimulus in vection research, presented across spatially distributed displays to elicit postural responses that may bias pedestrian trajectories. We evaluated the approach through a controlled laboratory experiment and a real-world field deployment involving actual pedestrian flows in a national museum. The laboratory experiment examined whether the MDS setup induced trajectory shifts in the direction predicted by prior research on the behavioral effects of vection. The field deployment investigated whether comparable effects would emerge in aggregate pedestrian behavior during unconstrained movement under conditions closer to those of urban public spaces. In the laboratory, full-screen motion significantly biased walking trajectories in the direction of visual motion, whereas partial-stripe motion produced no significant directional effect. In the field deployment, opposing full-screen motion conditions produced direction-consistent differences in aggregate pedestrian positions. The field results, observed despite the substantial variability in real-world pedestrian flows, extend the controlled laboratory findings and provide ecologically valid evidence supporting practical MDS-based pedestrian modulation in public settings. The results further suggest that sufficient visual-motion coverage may be important.

cs.HC

How AI Coders Discuss, Disagree, and Reach Consensus: Challenges and Opportunities for LLM-Based Qualitative Coding

The utility of AI in multi-coder qualitative coding has been widely discussed, yet little empirical evidence exists to delineate the contexts in which it performs reliably. We address this gap by quantifying the effectiveness of multi-agent LLM coding across varied qualitative datasets, revealing key contextual and structural factors that mediate coding outcomes. We developed a literature-informed baseline pipeline that enables AI agents to independently code, debate, and reconcile disagreements. Results revealed that coding accuracy depends on factors such as codebook length, qualitative data similarity, and agent disagreement. Notably, intense and unresolved debates between agents led to higher accuracy. Our analysis showed that while LLMs emulate many human discussion behaviors, they lack adaptive responsiveness to context. From these findings, we offer design recommendations for building automated coding systems. Our open-source AI discussion dataset and methodological framework lay the groundwork for advancing the design of AI-mediated automated thematic analysis.

cs.HC