> > I’m curious if others have tried similar methods or have insights on > striking the right balance between leveraging AI tools and preserving > hands-on learning opportunities.
Hi Federica, If you hadn't seen it already, there was this thread that Lex started in the slack last year on this topic - I think there are quite a few links to examples https://carpentries.slack.com/archives/C03LE48AY/p1713166328175869 Best, -- Hao Ye (he/him/his) [email protected] On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 12:13 PM Federica Gazzelloni < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > This thread continues to highlight such important insights. I wanted to > add another perspective, building on what’s been said. > > A key distinction I often emphasize in my own teaching is the relationship > between effort and comprehension. It’s true that AI tools can make the > process of problem-solving more efficient, but it’s also critical to ensure > that learners are actively engaging with the concepts, rather than > passively accepting solutions. > > One possible approach is introducing structured exercises that leverage AI > as a learning companion. For instance: > > Students can use AI tools to draft initial code. > > They then analyze and critique the AI's output—identifying potential > errors, inefficiencies, or areas for improvement. > > Finally, they optimize the code manually, applying their own knowledge to > refine and debug. > > This strategy shifts the focus from simply generating output to > understanding the "why" and "how" behind it. It also aligns with the > growing need to teach "meta-skills" for interacting with AI: evaluating its > reliability, fine-tuning its outputs, and balancing automation with human > creativity. > > Hao's analogy with meal kits is particularly apt here—AI can provide the > "ingredients" or the base recipe, but students still need to understand how > to "cook," adapting the process to suit their specific needs or goals. This > fosters a deeper understanding of the coding principles and encourages > critical thinking. > > I’m curious if others have tried similar methods or have insights on > striking the right balance between leveraging AI tools and preserving > hands-on learning opportunities. > > Best, > Federica > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 4:58 PM Hao Ye <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If we only care about the end result (e.g. a function that computes >>> something) and not the means to the end (e.g. how you compute something), >>> it may be fine to teach an AI heavy methodology. We, as teachers, first >>> have to decide what we want a student to learn before deciding the means to >>> get them to that objective. We still teach mathematics to students even >>> though we've been able to answer most all math questions through the >>> college level with Wolfram Alpha for 15 years now and many things can be >>> done on a calculator for 50 years now. >> >> >> I am strongly in agreement with the distinction here between learning >> programming vs. learning *some* set of skills whose end product is a >> correct program. >> >> And because I like my cooking analogies, I'll add in an additional >> metaphor of learning to cook vs. following the instructions in a meal kit. >> >> I am also reminded about the pedagogical literature findings that people >> are bad at evaluating how much they've learned; and one of the common >> estimators people use (that is biased) is how *easy* the learning was >> (e.g. passively listening to a lecture vs. active learning). >> >> Best, >> -- >> Hao Ye >> (he/him/his) >> [email protected] >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 7:31 AM Jason Moore <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think you have to carefully evaluate what the learning objectives are >>> before deciding on AI or not or how much AI, etc. Take the analogy of >>> learning an ancient way of making bowls by hand with wood versus learning >>> how operate a manufacturing plant's bowl making machine. For the latter, >>> you may not even need to know what a carving knife is or how the blade >>> interacts with wood. In computer science, we have similar analogies tied to >>> learning to code in assembly versus python. I can engineer a solution with >>> either language and get something that does the same thing but I need >>> different knowledge and understanding to succeed with each language. Of >>> course we can teach students "how to code" using AI but they learn >>> different things and the focus may mostly be on the product. If we only >>> care about the end result (e.g. a function that computes something) and not >>> the means to the end (e.g. how you compute something), it may be fine to >>> teach an AI heavy methodology. We, as teachers, first have to decide what >>> we want a student to learn before deciding the means to get them to that >>> objective. We still teach mathematics to students even though we've been >>> able to answer most all math questions through the college level with >>> Wolfram Alpha for 15 years now and many things can be done on a calculator >>> for 50 years now. If we want a student to know how every line in a program >>> works, then they probably need to think about and write every line of that >>> code. I listened to a recent podcast, the name is escaping me, where the >>> caster lamented on students using AI to get the product, a written essay, >>> but not learning how to write. Do we really want to stop teaching people >>> how to write because a computer can write things? >>> >>> Jason >>> moorepants.info >>> +01 530-601-9791 >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 11:25 AM Paola Di Maio <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Simon, and Toby whose sentiment is echoed- >>>> >>>> thanks for the discussion points >>>> >>>> In my personal experience, it is important to use the new tools >>>> responsibly and intelligently. >>>> if they can help us learn faster and better. Because there is too much >>>> to learn, esp for younger generations >>>> There is a race going on, and machines can give us some edge >>>> >>>> I feel that my mission is how to teach how to use AI responsibly* and >>>> critically* >>>> >>>> which in fact is true of any technology, starting from evaluating >>>> critically search results of any query >>>> >>>> So rather than saying do not use AI code generators, I d say >>>> >>>> a) continue to learn how to code, but use that knowledge >>>> to write good prompts for the code generators and >>>> b) learn how to evaluate debug, proof, test, implement, integrate, >>>> test. evaluate, optimise code >>>> *shameless self promotion: I teach a course on responsible use of AI if >>>> anyone is interested/able to collaborate with me on offering it >>>> >>>> By all means we must continue to learn and teach how to code - bur we >>>> do not have to do the work ourselves >>>> we become supervisors, system integrators etc >>>> >>>> How to use code generators to produce the code we want/need and how to >>>> evaluate the qualify of ai generated code? >>>> how to evaluate the output of any technology mediated process,really, >>>> is what I think we help learners with >>>> >>>> I attach three relevant short posts in PDF from my feed >>>> *disclaimer A*I supported, let me know if you spot terrible wrongs* >>>> >>>> for general interest/discussion and it would be great to connect over >>>> our shared experiences >>>> of using AI tor teaching/learning >>>> >>>> PDM >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 5:26 PM Waldman, Simon via discuss < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think the reasoning behind the “don’t use AI when you’re learning” >>>>> comment is that there is a risk that people simply use code that they are >>>>> given without thinking about it, and therefore don’t build a mental model >>>>> of what is going on, don’t learn, and hence are unable to spot mistakes by >>>>> the AI or build more advanced things. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In a sense, I think it’s best to think of AI coding assistance as a >>>>> more advanced version of “look it up on StackOverflow”. We have all come >>>>> across plenty of people who have done all their coding by copy-pasting >>>>> snippets from StackOverflow without fully understanding them – as well as >>>>> people who have laid the groundwork by learning what they are doing first, >>>>> and **then** looked things up to much better effect. I think this is >>>>> especially important for a first language – when one is learning >>>>> programming as well as a particular syntax. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That’s my 2p; clearly “don’t use AI” is not enforceable and won’t be >>>>> adhered to by many, but it’s important that we explain the reason that >>>>> that >>>>> advice is given (and maybe consider moderating it to “limit use of AI” or >>>>> similar) so that hopefully most learners will bear it in mind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Dr Simon Waldman / [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> Assistant Professor of Energy Technologies, Heriot-Watt University >>>>> >>>>> Programme lead for MSc Renewable & Sustainable Energy Transition >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Paola Di Maio <[email protected]> >>>>> *Sent:* 16 March 2025 22:46 >>>>> *To:* discuss <[email protected]> >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [cp-discuss] Re: Feedback Request: Lesson Updates on >>>>> Generative AI >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ****************************************************************** >>>>> *Caution: This email originated from a sender outside Heriot-Watt >>>>> University. Do not follow links or open attachments if you doubt the >>>>> authenticity of the sender or the content. * >>>>> * ***************************************************************** >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you Toby and all for the discussion >>>>> >>>>> it is an important one, at many levels >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have always detested coding, comparing it to unnecessary >>>>> bricklaying vs me being interested in information architectures >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When AI generated code became available I felt relief, the finally >>>>> humanity has found a way of avoiding coding by hand >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My question is: is the AI generated code as good as, better or worse >>>>> than humanly written code? >>>>> >>>>> Having the code written up already means learners must learn how to >>>>> implement it and run it correctly >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> can it be used to learn/teach about coding more productively - ie >>>>> engaging learners to Implement debug, test, maniupate, evaluate the ai >>>>> generated output >>>>> >>>>> and how to correct it and improve it, rather than putting their effort >>>>> into writing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> AI generated code could allow learners to move straight into the next >>>>> level of coding, that is implementation >>>>> >>>>> Thorough understanding of how the syntax and logic of the program >>>>> should still be required, but the human intelligence >>>>> >>>>> so rare and precious can be spared the tedious task of actually >>>>> writing it >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 6:21 AM Paul Harrison via discuss < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Toby, >>>>> >>>>> I'm following this ongoing discussion with interest. Great to see this >>>>> being added to Carpentries material. >>>>> >>>>> We recommend that you avoid getting help from generative AI while you >>>>> learn to code >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I was a bit surprised by this negative conclusion. My feeling would be >>>>> that it isn't reasonable to expect people not to use these tools while >>>>> learning, and therefore they need to know how to use them safely. And they >>>>> do seem quite good at explaining code or suggesting different approaches. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Here's a slide I used in a recent workshop, although I'm far from 100% >>>>> happy with it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://monashdatafluency.github.io/r-progtidy/slides/introduction.html#11 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Founded in 1821, Heriot-Watt is a leader in ideas and solutions. With >>>>> campuses and students across the entire globe we span the world, >>>>> delivering >>>>> innovation and educational excellence in business, engineering, design and >>>>> the physical, social and life sciences. This email is generated from the >>>>> Heriot-Watt University Group, which includes: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Heriot-Watt University, a Scottish charity registered under >>>>> number SC000278 >>>>> 2. Heriot- Watt Services Limited (Oriam), Scotland's national >>>>> performance centre for sport. Heriot-Watt Services Limited is a private >>>>> limited company registered is Scotland with registered number SC271030 >>>>> and >>>>> registered office at Research & Enterprise Services Heriot-Watt >>>>> University, >>>>> Riccarton, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS. >>>>> >>>>> The contents (including any attachments) are confidential. If you are >>>>> not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying, >>>>> distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited, and you should >>>>> please notify the sender immediately and then delete it (including any >>>>> attachments) from your system. >>>>> >>>>> This list is for the purpose of general discussion about The > Carpentries including community activities, upcoming events, and > announcements. Some other lists you may also be interested in include > discuss-hpc, discuss-r, and our local groups. Visit > https://carpentries.topicbox.com/groups/ to learn more. All activity on > this and other Carpentries spaces should abide by The Carpentries Code of > Conduct found here: > https://docs.carpentries.org/topic_folders/policies/code-of-conduct.html > *The Carpentries <https://carpentries.topicbox.com/latest>* / discuss / > see discussions <https://carpentries.topicbox.com/groups/discuss> + > participants <https://carpentries.topicbox.com/groups/discuss/members> + > delivery options > <https://carpentries.topicbox.com/groups/discuss/subscription> Permalink > <https://carpentries.topicbox.com/groups/discuss/T032962510fa76492-M77736c28f511f8ac92a79185> > ------------------------------------------ This list is for the purpose of general discussion about The Carpentries including community activities, upcoming events, and announcements. Some other lists you may also be interested in include discuss-hpc, discuss-r, and our local groups. Visit https://carpentries.topicbox.com/groups/ to learn more. All activity on this and other Carpentries spaces should abide by The Carpentries Code of Conduct found here: https://docs.carpentries.org/topic_folders/policies/code-of-conduct.html The Carpentries: discuss Permalink: https://carpentries.topicbox.com/groups/discuss/T032962510fa76492-Mc13d77cc51b31e2e6952a015 Delivery options: https://carpentries.topicbox.com/groups/discuss/subscription
