{"title":"From Imitation Games to Robot-Teachers: A Review and Discussion of the Role of LLMs in Computing Education","authors":"Tobias Kohn","doi":"10.1111/jcal.70043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The recent advent of powerful, exam-passing large language models (LLMs) in public awareness has led to concerns over students cheating, but has also given rise to calls for including or even focusing education on LLMs. There is a perceived urgency to react immediately, as well as claims that AI-based reforms of education will lead to a broadening of accessibility to high-quality education.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>We review and discuss three major themes that appear in the research literature on LLMs and computing education, namely that (i) LLMs exhibit human-like performance and can pass exams, (ii) LLMs are freely available and intuitive to use, and (iii) students use LLMs to cheat or accept the results without critical evaluation. Moreover, we highlight the importance of a more human-centric view on the topic.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The discussion is based on a review of the (research) literature in the fields related to computing education, picks up claims and statements from the literature, and compares them with research findings from the area. By making some of the rather tacit premises more explicit and putting them into context, we aim to base the discourse about AI in education on more solid grounds.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results and Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>We find that claims such as the broadening of accessibility to high-quality education or calls for urgent educational reforms are not supported by evidence. Furthermore, we argue that there is a central human element in education that cannot be automated or replaced by AI tools.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48071,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Computer Assisted Learning","volume":"41 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jcal.70043","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Computer Assisted Learning","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.70043","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
The recent advent of powerful, exam-passing large language models (LLMs) in public awareness has led to concerns over students cheating, but has also given rise to calls for including or even focusing education on LLMs. There is a perceived urgency to react immediately, as well as claims that AI-based reforms of education will lead to a broadening of accessibility to high-quality education.
Objectives
We review and discuss three major themes that appear in the research literature on LLMs and computing education, namely that (i) LLMs exhibit human-like performance and can pass exams, (ii) LLMs are freely available and intuitive to use, and (iii) students use LLMs to cheat or accept the results without critical evaluation. Moreover, we highlight the importance of a more human-centric view on the topic.
Methods
The discussion is based on a review of the (research) literature in the fields related to computing education, picks up claims and statements from the literature, and compares them with research findings from the area. By making some of the rather tacit premises more explicit and putting them into context, we aim to base the discourse about AI in education on more solid grounds.
Results and Conclusion
We find that claims such as the broadening of accessibility to high-quality education or calls for urgent educational reforms are not supported by evidence. Furthermore, we argue that there is a central human element in education that cannot be automated or replaced by AI tools.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Computer Assisted Learning is an international peer-reviewed journal which covers the whole range of uses of information and communication technology to support learning and knowledge exchange. It aims to provide a medium for communication among researchers as well as a channel linking researchers, practitioners, and policy makers. JCAL is also a rich source of material for master and PhD students in areas such as educational psychology, the learning sciences, instructional technology, instructional design, collaborative learning, intelligent learning systems, learning analytics, open, distance and networked learning, and educational evaluation and assessment. This is the case for formal (e.g., schools), non-formal (e.g., workplace learning) and informal learning (e.g., museums and libraries) situations and environments. Volumes often include one Special Issue which these provides readers with a broad and in-depth perspective on a specific topic. First published in 1985, JCAL continues to have the aim of making the outcomes of contemporary research and experience accessible. During this period there have been major technological advances offering new opportunities and approaches in the use of a wide range of technologies to support learning and knowledge transfer more generally. There is currently much emphasis on the use of network functionality and the challenges its appropriate uses pose to teachers/tutors working with students locally and at a distance. JCAL welcomes: -Empirical reports, single studies or programmatic series of studies on the use of computers and information technologies in learning and assessment -Critical and original meta-reviews of literature on the use of computers for learning -Empirical studies on the design and development of innovative technology-based systems for learning -Conceptual articles on issues relating to the Aims and Scope