A Systematic Review of Studies on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools in Programming Education

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 34 Sayı: 1, 172 - 185, 31.01.2026

Emre Özgül

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.1878122

Öz

Purpose: This study aims to systematically review the existing literature on using Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen-AI) tools in programming education and assess their impact on educational processes.
Method: In the study, the systematic review method was adopted, following the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram guidelines. As part of the literature review, the Web of Science, ACM, IEEE, Scopus, Springer Link, Google Scholar, and The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye - National Academic Network and Information Center (TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM) databases were searched. The studies on using Gen-AI tools in programming education were compiled based on the research questions.
Findings: As a result of the literature review, 27 studies that met the specified criteria were analyzed. It was found that the majority of these studies were conducted with undergraduate students and generally focused on Python as the programming language. The most commonly used AI tool was ChatGPT. It was observed that a significant number of the studies reviewed focused on students' cognitive support gains, computational thinking skills, and their effects on their academic achievement and motivation.
Highlights: The reviews revealed that there was a significant increase in the number of academic studies on the use of Gen-AI tools in programming education, especially in 2024. However, the fact that there are only three studies on this subject in Türkiye shows that there is a big gap in the local literature. In this respect, it is thought that local studies on integrating AI tools into programming education should be increased, and there is great potential in this field.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Programming Education , Artificial Intelligence , Large Language Model , Chatbot , ChatGPT

Programlama Eğitiminde Üretken Yapay Zeka Araçlarının Kullanımına Yönelik Yapılan Çalışmalara Sistematik Bir Bakış

Öz

Amaç: Çalışma, programlama eğitiminde Üretken Yapay Zeka (ÜYZ) araçlarının kullanımına yönelik mevcut literatürü sistematik bir şekilde incelemek ve bu araçların eğitim süreçlerine etkilerini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır.
Yöntem: Çalışmada, sistematik derleme yöntemi benimsenmiş olup, araştırma PRISMA 2020 akış şeması yönergelerine uygun olarak yürütülmüştür. Literatür taraması kapsamında; Web of Science, ACM, IEEE, Scopus, Springer Link, Google Scholar ve Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu - Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi (TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM) veri tabanları taranmıştır. Bu taramalar sonucunda, programlama eğitiminde ÜYZ araçlarının kullanımını ele alan çalışmalar araştırma soruları kapsamında derlenmiştir.
Bulgular: Literatür taraması sonucunda, belirlenen kriterleri karşılayan 27 çalışma analiz edilmiştir. Bu çalışmaların büyük çoğunluğunun lisans düzeyindeki öğrencilerle yürütüldüğü ve programlama dili olarak genellikle Python diline odaklandığı tespit edilmiştir. ÜYZ aracı olarak en yaygın kullanılan araç ise ChatGPT olmuştur. İncelenen çalışmaların önemli bir kısmının, öğrencilerin bilişsel destek kazanımları, bilgi-işlemsel düşünme becerileri, akademik başarıları ve motivasyonlarına olan etkileri üzerine yoğunlaştığı gözlemlenmiştir.
Önemli Vurgular: Yapılan incelemeler, özellikle 2024 yılında ÜYZ araçlarının programlama eğitimi alanında kullanımına dair akademik çalışmaların sayısında önemli bir artış olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bununla birlikte, Türkiye'de bu konuyla ilgili yalnızca üç çalışmaya rastlanması, yerel literatürde büyük bir boşluk olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu açıdan, ÜYZ araçlarının programlama eğitimine entegrasyonu konusunda yerel çalışmaların artırılması ve bu alanda büyük bir potansiyel olduğu düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Programlama Eğitimi , Yapay Zeka , Büyük Dil Modeli , Sohbet Robotu , ChatGPT

Kaynakça

• Alonso-García, S., Aznar-Díaz, I., Caceres-Reche, M. P., Trujillo-Torres, J. M., & Romero-Rodríguez, J. M. (2019). Systematic review of good teaching practices with ICT in Spanish Higher Education. Trends and Challenges for Sustainability. Sustainability, 11(24), 7150.
• Aromataris, E., and Pearson, A. (2014). The systematic review: an overview. AJN The American Journal of Nursing 114 (3), 53–58. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000444496.24228.2c
• Aydın, N., & Erdem, O. A. (2022). A research on the new generation artificial intelligence technology generative pretraining transformer 3. In 2022 3rd International Informatics and Software Engineering Conference (IISEC) (pp. 1-6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IISEC56263.2022.9998298
• Baidoo-Anu, D., & Ansah, L. O. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Journal of AI, 7(1), 52-62. https://doi.org/10.61969/jai.1337500
• Balreira, D. G., Silveira, T. L. D., & Wickboldt, J. A. (2023). Investigating the impact of adopting Python and C languages for introductory engineering programming courses. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 31(1), 47-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22570
• Basnet, R. B., Doleck, T., Lemay, D. J., & Bazelais, P. (2018). Exploring computer science students’ continuance intentions to use Kattis. Education and Information Technologies, 23, 1145-1158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9658-2
• Becker, B. A., Denny, P., Finnie-Ansley, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Prather, J., & Santos, E. A. (2023). Programming is hard—or at least it used to be: Educational opportunities and challenges of AI code generation. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (pp. 500–506). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569759
• Bennedsen, J., & Caspersen, M. E. (2007). Failure rates in introductory programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(2), 32-36. https://doi.org/10.1145/1272848.1272879
• Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J. D., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Agarwal, S., Herbert‑Voss, A., Krueger, G., Henighan, T., Child, R., Ramesh, A., Ziegler, D. M., Wu, J., Winter, C., Hesse, C., Chen, M., Sigler, E., Litwin, M., Gray, S., Chess, B., Clark, J., Berner, C., McCandlish, S., Radford, A., Sutskever, I., & Amodei, D. (2020). In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS '20). Curran Associates Inc.
• Cao, C. (2023). Scaffolding CS1 courses with a large language model-powered intelligent tutoring system. In Companion Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 229-232). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3581754.3584111
• Casillas-Martín, S., Cabezas-González, M., & García-Valcárcel Muñoz-Repiso, A. (2020). DigiCraft: A pedagogical innovative proposal for the development of the digital competence in vulnerable children. Sustainability, 12(23), 9865. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239865
• Chen, E., Huang, R., Chen, H.-S., Tseng, Y.-H., & Li, L.-Y. (2023). GPTutor: A ChatGPT-powered programming tool for code explanation. In N. Wang, G. Rebolledo-Mendez, V. Dimitrova, N. Matsuda, & O. C. Santos (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education (Vol. 1831, pp. 321–327). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36336-8_50
• Coto, M., Mora, S., Grass, B., & Murillo-Morera, J. (2022). Emotions and programming learning: systematic mapping. Computer Science Education, 32(1), 30-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2021.1920816
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 4th ed.; Pearson. Merrill Prentice Hall, Singapore
• Denny, P., Becker, B. A., Leinonen, J., & Prather, J. (2023). Chat overflow: Artificially intelligent models for computing education-renAIssance or apocAIypse?. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 (ITiCSE 2023) (pp. 3–4). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3587102.3588773
• Denny, P., Prather, J., Becker, B. A., Finnie-Ansley, J., Hellas, A., Leinonen, J., & Sarsa, S. (2024a). Computing education in the era of generative AI. Communications of the ACM, 67(2), 56-67. https://doi.org/10.1145/3624720
• Fangohr, H. (2004). A comparison of C, MATLAB, and Python as teaching languages in engineering. In M. Bubak, G. D. van Albada, P. M. A. Sloot, & J. Dongarra (Eds.), Computational science – ICCS 2004 (Vol. 3039, pp. 1210–1217). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-25944-2_157
• Feng, Y., Vanam, S., Cherukupally, M., Zheng, W., Qiu, M., & Chen, H. (2023). Investigating code generation performance of ChatGPT with crowdsourcing social data. In 2023 IEEE 47th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC) (pp. 876–885). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC57700.2023.00117
• Finnie-Ansley, J., Denny, P., Becker, B. A., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Prather, J. (2022). The robots are coming: Exploring the implications of OpenAI Codex on introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 24th Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp. 10–19). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3511861.3511863
• Finnie-Ansley, J., Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., Santos, E. A., Prather, J., & Becker, B. A. (2023). My AI wants to know if this will be on the exam: Testing OpenAI’s Codex on CS2 programming exercises. In Proceedings of the 25th Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp. 97–104). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3576123.3576134
• Gamage, S. H., Ayres, J. R., & Behrend, M. B. (2022). A systematic review on trends in using Moodle for teaching and learning. International journal of STEM education, 9(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00323-x
• Geng, C., Zhang, Y., Pientka, B., & Si, X. (2023). Can ChatGPT pass an introductory level functional language programming course?. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02230. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.02230
• Gezgin, D. M., Mert, S., Kesici, A. İ., Yıldırım, S. (2024). Understanding University Students’ Intentions to Use Chatbots in Computer Programming Education: A Quantitative Study. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 14(Special Issue-AI in Education), 142-158. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.1426980
• Huang, L., Zhang, H., Li, R., Ge, Y., & Wang, J. (2020). AI coding: Learning to construct error correction codes. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 68(1), 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCOMM.2019.2951403
• Israilidis, J., Chen, W.-Y., & Tsakalerou, M. (2024). Software development and education: Transitioning towards AI enhanced teaching. In 2024 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON60312.2024.10578564
• Jury, B., Lorusso, A., Leinonen, J., Denny, P., & Luxton-Reilly, A. (2024). Evaluating LLM-generated worked examples in an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the 26th Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp. 77–86). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3636243.3636252
• Karanjai, R., Li, E., Xu, L., & Shi, W. (2023). Who is smarter? An empirical study of AI-based smart contract creation. In 2023 5th Conference on Blockchain Research & Applications for Innovative Networks and Services (BRAINS) (pp. 1–8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/BRAINS59668.2023.10316829
• Keuning, H., Jeuring, J., & Heeren, B. (2018). A systematic literature review of automated feedback generation for programming exercises. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 19(1), 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1145/3231711
• Kiesler, N., & Schiffner, D. (2023). Large language models in introductory programming education: ChatGPT's performance and implications for assessments. In CoRR abs/2308.08572. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.08572
• Leinonen, J., Denny, P., MacNeil, S., Sarsa, S., Bernstein, S., Kim, J., Tran, A., & Hellas, A. (2023). Comparing code explanations created by students and large language models. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 (pp. 124–130). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3587102.3588785
• Logacheva, E., Hellas, A., Prather, J., Sarsa, S., & Leinonen, J. (2024). Evaluating contextually personalized programming exercises created with generative AI. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1 (pp. 95–113). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3632620.3671103
• MacNeil, S., Tran, A., Hellas, A., Kim, J., Sarsa, S., Denny, P., Bernstein, S., & Leinonen, J. (2023). Experiences from using code explanations generated by large language models in a web software development e-book. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (pp. 931–937). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569785
• Meline, T. (2006). Selecting studies for systemic review: Inclusion and exclusion criteria. Contemporary issues in communication science and disorders, 33(Spring), 21-27. https://doi.org/10.1044/cicsd_33_S_21
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
• Muldner, K., Jennings, J., & Chiarelli, V. (2023). A review of worked examples in programming activities. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 23(1), Article 13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3560266
• Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., & McKenzie, J. E. (2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
• Peng, S., Kalliamvakou, E., Cihon, P., & Demirer, M. (2023). The impact of AI on developer productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilot. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.06590
• Prather, J., Reeves, B. N., Leinonen, J., MacNeil, S., Randrianasolo, A. S., Becker, B. A., Kimmel, B., Wright, J., & Briggs, B. (2024). The widening gap: The benefits and harms of generative AI for novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1 (pp. 469–486). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3632620.3671116
• Reeves, B., Sarsa, S., Prather, J., Denny, P., Becker, B. A., Hellas, A., Kimmel, B., Powell, G., & Leinonen, J. (2023). Evaluating the performance of code generation models for solving Parsons problems with small prompt variations. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 (pp. 299–305). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3587102.3588805
• Roest, L., Keuning, H., & Jeuring, J. (2024). Next-step hint generation for introductory programming using large language models. In Proceedings of the 26th Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp. 144–153). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3636243.3636259
• Sharma, P., & Harkishan, M. (2022). Designing an intelligent tutoring system for computer programing in the Pacific. Education and Information Technologies, 27(5), 6197-6209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10882-9
• Surameery, N. M. S., & Shakor, M. Y. (2023). Use Chat GPT to solve programming bugs. International Journal of Information Technology and Computer Engineering, (31), 17-22. https://doi.org/10.55529/ijitc.31.17.22
• Susilo, M. J., Sulisworo, D., & Beungacha, S. (2023). Technology and its impact on education. Buletin Edukasi Indonesia, 2(02), 47-54.
• Tian, H., Lu, W., Li, T. O., Tang, X., Cheung, S. C., Klein, J., & Bissyandé, T. F. (2023). Is ChatGPT the ultimate programming assistant--how far is it? https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.11938
• Tricco, A. C., Straus, S. E., & Moher, D. (2011). How can we improve the interpretation of systematic reviews?. BMC medicine, 9, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-9-31
• von Hausswolff, K., Eckerdal, A., & Thuné, M. (2020). Learning to program hands-on: A controlled study. In Proceedings of the 20th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Article 6, pp. 1–10). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3428029.3428058
• Reference list of studies analyzed in the research Abouelenein, Y. A. M., Ghazala, A. F. A., Mahdy, E. M. M., & Khalaf, M. H. R. (2025). The R5E pattern: can artificial intelligence enhance programming skills development?. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 22177–22205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13616-3 Akçapınar, G., & Sidan, E. (2024). AI chatbots in programming education: guiding success or encouraging plagiarism. Discover Artificial Intelligence, 4(1), 87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-024-00203-7
• Bien, J., & Mukherjee, G. (2025). Generative AI for data science 101: Coding without learning to code. Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education, 33(2), 129-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/26939169.2024.2432397
• Denny, P., MacNeil, S., Savelka, J., Porter, L., & Luxton-Reilly, A. (2024b). Desirable characteristics for AI teaching assistants in programming education. In Proceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 (ITiCSE 2024). (pp. 408-414). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3649217.3653574
• Dos Santos, O. L., & Cury, D. (2023). Challenging the confirmation bias: Using ChatGPT as a virtual peer for peer instruction in computer programming education. In 2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1–7). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343247
• Fenu, G., Galici, R., Marras, M., & Reforgiato, D. (2024). Exploring student interactions with AI in programming training. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP Adjunct '24). (pp. 555-560). https://doi.org/10.1145/3631700.3665227
• Haindl, P., & Weinberger, G. (2024). Does ChatGPT help novice programmers write better code? Results from static code analysis. IEEE Access vol. 12. (pp. 114146-114156). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3445432
• Jing, Y., Wang, H., Chen, X., & Wang, C. (2024). What factors will affect the effectiveness of using ChatGPT to solve programming problems? A quasi-experimental study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(319), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02751-w Jonsson, M., & Tholander, J. (2022). Cracking the code: Co-coding with AI in creative programming education. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Creativity and Cognition (pp. 5–14). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3527927.3532801
• Jošt, G., Taneski, V., & Karakatič, S. (2024). The impact of large language models on programming education and student learning outcomes. Applied Sciences, 14(10), 4115. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14104115
• Kazemitabaar, M., Chow, J., Ma, C. K. T., Ericson, B. J., Weintrop, D., & Grossman, T. (2023). Studying the effect of AI code generators on supporting novice learners in introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–23). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580919
• Kosar, T., Ostojić, D., Liu, Y. D., & Mernik, M. (2024). Computer science education in ChatGPT era: Experiences from an experiment in a programming course for novice programmers. Mathematics, 12(5), 629. https://doi.org/10.3390/math12050629
• Kwok, Y. H., & Wong, K. P. (2023). A pilot study of using ChatGPT as a teaching tool for software engineering education. In 16th International Symposium on Advances in Technology Education (ISATE 2023). 12-15 September 2023. Matsue, Japan.
• Liffiton, M., Sheese, B. E., Savelka, J., & Denny, P. (2024). CodeHelp: Using large language models with guardrails for scalable support in programming classes. In Proceedings of the 23rd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 1–11). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3631802.3631830
• Lyu, W., Wang, Y., Chung, T. R., Sun, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2024). Evaluating the effectiveness of LLMs in introductory computer science education: A semester-long field study. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (pp. 63–74). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3657604.3662036
• Ma, B., Chen, L., & Konomi, S. (2024). Enhancing programming education with ChatGPT: A case study on student perceptions and interactions in a Python course. In A. M. Olney, I.-A. Chounta, Z. Liu, O. C. Santos, & I. I. Bittencourt (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education (Vol. 2150, pp. 110–116). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-64315-6_9
• Pankiewicz, M., & Baker, R. S. (2024). Navigating compiler errors with AI assistance: A study of GPT hints in an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 (pp. 94–100). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3649217.3653608
• Park, A., & Kim, T. (2025). Code suggestions and explanations in programming learning: Use of ChatGPT and performance. The International Journal of Management Education, 23(2), 101119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2024.101119
• Qureshi, B. (2023). ChatGPT in computer science curriculum assessment: An analysis of its successes and shortcomings. In Proceedings of the 2023 9th International Conference on e-Society, e-Learning and e-Technologies (pp. 7–13). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613944.3613946
• Rocha, A., Sousa, L., Alves, M., & Sousa, A. (2024). The underlying potential of NLP for microcontroller programming education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, e22778. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22778
• Sheese, B., Liffiton, M., Savelka, J., & Denny, P. (2024). Patterns of student help-seeking when using a large language model-powered programming assistant. In Proceedings of the 26th Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp. 49–57). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3636243.3636249
• Suh, J., Lee, K., & Lee, J. (2025). Programming education with ChatGPT: outcomes for beginners and intermediate students. Education and Information Technologies, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13542-4
• Sun, D., Boudouaia, A., Zhu, C., & Li, Y. (2024). Would ChatGPT-facilitated programming mode impact college students’ programming behaviors, performances, and perceptions? An empirical study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00446-5
• Yang, A. C., Lin, J. Y., Lin, C. Y., & Ogata, H. (2024). Enhancing python learning with PyTutor: Efficacy of a ChatGPT-Based intelligent tutoring system in programming education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100309 Yang, T. C., Hsu, Y. C., & Wu, J. Y. (2025). The effectiveness of ChatGPT in assisting high school students in programming learning: evidence from a quasi-experimental research. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2025.2450659
• Yilmaz, R., & Karaoglan-Yilmaz, F. G. (2023a). Augmented intelligence in programming learning: Examining student views on the use of ChatGPT for programming learning. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 1(2), 100005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100005
• Yilmaz, R., & Karaoglan-Yilmaz, F. G. (2023b). The effect of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool use on students' computational thinking skills, programming self-efficacy and motivation. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100147