An AI literacy framework

From her research, Shuchi has developed a framework for teaching about AI that is structured as four interlocking components, each representing a key area of understanding:

• Basic understanding of AI, which refers to foundational knowledge such as what AI is, types of AI systems, and the capabilities of AI technologies
• Ethics and human–AI relationship, which includes the role of humans in regard to AI, ethical considerations, and public perceptions of AI
• Computational thinking/literacy, which relates to how AI works, including building AI applications and training machine learning models
• Data literacy, which addresses the importance of data, including examining data features, data visualisation, and biases

This framework shows the multifaceted nature of AI literacy, which involves an understanding of both technical aspects and ethical and societal considerations. 

Shuchi emphasised the importance of learning about AI ethics, highlighting the topic of bias. There are many ways that bias can be embedded in applications of AI and machine learning, including through the data sets that are used and the design of machine learning models. Shuchi discussed supporting learners to engage with the topic through exploring bias in facial recognition software, sharing activities and resources to use in the classroom that can prompt meaningful discussion, such as this talk by Joy Buolamwini. She also highlighted the Kapor Foundation’s Responsible AI and Tech Justice: A Guide for K–12 Education, which contains questions that educators can use with learners to help them to carefully consider the ethical implications of AI for themselves and for society. 

Computational thinking and AI

In computer science education, computational thinking is generally associated with traditional rule-based programming — it has often been used to describe the problem-solving approaches and processes associated with writing computer programs following rule-based principles in a structured and logical way. However, with the emergence of machine learning, Shuchi described a need for computational thinking frameworks to be expanded to also encompass data-driven, probabilistic approaches, which are foundational for machine learning. This would support learners’ understanding and ability to work with the models that increasingly influence modern technology.

Example activities from research studies

Shuchi shared that a variety of pedagogies have been used in recent research projects on AI education, ranging from hands-on experiences, such as using APIs for classification, to discussions focusing on ethical aspects. You can find out more about these pedagogies in her award-winning paper Teaching AI to K-12 Learners: Lessons, Issues and Guidance. This plurality of approaches ensures that learners can engage with AI and machine learning in ways that are both accessible and meaningful to them.

Shuchi shared examples of activities from two research projects that she has led:

• CS Frontiers engaged high school students in a number of activities involving using NetsBlox and accessing real-world data sets. For example, in one activity, students participated in data science activities such as creating data visualisations to answer questions about climate change. 
• AI & Cybersecurity for Teens explored approaches to teaching AI and machine learning to 13- to 15-year-olds through the use of cybersecurity scenarios. The project aimed to provide learners with insights into how machine learning models are designed, how they work, and how human decisions influence their development. An example activity guided students through building a classification model to analyse social media accounts to determine whether they may be bot accounts or accounts run by a human.

Closing thoughts

At the end of her talk, Shuchi shared some final thoughts addressing teaching about AI to K–12 learners: 

• AI learning requires contextualisation: Think about the data sets, ethical issues, and examples of AI tools and systems you use to ensure that they are relatable to learners in your context.
• AI should not be a solution in search of a problem: Both teachers and learners need to be educated about AI before they start to use it in the classroom, so that they are informed consumers.

Join our next seminar

In our current seminar series, we are exploring teaching about AI and data science. Join us at our next seminar on Tuesday 11 March at 17:00–18:30 GMT to hear Lukas Höper and Carsten Schulte from Paderborn University discuss supporting middle school students to develop their data awareness. 

To sign up and take part in the seminar, click the button below — we will then send you information about joining. We hope to see you there.

I want to join the next seminarThe schedule of our upcoming seminars is online. You can catch up on past seminars on our previous seminars and recordings page.

The post Teaching about AI in K–12 education: Thoughts from the USA appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.

What jobs will be affected by AL, ML, and data science remains to be seen, but it is increasingly clear that students will need to learn something about these topics. There will be new concepts to be taught, new instructional approaches and assessment techniques to be used, new learning activities to be delivered, and we must not neglect the professional development required to help educators master all of this. 

As AI and data science are incorporated into school curricula and teaching and learning materials worldwide, we ask: What’s the research basis for these curricula, pedagogy, and resource choices?

In 2024, we showcased researchers who are investigating how AI can be leveraged to support the teaching and learning of programming. But in 2025, we look at what should be taught about AI, ML, and data science in schools and how we should teach this. 

Our 2025 seminar speakers — so far!

We are very excited that we have already secured several key researchers in the field. 

On 21 January, Shuchi Grover will kick off the seminar series by giving an important overview of AI in the K–12 landscape, including developing both AI literacy and AI ethics. Shuchi will provide concrete examples and recently developed frameworks to give educators practical insights on the topic.

Our second session will focus on a teacher professional development (PD) programme to support the introduction of AI in Upper Bavarian schools. Franz Jetzinger from the Technical University of Munich will summarise the PD programme and share how teachers implemented the topic in their classroom, including the difficulties they encountered.

Again from Germany, Lukas Höper from Paderborn University, with Carsten Schulte will describe important research on data awareness and introduce a framework that is likely to be key for learning about data-driven technology. The pair will talk about the Data Awareness Framework and how it has been used to help learners explore, evaluate, and be empowered in looking at the role of data in everyday applications.  

Our April seminar will see David Weintrop from the University of Maryland introduce, with his colleagues, a data science curriculum called API Can Code, aimed at high-school students. The group will highlight the strategies needed for integrating data science learning within students’ lived experiences and fostering authentic engagement.

Later in the year, Jesús Moreno-Leon from the University of Seville will help us consider the  thorny but essential question of how we measure AI literacy. Jesús will present an assessment instrument that has been successfully implemented in several research studies involving thousands of primary and secondary education students across Spain, discussing both its strengths and limitations.

What to expect from the seminars

Our seminars are designed to be accessible to anyone interested in the latest research about AI education — whether you’re a teacher, educator, researcher, or simply curious. Each session begins with a presentation from our guest speaker about their latest research findings. We then move into small groups for a short discussion and exchange of ideas before coming back together for a Q&A session with the presenter. 

Attendees of our 2024 series told us that they valued that the talks “explore a relevant topic in an informative way“, the “enthusiasm and inspiration”, and particularly the small-group discussions because they “are always filled with interesting and varied ideas and help to spark my own thoughts”. 

The seminars usually take place on Zoom on the first Tuesday of each month at 17:00–18:30 GMT / 12:00–13:30 ET / 9:00–10:30 PT / 18:00–19:30 CET. 

You can find out more about each seminar and the speakers on our upcoming seminar page. And if you are unable to attend one of our talks, you can watch them from our previous seminar page, where you will also find an archive of all of our previous seminars dating back to 2020.

How to sign up

To attend the seminars, please register here. You will receive an email with the link to join our next Zoom call. Once signed up, you will automatically be notified of upcoming seminars. You can unsubscribe from our seminar notifications at any time.

We hope to see you at a seminar soon!

The post How can we teach students about AI and data science? Join our 2025 seminar series to learn more about the topic appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.

In our 50th research seminar, Nicholas Gardella, a PhD candidate at the University of Virginia, shared insights from his research on the effects of AIDEs on beginner programmers’ skills.

Measuring AI’s impact on students

AI tools are becoming a big part of software development, but what does that mean for students learning to code? As tools like GitHub Copilot become more common, it’s crucial to ask: Do these tools help students to learn better and work more effectively, especially when time is tight?

This is precisely what Nicholas’s research aims to identify by examining the impact of AIDEs on four key areas:

• Performance (how well students completed the tasks)
• Workload (the effort required)
• Emotion (their emotional state during the task)
• Self-efficacy (their belief in their own abilities to succeed)

Nicholas conducted his study with 17 undergraduate students from an introductory computer science course, who were mostly first-time programmers, with different genders and backgrounds.

The students completed programming tasks both with and without the assistance of GitHub Copilot. Nicholas selected the tasks from OpenAI’s human evaluation data set, ensuring they represented a range of difficulty levels. He also used a repeated measures design for the study, meaning that each student had the opportunity to program both independently and with AI assistance multiple times. This design helped him to compare individual progress and attitudes towards using AI in programming.

Less workload, more performance and self-efficacy in learning

The results were promising for those advocating AI’s role in education. Nicholas’s research found that participants who used GitHub Copilot performed better overall, completing tasks with less mental workload and effort compared to solo programming.

However, the immediate impact on students’ emotional state and self-confidence was less pronounced. Initially, participants did not report feeling more confident while coding with AI. Over time, though, as they became more familiar with the tool, their confidence in their abilities improved slightly. This indicates that students need time and practice to fully integrate AI into their learning process. Students increasingly attributed their progress not to the AI doing the work for them, but to their own growing proficiency in using the tool effectively. This suggests that with sustained practice, students can gain confidence in their abilities to work with AI, rather than becoming overly reliant on it.

A particularly important takeaway from the talk was the reduction in workload when using AI tools. Novice programmers, who often find programming challenging, reported that AI assistance lightened the workload. This reduced effort could create a more relaxed learning environment, where students feel less overwhelmed and more capable of tackling challenging tasks.

However, while workload decreased, use of the AI tool did not significantly boost emotional satisfaction or happiness during the coding process. Nicholas explained that although students worked more efficiently, using the AI tool did not necessarily make coding a more enjoyable experience. This highlights a key challenge for educators: finding ways to make learning both effective and engaging, even when using advanced tools like AI.

AI as a tool for collaboration, not replacement

Nicholas’s findings raise interesting questions about how AI should be introduced in computer science education. While tools like GitHub Copilot can enhance performance, they should not be seen as shortcuts for learning. Students still need guidance in how to use these tools responsibly. Importantly, the study showed that students did not take credit for the AI tool’s work — instead, they felt responsible for their own progress, especially as they improved their interactions with the tool over time.

Students might become better programmers when they learn how to work alongside AI systems, using them to enhance their problem-solving skills rather than relying on them for answers. This suggests that educators should focus on teaching students how to collaborate with AI, rather than fearing that these tools will undermine the learning process.

Bridging research and classroom realities

Moreover, the study touched on an important point about the limits of its findings. Since the experiment was conducted in a controlled environment with only 17 participants, researchers need to conduct further studies to explore how AI tools perform in real-world classroom settings. For example, the role of internet usage plays a fundamental role. It will be relevant to understand how factors such as class size, prior varying experience, and the age of students affect their ability to integrate AI into their learning.

In the follow-up discussion, Nicholas also demonstrated how AI tools are becoming more accessible within browsers and how teachers can integrate AI-driven development environments more easily into their courses. By making AI technology more readily available, these tools are democratising access to advanced programming aids, enabling students to build applications directly in their web browsers with minimal setup.

The path ahead

Nicholas’s talk provided an insightful look into the evolving relationship between AI tools and novice programmers. While AI can improve performance and reduce workload, it is not a magic solution to all the challenges of learning to code.

Based on the discussion after the talk, educators should support students in developing the skills to use these tools effectively, shaping an environment where they can feel confident working with AI systems. The researchers and educators agreed that more research is needed to expand on these findings, particularly in more diverse and larger-scale educational settings. 

As AI continues to shape the future of programming education, the role of educators will remain crucial in guiding students towards responsible and effective use of these technologies, as we are only at the beginning.

Join our next seminar

In our current seminar series, we are exploring how to teach programming with and without AI technology. Join us at our next seminar on Tuesday, 10 December at 17:00–18:30 GMT to hear Leo Porter (UC San Diego) and Daniel Zingaro (University of Toronto) discuss how they are working to create an introductory programming course for majors and non-majors that fully incorporates generative AI into the learning goals of the course. 

To sign up and take part in the seminar, click the button below — we’ll then send you information about joining. We hope to see you there.

The schedule of our upcoming seminars is online. You can catch up on past seminars on our previous seminars and recordings page.

The post Does AI-assisted coding boost novice programmers’ skills or is it just a shortcut? appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.

In our monthly seminar in September, Arto and Juho presented their research on using AI tools to provide personalised learning experiences and automated feedback to help requests, as well as their findings on teaching students how to write effective prompts for generative AI systems. While their research focuses primarily on undergraduate students — given that they teach such students — many of their findings have potential relevance for primary and secondary (K-12) computing education. 

Generative AI consists of algorithms that can generate new content, such as text, code, and images, based on the input received. Ever since large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Copilot became widely available, there has been a great deal of attention on how to use this technology in computing education. 

Arto and Juho described generative AI as one of the fastest-moving topics they had ever worked on, and explained that they were trying to see past the hype and find meaningful uses of LLMs in their computing courses. They presented three studies in which they used generative AI tools with students in ways that aimed to improve the learning experience. 

Using generative AI tools to create personalised programming exercises

An important strand of computing education research investigates how to engage students by personalising programming problems based on their interests. The first study in Arto and Juho’s research  took place within an online programming course for adult students. It involved developing a tool that used GPT-4 (the latest version of ChatGPT available at that time) to generate exercises with personalised aspects. Students could select a theme (e.g. sports, music, video games), a topic (e.g. a specific word or name), and a difficulty level for each exercise.

Arto, Juho, and their students evaluated the personalised exercises that were generated. Arto and Juho used a rubric to evaluate the quality of the exercises and found that they were clear and had the themes and topics that had been requested. Students’ feedback indicated that they found the personalised exercises engaging and useful, and preferred these over randomly generated exercises. 

Arto and Juho also evaluated the personalisation and found that exercises were often only shallowly personalised, however. In shallow personalisations, the personalised content was added in only one sentence, whereas in deep personalisations, the personalised content was present throughout the whole problem statement. It should be noted that in the examples taken from the seminar below, the terms ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ were not being used to make a judgement on the worthiness of the topic itself, but were rather describing whether the personalisation was somewhat tokenistic or more meaningful within the exercise. 

The findings suggest that this personalised approach may be particularly effective on large university courses, where instructors might struggle to give one-on-one attention to every student. The findings further suggest that generative AI tools can be used to personalise educational content and help ensure that students remain engaged. 

How might all this translate to K-12 settings? Learners in primary and secondary schools often have a wide range of prior knowledge, lived experiences, and abilities. Personalised programming tasks could help diverse groups of learners engage with computing, and give educators a deeper understanding of the themes and topics that are interesting for learners. 

Responding to help requests using large language models

Another key aspect of Alto and Juho’s work is exploring how LLMs can be used to generate responses to students’ requests for help. They conducted a study using an online platform containing programming exercises for students. Every time a student struggled with a particular exercise, they could submit a help request, which went into a queue for a teacher to review, comment on, and return to the student. 

The study aimed to investigate whether an LLM could effectively respond to these help requests and reduce the teachers’ workloads. An important principle was that the LLM should guide the student towards the correct answer rather than provide it. 

The study used GPT-3.5, which was the newest version at the time. The results found that the LLM was able to analyse and detect logical and syntactical errors in code, but concerningly, the responses from the LLM also addressed some non-existent problems! This is an example of hallucination, where the LLM outputs something false that does not reflect the real data that was inputted into it. 

The finding that LLMs often generated both helpful and unhelpful problem-solving strategies suggests that this is not a technology to rely on in the classroom just yet. Arto and Juho intend to track the effectiveness of LLMs as newer versions are released, and explained that GPT-4 seems to detect errors more accurately, but there is no systematic analysis of this yet. 

In primary and secondary computing classes, young learners often face similar challenges to those encountered by university students — for example, the struggle to write error-free code and debug programs. LLMs seemingly have a lot of potential to support young learners in overcoming such challenges, while also being valuable educational tools for teachers without strong computing backgrounds. Instant feedback is critical for young learners who are still developing their computational thinking skills — LLMs can provide such feedback, and could be especially useful for teachers who may lack the resources to give individualised attention to every learner. Again though, further research into LLM-based feedback systems is needed before they can be implemented en-masse in classroom settings in the future. 

Teaching students how to prompt large language models

Finally, Arto and Juho presented a study where they introduced the idea of ‘Prompt Problems’: programming exercises where students learn how to write effective prompts for AI code generators using a tool called Promptly. In a Prompt Problem exercise, students are presented with a visual representation of a problem that illustrates how input values will be transformed to an output. Their task is to devise a prompt (input) that will guide an LLM to generate the code (output) required to solve the problem. Prompt-generated code is evaluated automatically by the Promptly tool, helping students to refine the prompt until it produces code that solves the problem.

Feedback from students suggested that using Prompt Problems was a good way for them to gain experience of using new programming concepts and develop their computational thinking skills. However, students were frustrated that bugs in the code had to be fixed by amending the prompt — it was not possible to edit the code directly. 

How these findings relate to K-12 computing education is still to be explored, but they indicate that Prompt Problems with text-based programming languages could be valuable exercises for older pupils with a solid grasp of foundational programming concepts. 

Balancing the use of AI tools with fostering a sense of community

At the end of the presentation, Arto and Juho summarised their work and hypothesised that as society develops more and more AI tools, computing classrooms may lose some of their community aspects. They posed a very important question for all attendees to consider: “How can we foster an active community of learners in the generative AI era?” 

In our breakout groups and the subsequent whole-group discussion, we began to think about the role of community. Some points raised highlighted the importance of working together to accurately identify and define problems, and sharing ideas about which prompts would work best to accurately solve the problems. 

As AI technology continues to evolve, its role in education will likely expand. There was general agreement in the question and answer session that keeping a sense of community at the heart of computing classrooms will be important. 

Further resources

The Raspberry Pi Computing Education Research Centre and Faculty of Education at the University of Cambridge have recently published a teacher guide on the use of generative AI tools in education. The guide provides practical guidance for educators who are considering using generative AI tools in their teaching. 

Join our next seminar

In our current seminar series, we are exploring how to teach programming with and without AI technology. Join us at our next seminar on Tuesday, 12 November at 17:00–18:30 GMT to hear Nicholas Gardella (University of Virginia) discuss the effects of using tools like GitHub Copilot on the motivation, workload, emotion, and self-efficacy of novice programmers. To sign up and take part in the seminar, click the button below — we’ll then send you information about joining. We hope to see you there.

The schedule of our upcoming seminars is online. You can catch up on past seminars on our previous seminars and recordings page.

The post Using generative AI to teach computing: Insights from research appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.

At times, it can seem like everything is being automated with AI. However, there are some parts of learning to program that cannot (and probably should not) be automated, such as understanding errors in code and how to fix them. Manually typing code might not be necessary in the future, but it will still be crucial to understand the code that is being generated and how to improve and develop it. 

As important as debugging might be for the future of programming, it’s still often the task most disliked by novice programmers. Even if program error messages can be explained in the future or tools like LitterBox can flag bugs in an engaging way, actually fixing the issues involves time, effort, and resilience — which can be hard to come by at the end of a computing lesson in the late afternoon with 30 students crammed into an IT room. 

But what is it about debugging that young people find so hard, even when they’re given enough time to do it? And how can we make debugging a more motivating experience for young people? These are two of the questions that Laurie Gale, a PhD student at the Raspberry Pi Computing Education Research Centre, focused on in our July seminar.

Why do students find debugging hard?

Laurie has spent the past two years talking to teachers and students and developing tools (a visualiser of students’ programming behaviour and PRIMMDebug, a teaching process and tool for debugging) to understand why many secondary school students struggle with debugging. It has quickly become clear through his research that most issues are due to problematic debugging strategies and students’ negative experiences and attitudes.

When students first start learning how to program, they have to remember a vast amount of new information, such as different variables, concepts, and program designs. Utilising this knowledge is often challenging because they’re already busy juggling all the content they’ve previously learnt and the challenges of the programming task at hand. When error messages inevitably appear that are confusing or misunderstood, it can become extremely difficult to debug effectively. 

Given this information overload, students often don’t develop efficient strategies for debugging. When Laurie analysed the debugging efforts of 12- to 14-year-old secondary school students, he noticed some interesting differences between students who were more and less successful at debugging. While successful students generally seemed to make less frequent and more intentional changes, less successful students tinkered frequently with their broken programs, making one- or two-character edits before running the program again. In addition, the less successful students often ran the program soon after beginning the debugging exercise without allowing enough time to actually read the code and understand what it was meant to do. 

The issue with these behaviours was that they often resulted in students adding errors when changing the program, which then compounded and made debugging increasingly difficult with each run. 74% of students also resorted to spamming, pressing ‘run’ again and again without changing anything. This strategy resonated with many of our seminar attendees, who reported doing the same thing after becoming frustrated. 

Educators need to be aware of the negative consequences of students’ exasperating and often overwhelming experiences with debugging, especially if students are less confident in their programming skills to begin with. Even though spending 15 minutes on an exercise shows a remarkable level of tenaciousness and resilience, students’ attitudes to programming — and computing as a whole — can quickly go downhill if their strategies for identifying errors prove ineffective. Debugging becomes a vicious circle: if a student has negative experiences, they are less confident when having to bug-fix again in the future, which can lead to another set of unsuccessful attempts, which can further damage their confidence, and so on. Avoiding this downward spiral is essential. 

Approaches to help students engage with debugging

Laurie stresses the importance of understanding the cognitive challenges of debugging and using the right tools and techniques to empower students and support them in developing effective strategies.

Some ideas of how to improve debugging skills that were mentioned by Laurie and our attendees included:

• Using frame-based editing tools for novice programmers because such tools encourage students to focus on logical errors rather than accidental syntax errors, which can distract them from understanding the issues with the program. Teaching debugging should also go hand in hand with understanding programming syntax and using simple language. As one of our attendees put it, “You wouldn’t give novice readers a huge essay and ask them to find errors.”
• Making error messages more understandable, for example, by explaining them to students using Large Language Models.
• Teaching systematic debugging processes. There are several different approaches to doing this. One of our participants suggested using the scientific method (forming a hypothesis about what is going wrong, devising an experiment that will provide information to see whether the hypothesis is right, and iterating this process) to methodically understand the program and its bugs. 

Most importantly, debugging should not be a daunting or stressful experience. Everyone in the seminar agreed that creating a positive error culture is essential. 

Some ideas you could explore in your classroom include:

• Normalising errors: Stress how normal and important program errors are. Everyone encounters them — a professional software developer in our audience said that they spend about half of their time debugging. 
• Rewarding perseverance: Celebrate the effort, not just the outcome.
• Modelling how to fix errors: Let your students write buggy programs and attempt to debug them in front of the class.

In a welcoming classroom where students are given support and encouragement, debugging can be a rewarding experience. What may at first appear to be a failure — even a spectacular one — can be embraced as a valuable opportunity for learning. As a teacher in Laurie’s study said, “If something should have gone right and went badly wrong but somebody found something interesting on the way… you celebrate it. Take the fear out of it.” 

Watch the recording of Laurie’s presentation:

Join our next seminar

In our current seminar series, we are exploring how to teach programming with and without AI.

Join us at our next seminar on Tuesday, 12 November at 17:00–18:30 GMT to hear Nicholas Gardella (University of Virginia) discuss the effects of using tools like GitHub Copilot on the motivation, workload, emotion, and self-efficacy of novice programmers. To sign up and take part in the seminar, click the button below — we’ll then send you information about joining. We hope to see you there.

The schedule of our upcoming seminars is online. You can catch up on past seminars on our previous seminars and recordings page.

The post How to make debugging a positive experience for secondary school students appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.

PEMs can be a significant barrier to learning for novice coders, as they are often confusing and difficult to understand. This can hinder troubleshooting and progress in coding, and lead to frustration. 

Recently, various teams have been exploring how generative AI, specifically large language models (LLMs), can be used to help learners understand PEMs. My research in this area specifically explores secondary teachers’ views of the explanations of PEMs generated by a LLM, as an aid for learning and teaching programming, and I presented some of my results in our ongoing seminar series.

Understanding program error messages is hard at the start

I started the seminar by setting the scene and describing the current background of research on novices’ difficulty in using PEMs to fix their code, and the efforts made to date to improve these. The three main points I made were that:

1. PEMs are often difficult to decipher, especially by novices, and there’s a whole research area dedicated to identifying ways to improve them.
2. Recent studies have employed LLMs as a way of enhancing PEMs. However, the evidence on what makes an ‘effective’ PEM for learning is limited, variable, and contradictory.
3. There is limited research in the context of K–12 programming education, as well as research conducted in collaboration with teachers to better understand the practical and pedagogical implications of integrating LLMs into the classroom more generally.

My pilot study aims to fill this gap directly, by reporting K–12 teachers’ views of the potential use of LLM-generated explanations of PEMs in the classroom, and how their views fit into the wider theoretical paradigm of feedback literacy. 

What did the teachers say?

To conduct the study, I interviewed eight expert secondary computing educators. The interviews were semi-structured activity-based interviews, where the educators got to experiment with a prototype version of the Foundation’s publicly available Code Editor. This version of the Code Editor was adapted to generate LLM explanations when the question mark next to the standard error message is clicked (see Figure 1 for an example of a LLM-generated explanation). The Code Editor version called the OpenAI GPT-3.5 interface to generate explanations based on the following prompt: “You are a teacher talking to a 12-year-old child. Explain the error {error} in the following Python code: {code}”. 

Fifteen themes were derived from the educators’ responses and these were split into five groups (Figure 2). Overall, the educators’ views of the LLM feedback were that, for the most part, a sensible explanation of the error messages was produced. However, all educators experienced at least one example of invalid content (LLM “hallucination”). Also, despite not being explicitly requested in the LLM prompt, a possible code solution was always included in the explanation.

Matching the themes to PEM guidelines

Next, I investigated how the teachers’ views correlated to the research conducted to date on enhanced PEMs. I used the guidelines proposed by Brett Becker and colleagues, which consolidate a lot of the research done in this area into ten design guidelines. The guidelines offer best practices on how to enhance PEMs based on cognitive science and educational theory empirical research. For example, they outline that enhanced PEMs should provide scaffolding for the user, increase readability, reduce cognitive load, use a positive tone, and provide context to the error.

Out of the 15 themes identified in my study, 10 of these correlated closely to the guidelines. However, the 10 themes that correlated well were, for the most part, the themes related to the content of the explanations, presentation, and validity (Figure 3). On the other hand, the themes concerning the teaching and learning process did not fit as well to the guidelines.

Does feedback literacy theory fit better?

However, when I looked at feedback literacy theory, I was able to correlate all fifteen themes — the theory fits.

Feedback literacy theory positions the feedback process (which includes explanations) as a social interaction, and accounts for the actors involved in the interaction — the student and the teacher — as well as the relationships between the student, the teacher, and the feedback. We can explain feedback literacy theory using three constructs: feedback types, student feedback literacy, and teacher feedback literacy (Figure 4). 

From the feedback literacy perspective, feedback can be grouped into four types: telling, guiding, developing understanding, and opening up new perspectives. The feedback type depends on the role of the student and teacher when engaging with the feedback (Figure 5). 

From the student perspective, the competencies and dispositions students need in order to use feedback effectively can be stated as: appreciating the feedback processes, making judgements, taking action, and managing affect. Finally, from a teacher perspective, teachers apply their feedback literacy skills across three dimensions: design, relational, and pragmatic. 

In short, according to feedback literacy theory, effective feedback processes entail well-designed feedback with a clear pedagogical purpose, as well as the competencies students and teachers need in order to make sense of the feedback and use it effectively.

This theory therefore provided a promising lens for analysing the educators’ perspectives in my study. When the educators’ views were correlated to feedback literacy theory, I found that:

1. Educators prefer the LLM explanations to fulfil a guiding and developing understanding role, rather than telling. For example, educators prefer to either remove or delay the code solution from the explanation, and they like the explanations to include keywords based on concepts they are teaching in the classroom to guide and develop students’ understanding rather than tell.

2. Related to students’ feedback literacy, educators talked about the ways in which the LLM explanations help or hinder students to make judgements and action the feedback in the explanations. For example, they talked about how detailed, jargon-free explanations can help students make judgments about the feedback, but invalid explanations can hinder this process. Therefore, teachers talked about the need for ways to manage such invalid instances. However, for the most part, the educators didn’t talk about eradicating them altogether. They talked about ways of flagging them, using them as counter-examples, and having visibility of them to be able to address them with students.

3. Finally, from a teacher feedback literacy perspective, educators discussed the need for professional development to manage feedback processes inclusive of LLM feedback (design) and address issues resulting from reduced opportunities to interact with students (relational and pragmatic). For example, if using LLM explanations results in a reduction in the time teachers spend helping students debug syntax errors from a pragmatic time-saving perspective, then what does that mean for the relationship they have with their students? 

Conclusion from the study

By correlating educators’ views to feedback literacy theory as well as enhanced PEM guidelines, we can take a broader perspective on how LLMs might not only shape the content of the explanations, but the whole social interaction around giving and receiving feedback. Investigating ways of supporting students and teachers to practise their feedback literacy skills matters just as much, if not more, than focusing on the content of PEM explanations. 

This study was a first-step exploration of eight educators’ views on the potential impact of using LLM explanations of PEMs in the classroom. Exactly what the findings of this study mean for classroom practice remains to be investigated, and we also need to examine students’ views on the feedback and its impact on their journey of learning to program. 

If you want to hear more, you can watch my seminar:

You can also read the associated paper, or find out more about the research instruments on this project website.

If any of these ideas resonated with you as an educator, student, or researcher, do reach out — we’d love to hear from you. You can contact me directly at veronica.cucuiat@raspberrypi.org or drop us a line in the comments below. 

Join our next seminar

The focus of our ongoing seminar series is on teaching programming with or without AI. Check out the schedule of our upcoming seminars. 

To take part in the next seminar, click the button below to sign up, and we will send you information about how to join. We hope to see you there.

You can also catch up on past seminars on our blog and on the previous seminars and recordings page.

The post How useful do teachers find error message explanations generated by AI? Pilot research results appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.

We used a set of ten areas of opportunity to scaffold and prompt teachers to look for ways that Computing resources could be adapted, including making changes to the content or the context of lessons, and using pedagogical techniques such as collaboration and open-ended tasks. 

Today’s blog lays out our findings about how teachers can bring students’ identities into the classroom as an entry point for culturally responsive Computing teaching.

Collaborating with teachers

A group of twelve primary teachers, from schools spread across England, volunteered to participate in the study. The primary objective was for our research team to collaborate with these teachers to adapt two units of work about creating digital images and vector graphics so that they better aligned with the cultural contexts of their students. The research team facilitated an in-person, one-day workshop where the teachers could discuss their experiences and work in small groups to adapt materials that they then taught in their classrooms during the following term.

A shared focus on identity

As the workshop progressed, an interesting pattern emerged. Despite the diversity of schools and student populations represented by the teachers, each group independently decided to focus on the theme of identity in their adaptations. This was not a directive from the researchers, but rather a spontaneous alignment of priorities among the teachers.

The focus on identity manifested in various ways. For some teachers, it involved adding diverse role models so that students could see themselves represented in computing, while for others, it meant incorporating discussions about students’ own experiences into the lessons. However, the most compelling commonality across all groups was the decision to have students create a digital picture that represented something important about themselves. This digital picture could take many forms — an emoji, a digital collage, an avatar to add to a game, or even creating fantastical animals. The goal of these activities was to provide students with a platform to express aspects of their identity that were significant to them whilst also practising the skills to manipulate vector graphics or digital images.

Funds of identity theory

After the teachers had returned to their classrooms and taught the adapted lessons to their students, we analysed the digital pictures created by the students using funds of identity theory. This theory explains how our personal experiences and backgrounds shape who we are and what makes us unique and individual, and argues that our identities are not static but are continuously shaped and reshaped through interactions with the world around us. 

In the context of our study, this theory argues that students bring their funds of identity into their Computing classrooms, including their cultural heritage, family traditions, languages, values, and personal interests. Through the image editing and vector graphics activities, students were able to create what the funds of identity theory refers to as identity artefacts. This allowed them to explore and highlight the various elements that hold importance in their lives, illuminating different facets of their identities. 

Students’ funds of identity

The use of the funds of identity theory provided a robust framework for understanding the digital artefacts created by the students. We analysed the teachers’ descriptions of the artefacts, paying close attention to how students represented their identities in their creations.

1. Personal interests and values 

One significant aspect of the analysis centered around the personal interests and values reflected in the artefacts. Some students chose to draw on their practical funds of identity and create images about hobbies that were important to them, such as drawing or playing football. Others focused on existential  funds of identity and represented values that were central to their personalities, such as cool, chatty, or quiet.

2. Family and community connections

Many students also chose to include references to their family and community in their artefacts. Social funds of identity were displayed when students featured family members in their images. Some students also drew on their institutional funds, adding references to their school, or geographical funds, by showing places such as the local area or a particular country that held special significance for them. These references highlighted the importance of familial and communal ties in shaping the students’ identities.

3. Cultural representation

Another common theme was the way students represented their cultural backgrounds. Some students chose to highlight their cultural funds of identity, creating images that included their heritage, including their national flag or traditional clothing. Other students incorporated ideological aspects of their identity that were important to them because of their faith, including Catholicism and Islam. This aspect of the artefacts demonstrated how students viewed their cultural heritage as an integral part of their identity.

Implications for culturally responsive Computing teaching

The findings from this study have several important implications. Firstly, the spontaneous focus on identity by the teachers suggests that identity is a powerful entry point for culturally responsive Computing teaching. Secondly, the application of the funds of identity theory to the analysis of student work demonstrates the diverse cultural resources that students bring to the classroom and highlights ways to adapt Computing lessons in ways that resonate with students’ lived experiences.

However, we also found that teachers often had to carefully support students to illuminate their funds of identity. Sometimes students found it difficult to create images about their hobbies, particularly if they were from backgrounds with fewer social and economic opportunities. We also observed that when teachers modelled an identity artefact themselves, perhaps to show an example for students to aim for, students then sometimes copied the funds of identity revealed by the teacher rather than drawing on their own funds. These points need to be taken into consideration when using identity artefact activities. 

Finally, these findings relate to lessons about image editing and vector graphics that were taught to students aged 8- to 10-years old in England, and it remains to be explored how students in other countries or of different ages might reveal their funds of identity in the Computing classroom.

Moving forward with cultural responsiveness

The study demonstrated that when Computing teachers are given the opportunity to collaborate and reflect on their practice, they can develop innovative ways to make their teaching more culturally responsive. The focus on identity, as seen in the creation of identity artefacts, provided students with a platform to express themselves and connect their learning to their own lives. By understanding and valuing the funds of identity that students bring to the classroom, teachers can create a more equitable and empowering educational experience for all learners.

We’ve written about this study in more detail in a full paper and a poster paper, which will be published at the WiPSCE conference next week. 

We would like to thank all the researchers who worked on this project, including our collaborations with Lynda Chinaka from the University of Roehampton, and Alex Hadwen-Bennett from King’s College London. Finally, we are grateful to Cognizant for funding this academic research, and to the cohort of primary Computing teachers for their enthusiasm, energy, and creativity, and their commitment to this project.

The post Adapting primary Computing resources for cultural responsiveness: Bringing in learners’ identity appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.

In a recent seminar in our current series on teaching programming (with or without AI), we were delighted to be joined by Dr Stephen MacNeil, Andrew Tran, and Irene Hou from Temple University. Their talk showcased several research projects involving generative AI in undergraduate education, and explored how undergraduate research projects can create agency for students in navigating the implications of generative AI in their professional lives.

Differing perceptions of generative AI

Stephen began by discussing the media coverage around generative AI. He highlighted the binary distinction between media representations of generative AI as signalling the end of higher education — including programming in CS courses — and other representations that highlight the issues that using generative AI will solve for educators, such as improving access to high-quality help (specifically, virtual assistance) or personalised learning experiences.

As part of a recent ITiCSE working group, Stephen and colleagues conducted a survey of undergraduate CS students and educators and found conflicting views about the perceived benefits and drawbacks of generative AI in computing education. Despite this divide, most CS educators reported that they were planning to incorporate generative AI tools into their courses. Conflicting views were also noted between students and educators on what is allowed in terms of generative AI tools and whether their universities had clear policies around their use.

The role of generative AI tools in students’ help-seeking

There is growing interest in how undergraduate CS students are using generative AI tools. Irene presented a study in which her team explored the effect of generative AI on undergraduate CS students’ help-seeking preferences. Help-seeking can be understood as any actions or strategies undertaken by students to receive assistance when encountering problems. Help-seeking is an important part of the learning process, as it requires metacognitive awareness to understand that a problem exists that requires external help. Previous research has indicated that instructors, teaching assistants, student peers, and online resources (such as YouTube and Stack Overflow) can assist CS students. However, as generative AI tools are now widely available to assist in some tasks (such as debugging code), Irene and her team wanted to understand which resources students valued most, and which factors influenced their preferences. Their study consisted of a survey of 47 students, and follow-up interviews with 8 additional students. 

Responding to the survey, students stated that they used online searches or support from friends/peers more frequently than two generative AI tools, ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot; however, Irene indicated that as data collection took place at the beginning of summer 2023, it is possible that students were not familiar with these tools or had not used them yet. In terms of students’ experiences in seeking help, students found online searches and ChatGPT were faster and more convenient, though they felt these resources led to less trustworthy or lower-quality support than seeking help from instructors or teaching assistants.

Some students felt more comfortable seeking help from ChatGPT than peers as there were fewer social pressures. Comparing generative AI tools and online searches, one student highlighted that unlike Stack Overflow, solutions generated using ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot could not be verified by experts or other users. Students who received the most value from using ChatGPT in seeking help either (i) prompted the model effectively when requesting help or (ii) viewed ChatGPT as a search engine or comprehensive resource that could point them in the right direction. Irene cautioned that some students struggled to use generative AI tools effectively as they had limited understanding of how to write effective prompts.

Using generative AI tools to produce code explanations

Andrew presented a study where the usefulness of different types of code explanations generated by a large language model was evaluated by students in a web software development course. Based on Likert scale data, they found that line-by-line explanations were less useful for students than high-level summary or concept explanations, but that line-by-line explanations were most popular. They also found that explanations were less useful when students already knew what the code did. Andrew and his team then qualitatively analysed code explanations that had been given a low rating and found they were overly detailed (i.e. focusing on superfluous elements of the code), the explanation given was the wrong type, or the explanation mixed code with explanatory text. Despite the flaws of some explanations, they concluded that students found explanations relevant and useful to their learning.

Using generative AI tools to create multiple choice questions

In a separate study, Andrew and his team investigated the use of ChatGPT to generate novel multiple choice questions for computing courses. The researchers prompted two models, GPT-3 and GPT-4, with example question stems to generate correct answers and distractors (incorrect but plausible choices). Across two data sets of example questions, GPT-4 significantly outperformed GPT-3 in generating the correct answer (75.3% and 90% vs 30.8% and 36.7% of all cases). GPT-3 performed less well at providing the correct answer when faced with negatively worded questions. Both models generated correct answers as distractors across both sets of example questions (GPT-3: 11.1% and 10% of cases; GPT-4: 9.9% and 17.8%). They concluded that educators would still need to verify whether answers were correct and distractors were appropriate.

Undergraduate students shaping the direction of generative AI research

With student concerns about generative AI and its implications for the world of work, the seminar ended with a hopeful message highlighting undergraduate students being proactive in conducting their own research and shaping the direction of generative AI research in computer science education. Stephen concluded the seminar by celebrating the undergraduate students who are undertaking these research projects.

You can watch the seminar here:

If you are interested to learn more about Stephen’s work on generative AI, you can read about how undergraduate students used generative AI tools to create analogies for recursion. If you would like to experiment with using generative AI tools to assist with debugging, you could try using Gemini, ChatGPT, or Copilot.

Join our next seminar

Our current seminar series is on teaching programming with or without AI. 

In our next seminar, on 16 July at 17:00 to 18:30 BST, we welcome Laurie Gale (Raspberry Pi Computing Education Research Centre, University of Cambridge), who will discuss how to teach debugging to secondary school students. To take part in the seminar, click the button below to sign up, and we will send you information about how to join. We hope to see you there.

The schedule of our upcoming seminars is available online. You can catch up on past seminars on our blog and on the previous seminars and recordings page.

The post Empowering undergraduate computer science students to shape generative AI research appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.

We were honoured to have Professor Brett Becker (University College Dublin) join us as part of our ‘Teaching programming (with or without AI)’ seminar series. He is uniquely placed to comment on teaching computing using AI tools, having been involved in many initiatives relevant to computing education at different levels, in Ireland and beyond.

Brett’s talk focused on what educators and education systems need to do to prepare all students — not just those studying Computing — so that they are equipped with sufficient knowledge about AI to make their way from primary school to secondary and beyond, whether it be university, technical qualifications, or work.

How do AI tools currently perform?

Brett began his talk by illustrating the increase in performance of large language models (LLMs) in solving first-year undergraduate programming exercises: he compared the findings from two recent studies he was involved in as part of an ITiCSE Working Group. In the first study — from 2021 — the results generated by GPT-3 were similar to those of students in the top quartile. By the second study in 2023, GPT-4’s performance matched that of a top student (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Student scores on Exam 1 and Exam 2, represented by circles. GPT-3’s 2021 score is represented by the blue ‘x’, and GPT-4’s 2023 score on the same questions is represented by the red ‘x’.

Brett also explained that the study found some models were capable of solving current undergraduate programming assessments almost error-free, and could solve the Irish Leaving Certificate and UK A level Computer Science exams.

What are challenges and opportunities for education?

This level of performance raises many questions for computing educators about what is taught and how to assess students’ learning. To address this, Brett referred to his 2023 paper, which included findings from a literature review and a survey on students’ and instructors’ attitudes towards using LLMs in computing education. This analysis has helped him identify several opportunities as well as the ethical challenges education systems face regarding generative AI. 

The opportunities include: 

• The generation of unique content, lesson plans, programming tasks, or feedback to help educators with workload and productivity
• More accessible content and tools generated by AI apps to make Computing more broadly accessible to more students
• More engaging and meaningful student learning experiences, including using generative AI to enable creativity and using conversational agents to augment students’ learning
• The impact on assessment practices, both in terms of automating the marking of current assessments as well as reconsidering what is assessed and how

Some of the challenges include:

• The lack of reliability and accuracy of outputs from generative AI tools
• The need to educate everyone about AI to create a baseline level of understanding
• The legal and ethical implications of using AI in computing education and beyond
• How to deal with questionable or even intentionally harmful uses of AI and mitigating the consequences of such uses

Programming as a basic skill for all subjects

Next, Brett talked about concrete actions that he thinks we need to take in response to these opportunities and challenges. 

He emphasised our responsibility to keep students safe. One way to do this is to empower all students with a baseline level of knowledge about AI, at an age-appropriate level, to enable them to keep themselves safe. 

He also discussed the increased relevance of programming to all subjects, not only Computing, in a similar way to how reading and mathematics transcend the boundaries of their subjects, and the need he sees to adapt subjects and curricula to that effect. 

As an example of how rapidly curricula may need to change with increasing AI use by students, Brett looked at the Irish Computer science specification for “senior cycle” (final two years of second-level, ages 16–18). This curriculum was developed in 2018 and remains a strong computing curriculum in Brett’s opinion. However, he pointed out that it only contains a single learning outcome on AI. 

To help educators bridge this gap, in the book Brett wrote alongside Keith Quille to accompany the curriculum, they included two chapters dedicated to AI, machine learning, and ethics and computing. Brett believes these types of additional resources may be instrumental for teaching and learning about AI as resources are more adaptable and easier to update than curricula. 

Generative AI in computing education

Taking the opportunity to use generative AI to reimagine new types of programming problems, Brett and colleagues have developed Promptly, a tool that allows students to practise prompting AI code generators. This tool provides a combined approach to learning about generative AI while learning programming with an AI tool. 

Promptly is intended to help students learn how to write effective prompts. It encourages students to specify and decompose the programming problem they want to solve, read the code generated, compare it with test cases to discern why it is failing (if it is), and then update their prompt accordingly (Figure 2). 

Figure 2: Example of a student’s use of Promptly.

Early undergraduate student feedback points to Promptly being a useful way to teach programming concepts and encourage metacognitive programming skills. The tool is further described in a paper, and whilst the initial evaluation was aimed at undergraduate students, Brett positioned it as a secondary school–level tool as well. 

Brett hopes that by using generative AI tools like this, it will be possible to better equip a larger and more diverse pool of students to engage with computing.

Re-examining the concept of programming

Brett concluded his seminar by broadening the relevance of programming to all learners, while challenging us to expand our perspectives of what programming is. If we define programming as a way of prompting a machine to get an output, LLMs allow all of us to do so without the need for learning the syntax of traditional programming languages. Taking that view, Brett left us with a question to consider: “How do we prepare for this from an educational perspective?”

You can watch Brett’s presentation here:

Join our next seminar

The focus of our ongoing seminar series is on teaching programming with or without AI. 

For our next seminar on Tuesday 11 June at 17:00 to 18:30 GMT, we’re joined by Veronica Cucuiat (Raspberry Pi Foundation), who will talk about whether LLMs could be employed to help understand programming error messages, which can present a significant obstacle to anyone new to coding, especially young people.  

To take part in the seminar, click the button below to sign up, and we will send you information about how to join. We hope to see you there.

The schedule of our upcoming seminars is online. You can catch up on past seminars on our blog and on the previous seminars and recordings page.

The post Imagining students’ progression in the era of generative AI appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.

The Raspberry Pi Computing Education Research Centre (RPCERC) is unique for two reasons: we are a joint initiative between the University of Cambridge and the Raspberry Pi Foundation, with a team that spans both; and we focus exclusively on the teaching and learning of computing to young people, from their early years to the end of formal education.

We’ve been very busy at the RPCERC since we held our formal launch event in July 2022. We would love everyone who follows the Raspberry Pi Foundation’s work to keep an eye on what we are up to too: you can do that by checking out our website and signing up to our termly newsletter. 

What does the RPCERC do?

As the name implies, our work is focused on research into computing education and all our research projects align to one of the following themes:

• AI education
• Broadening participation in computing
• Computing around the world
• Pedagogy and the teaching of computing
• Physical computing
• Programming education

These themes encompass substantial research questions, so it’s clear we have a lot to do! We have only been established for a few years, but we’ve made a good start and are grateful to those who have funded additional projects that we are working on.

In our work, we endeavour to maintain two key principles that are hugely important to us: sharing our work widely and working collaboratively. We strive to engage in the highest quality rigorous research, and to publish in academic venues. However, we make sure these are available openly for those outside academia. We also favour research that is participatory and collaborative, so we work closely with teachers and other stakeholders. 

Within our six themes we are running a number of projects, and I’ll outline a few of these here.

Exploring physical computing in primary schools

Physical computing is more engaging than simply learning programming and computing skills on screen because children can build interactive and tangible artefacts that exist in the real world. But does this kind of engagement have any lasting impact? Do positive experiences with technology lead to more confidence and creativity later on? These are just some of the questions we aim to answer.

We are delighted to be starting a new longitudinal project investigating the experience of young people who have engaged with the BBC micro:bit and other physical computing devices. We aim to develop insights into changes in attitudes, agency, and creativity at key points as students progress from primary through to secondary education in the UK. 

To do this, we will be following a cohort of children over the course of five years — as they transition from primary school to secondary school — to give us deeper insights into the longer-term impact of working with physical computing than has been possible previously with shorter projects. This longer-term project has been made possible through a generous donation from the Micro:bit Educational Foundation, the BBC, and Nominet. 

Do follow our research to see what we find out!

Generative AI for computing teachers

We are conducting a range of projects in the general area of artificial intelligence (AI), looking both at how to teach and learn AI, and how to learn programming with the help of AI. In our work, we often use the SEAME framework to simplify and categorise aspects of the teaching and learning of AI. However, for many teachers, it’s the use of AI that has generated the most interest for them, both for general productivity and for innovative ways of teaching and learning. 

In one of our AI-related projects, we have been working with a group of computing teachers and the Faculty of Education to develop guidance for schools on how generative AI can be useful in the context of computing teaching. Computing teachers are at the forefront of this potential revolution for school education, so we’ve enjoyed the opportunity to set up this researcher–teacher working group to investigate these issues. We hope to be publishing our guidance in June — again watch this space!

Culturally responsive computing teaching

We’ve carried out a few different projects in the last few years around culturally responsive computing teaching in schools, which to our knowledge are unique for the UK setting. Much of the work on culturally responsive teaching and culturally relevant pedagogy (which stem from different theoretical bases) has been conducted in the USA, and we believe we are the only research team in the UK working on the implications of culturally relevant pedagogy research for computing teaching here. 

In one of our studies, we worked with a group of teachers in secondary and primary schools to explore ways in which they could develop and reflect on the meaning of culturally responsive computing teaching in their context. We’ve published on this work, and also produced a technical report describing the whole project. 

In another project, we worked with primary teachers to explore how existing resources could be adapted to be appropriate for their specific context and children. These projects have been funded by Cognizant and Google. 

‘Core’ projects

As well as research that is externally funded, it’s important that we work on more long-term projects that build on our research expertise and where we feel we can make a contribution to the wider community. 

We have four projects that I would put into this category:

1. Teacher research projects
   This year, we’ve been running a project called Teaching Inquiry in Computing Education, which supports teachers to carry out their own research in the classroom.
2. Computing around the world
   Following on from our survey of UK and Ireland computing teachers and earlier work on surveying teachers in Africa and globally, we are developing a broader picture of how computing education in school is growing around the world. Watch this space for more details.
3. PRIMM
   We devised the Predict–Run–Investigate–Modify–Make lesson structure for programming a few years ago and continue to research in this area.
4. LCT semantic wave theory
   Together with universities in London and Australia, we are exploring ways in which computing education can draw on legitimation code theory (LCT). 

We are currently looking for a research associate to lead on one or more of these core projects, so if you’re interested, get in touch. 

Developing new computing education researchers

One of our most important goals is to support new researchers in computing education, and this involves recruiting and training PhD students. During 2022–2023, we welcomed our very first PhD students, Laurie Gale and Salomey Afua Addo, and we will be saying hello to two more in October 2024. PhD students are an integral part of RPCERC, and make a great contribution across the team, as well as focusing on their own particular area of interest in depth. Laurie and Salomey have also been out and about visiting local schools too. 

Laurie’s PhD study focuses on debugging, a key element of programming education. He is looking at lower secondary school students’ attitudes to debugging, their debugging behaviour, and how to teach debugging. If you’d like to take part in Laurie’s research, you can contact us at rpcerc-enquiries@cst.cam.ac.uk.

Salomey’s work is in the area of AI education in K–12 and spans the UK and Ghana. Her first study considered the motivation of teachers in the UK to teach AI and she has spent some weeks in Ghana conducting a case study on the way in which Ghana implemented AI into the curriculum in 2020.

Thanks!

We are very grateful to the Raspberry Pi Foundation for providing a donation which established the RPCERC and has given us financial security for the next few years. We’d also like to express our thanks for other donations and project funding we’ve received from Google, Google DeepMind, the Micro:bit Educational Foundation, BBC, and Nominet. If you would like to work with us, please drop us a line at rpcerc-enquiries@cst.cam.ac.uk.

The post An update from the Raspberry Pi Computing Education Research Centre appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.