跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2602.16033 · v2

Bridging GenAI policy and practice: Brief instruction improves learning-oriented prompting in an introductory programming course

首次提交 2026-02-18 05:40
版本更新 2026-11-12 21:49
雷达观测 2026-11-13 14:15
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is now commonplace in higher education, yet unguided use can harm learning. Universities have responded with policies asking students to use GenAI for learning, not solutions, but how to translate these policies into classroom instruction remains untested. Here we report a randomized controlled trial with a six-week, end-of-semester follow-up (N = 431) in an introductory programming course comparing four instructional approaches, from a two-sentence reminder (Condition 1) to a multi-step constructive task (Condition 4). We found: (1) all four approaches produced learning-oriented prompting gains that persisted six weeks later and scaled with the designed engagement level, from 8 to 51 percentage points; (2) students in every condition self-reported sustained voluntary use, and confidence grew in step with skill; and (3) final examination performance did not differ between conditions, placing the possible boundary of the effects at the pathway from prompting skill to achievement. These findings provide instructors with an empirically calibrated set of options for translating GenAI-use policies into classroom practice.

作者备注:26 pages, 10 figures

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v2 · 2026-11-12 21:49 · 最新观测版本

Bridging GenAI policy and practice: Brief instruction improves learning-oriented prompting in an introductory programming course

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is now commonplace in higher education, yet unguided use can harm learning. Universities have responded with policies asking students to use GenAI for learning, not solutions, but how to translate these policies into classroom instruction remains untested. Here we report a randomized controlled trial with a six-week, end-of-semester follow-up (N = 431) in an introductory programming course comparing four instructional approaches, from a two-sentence reminder (Condition 1) to a multi-step constructive task (Condition 4). We found: (1) all four approaches produced learning-oriented prompting gains that persisted six weeks later and scaled with the designed engagement level, from 8 to 51 percentage points; (2) students in every condition self-reported sustained voluntary use, and confidence grew in step with skill; and (3) final examination performance did not differ between conditions, placing the possible boundary of the effects at the pathway from prompting skill to achievement. These findings provide instructors with an empirically calibrated set of options for translating GenAI-use policies into classroom practice.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗