Banning ChatGPT in coding classrooms?
If we know that ChatGPT is good at solving coding problems, students will know that too. This brings up some novel discussions on academic integrity and the place of ChatGPT in coding classrooms. Here at CodeGrade, we are already actively working on new assignment designs to better equip teachers “to deal with” ChatGPT. But why not ban it?
OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, state the following regarding AI ethics in education:
Ultimately, we believe it will be necessary for students to learn how to navigate a world where tools like ChatGPT are commonplace. This includes potentially learning new kinds of skills, like how to effectively use a language model, as well as about the general limitations and failure modes that these models exhibit.
Some of this is STEM education, but much of it also draws on students’ understanding of ethics, media literacy, ability to verify information from different sources, and other skills from the arts, social sciences, and humanities.
From our research, this “don’t ban ChatGPT, teach with it” approach seems to be widespread amongst CS teachers too, with some professors seeing ChatGPT as just the next tool. Education has already adapted to the use of calculators and the use of Wikipedia or StackOverflow by simply changing the goals and means of assessments. What is important here is to inform students about the use, power and limitations of these tools. AI Literacy will become more important, especially in K-12 education. A great open source K-12 AI literacy course is the DAILy curriculum designed by MIT educators. It is interesting to see how closely the concerns on Wikipedia in the early 2000s resemble the current concerns with ChatGPT.
But even if banning would be the better option, it would still be impossible to implement. At the time of writing, there are multiple ChatGPT detectors or classifiers out there. All of these tools report to still be very limited and that they should not be used as a primary decision making tool for written text. Detecting generated code makes classification even more implausible, as can be seen in the classification limitations listed by OpenAI themselves. They explicitly write that their classifier is unreliable on code, and more importantly, will never work on very predictable text. This seems to be a fundamental limitation, as (simple) code assignments inherently yield predictable and homogeneous answers.
ChatGPT-proof code assessments
If we want to go forward with the “ChatGPT as new calculator” approach, how can we design our code assessments in a way that they are ChatGPT-proof? In other words: design our assignments in a way that we allow (maybe even expect) our students to make use of ChatGPT?
First, let’s review how ChatGPT differs from previous resources that students already had access to, such as StackOverflow or W3Schools. In theory, students could already find all the code they needed to answer (introductory) code assignments, right? True, but ChatGPT is different in the way that students search for answers. Using Google to find code snippets to fit your problem did require some basic skills from the students: first understanding the problem, then splitting up the problem into searchable sub-tasks and then forming a good search query. These problem solving skills are no longer needed with ChatGPT, where, as we discussed before, students can simply copy and paste the entire assignment description or example output.
We believe answering this is not just in the assignment design, but also about the AI Literacy we previously mentioned. Informing students on the limitations of ChatGPT and “proper” ways to use it. This can start with defining how students should cite their ChatGPT use. Is a simple citation enough, or do you want students to export the entire chat that led to the correct answer as part of their assignment? This functionality is not yet implemented by ChatGPT, but can already be achieved by third-party browser extensions.
There’s no one-size-fits-all solution for assignment design. Depending on your coding course’s level, goals and technologies, you may consider the following:
- Split up your assessment in multiple parts, monitor your students’ progress by letting them hand in intermediate (autograded) sub-tasks;
- Remove concrete assignment goals and edge-cases from the assignment description, but rather have your students discover them as they progress and unlock new automatic tests;
- Require more creativity from students in final projects and assess design choices;
- Add written out logic puzzles or recent data (sets) to the assignment.
In line with teaching students about the limitations of ChatGPT, a great new assignment type could be the “debug ChatGPT” assignment, as discussed by Orit Hazzan from ACM here. Students are tasked to fix flawed ChatGPT code, improve the style, consistency and add documentation. Debugging and rewriting code is not only a valuable skill, this assignment also very clearly shows students the poor quality of ChatGPT output.
The above are just some preliminary thoughts and pointers towards ChatGPT-proof code assessments. As ChatGPT evolves and our efforts continue, you can expect more example assignments and tips on dealing with ChatGPT in CodeGrade in the near future. We have since this article published a new article with 5 assignment design ideas to deal with ChatGPT in the coding classroom, click here to read it!
How we can help teachers deal with ChatGPT
At CodeGrade, we have been keeping a close eye on all ChatGPT developments and will keep doing so in the future. We have also opened up discussions in our team and with the many CS professors that use CodeGrade on how to best deal with ChatGPT.
In the upcoming months, we expect to publish more resources on ChatGPT in the coding classroom, how CS instructors can even benefit from ChatGPT themselves and example ChatGPT proof coding assignments. You can find our next article, with 5 assignment design ideas to deal with ChatGPT in the coding classroom, here!
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
