Connexion
Imagine this scenario:
Alex, a teenaged learner, reads a homework assignment, ponders a little, and then opens an AI chatbot. A quick prompt produces a structured, well-written answer within seconds. Alex pastes the text into a document, tweaks a few words, and submits the work.
For many young people, this is becoming the norm.
Recent reports show that, in countries including the US and UK, over half of all teens use AI tools for homework, and 1 in 10 says they do most or all of their homework with chatbots. “I use it every day,” stated one 17-year-old student in a recent study (Pew Research, 2026), and went on to say how she relies on chatbots for everything from homework to life decisions. In another study, a teenager openly admitted to using AI to cheat on assignments, essays, and book reports (Harvard GSE, 2024).
This raises an important question: when AI technology does the work, what happens to the learning?
Researchers are increasingly concerned that such uncritical use of AI tools may lead to cognitive offloading, where learners outsource their thinking, and the weakening of higher-order thinking skills in young people, such as problem-solving, critical thinking and creativity.
To address these concerns, the Raspberry Pi Foundation and Google DeepMind have teamed up to create a new unit of research-informed lessons on large language models (LLMs) as part of Experience AI. Rather than focusing simply on how to use AI tools, the new unit helps learners understand how LLMs work, evaluate their outputs, and use them strategically to support their own learning.
The unit, designed for 13- to 16-year-old learners, supports a learning-focused approach, drawing on metacognition, critical thinking, feedback literacy, and learning-centered prompt engineering. The five lessons in it support young people’s cognitive development, strengthen their metacognitive skills, and bolster their ability to strategically use LLMs for their learning. They draw on extensive research within Google DeepMind’s Learning team on how to scaffold around AI use to preserve ‘productive struggle’ and learner agency.
The new ‘Using LLMs strategically for learning’ unit is grounded in learning science research, including feedback literacy. Feedback literacy refers to the skill of actively interpreting, judging and using information when learning, instead of passively receiving information.
In the unit, learners explore three types of information, also called ‘feedback types’:
Learners discover that deep learning requires a blend of all three feedback types. They also analyse LLM outputs and discover that LLMs default to providing the answer, usually in a ‘tell’ format.
To help learners strategically use LLMs for their learning, they are provided with prompting strategies that elicit LLM outputs in ‘guide’ and ‘challenge’ formats. This helps learners engage more deeply with their own learning and develop higher-order thinking skills.
To help young people strategically use LLMs for their learning, the lessons include learning-centred, platform-agnostic prompting techniques. These include strategies borrowed from research papers on the most effective prompting frameworks. To make sure that the prompting strategies in the lessons remain effective over time and can be translated into different languages when we expand the resources, we did not use acronyms, unlike most popular prompting frameworks.
There are several industry reports highlighting the future-proof skills in the age of AI, such as problem solving, communication, critical thinking, collaboration and creativity skills. In the ‘Large language models’ unit, learners reflect on which skills they want to build and consider how their use of LLMs can support or hinder their development, helping them make responsible and intentional choices about using LLMs in ways that build their long-term capabilities rather than replace them.
There are also activities in the lesson resources that help learners understand the long-term impacts of cognitive offloading and uncritical LLM use on the development of their future skills. The resources encourage learners to stay actively engaged in their learning and be reflective of their LLM use when learning.
Many young people (Pew Research, 2026) use LLMs as search engines, believing that LLMs produce outputs that are always accurate. To address that misconception, the lessons include activities that question where the training data comes from, and how accurate those sources of data are.
For example, when young people discover that a portion of data that LLMs are trained on come from social media platforms like Reddit and Facebook, they are encouraged to question the quality and factuality of these sources through classroom-wide discussions. Through discussions and thinking exercises, learners are also encouraged to question whose voices, languages, cultures and perspectives are (and are not) represented in these AI models.
As AI tools become more integrated in young people’s lives, many learners, like Alex, are tempted to turn to AI tools for quick answers, convenience, and support.
The ‘Using LLMs strategically for learning’ unit equips young people with the skills to use LLMs effectively, critically and strategically, in ways that are most helpful to their learning. Through research-informed lessons, they explore how LLMs are created, why their outputs are not always accurate and how to evaluate AI-generated responses.
Just as importantly, learners are encouraged to reflect on their own use of AI: when using an LLM supports their learning, when it does not, and how they can remain in control of their thinking, learning and skills development.
With these resources, young people like Alex are not discouraged from using LLMs, but encouraged to pause, rewrite their prompts in ways that are more helpful to their learning, evaluate the outputs they receive, and stay actively involved in their own thinking.
As we prepare young people for a future we do not yet know, the most important skill we can teach them is how to keep thinking. Who does the thinking, gets the learning.
The unit is available on the Experience AI website.
We would like to thank all the educators across South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, the United Kingdom, India and beyond who piloted these resources and shared their thoughtful feedback. Their contributions helped shape and strengthen the unit. We are also grateful to Google DeepMind for their continued support in the development of this unit.
The post Encouraging learners to think first, prompt second: Using large language models to learn appeared first on Raspberry Pi Foundation.
As computing technologies continue to rapidly evolve in today’s digital world, computing education is becoming increasingly essential. Arto Hellas and Juho Leinonen, researchers at Aalto University in Finland, are exploring how innovative teaching methods can equip students with the computing skills they need to stay ahead. In particular, they are looking at how generative AI tools can enhance university-level computing education.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi) 