Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
41 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
60 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
8 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Student Mastery or AI Deception? Analyzing ChatGPT's Assessment Proficiency and Evaluating Detection Strategies (2311.16292v1)

Published 27 Nov 2023 in cs.CY and cs.CL

Abstract: Generative AI systems such as ChatGPT have a disruptive effect on learning and assessment. Computer science requires practice to develop skills in problem solving and programming that are traditionally developed using assignments. Generative AI has the capability of completing these assignments for students with high accuracy, which dramatically increases the potential for academic integrity issues and students not achieving desired learning outcomes. This work investigates the performance of ChatGPT by evaluating it across three courses (CS1,CS2,databases). ChatGPT completes almost all introductory assessments perfectly. Existing detection methods, such as MOSS and JPlag (based on similarity metrics) and GPTzero (AI detection), have mixed success in identifying AI solutions. Evaluating instructors and teaching assistants using heuristics to distinguish between student and AI code shows that their detection is not sufficiently accurate. These observations emphasize the need for adapting assessments and improved detection methods.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (25)
  1. D. Baidoo-Anu and L. O. Ansah, “Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning,” Journal of AI, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 52–62, 2023.
  2. J. Rudolph, S. Tan, and S. Tan, “ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?” Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, vol. 6, no. 1, 2023.
  3. C. K. Lo, “What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature,” Education Sciences, vol. 13, no. 4, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/13/4/410
  4. S. Bordt and U. von Luxburg, “ChatGPT Participates in a Computer Science Exam,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.09461, 2023.
  5. K. Malinka, M. Peresni, A. Firc, O. Hujnk, and F. Janus, “On the Educational Impact of ChatGPT: Is Artificial Intelligence Ready to Obtain a University Degree?” in Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education.   ACM, 2023, p. 47–53. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3587102.3588827
  6. C. Geng, Z. Yihan, B. Pientka, and X. Si, “Can ChatGPT Pass An Introductory Level Functional Language Programming Course?” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02230, 2023.
  7. Codeium, “Codeium,” https://codeium.com/.
  8. F. Vahid, K. Downey, A. Pang, and C. Gordon, “Impact of Several Low-Effort Cheating-Reduction Methods in a CS1 Class,” in Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education.   ACM, 2023, p. 486–492. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569731
  9. A. Pang and F. Vahid, “Variability-Inducing Requirements for Programs: Increasing Solution Variability for Similarity Checking,” in Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education.   ACM, 2023, p. 430–435. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3587102.3588855
  10. S. Schleimer, D. S. Wilkerson, and A. Aiken, “Winnowing: Local Algorithms for Document Fingerprinting,” in Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data.   ACM, 2003, p. 76–85. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/872757.872770
  11. A. Aiken, “MOSS,” https://theory.stanford.edu/~aiken/moss/.
  12. L. Prechelt, G. Malpohl, M. Philippsen et al., “Finding plagiarisms among a set of programs with JPlag,” J. Univers. Comput. Sci., vol. 8, no. 11, p. 1016, 2002.
  13. M. Agrawal and D. K. Sharma, “A state of art on source code plagiarism detection,” in 2016 2nd International Conference on Next Generation Computing Technologies (NGCT).   IEEE, 2016, pp. 236–241.
  14. E. Tian, “GPTZero,” https://www.zerogpt.com/.
  15. ZeroGPT, “ZeroGPT,” https://gptzero.me/technology.
  16. F. Vahid, L. Areizaga, and A. Pang, “ChatGPT and Cheat Detection in CS1 Using a Program Autograding System,” https://www.zybooks.com/chatgpt-and-cheat-detection-in-cs1-using-a-program-autograding-system/, 2023.
  17. OpenAI, “ChatGPT,” https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt, version 3.5.
  18. N. M. S. Surameery and M. Y. Shakor, “Use Chat GPT to Solve Programming Bugs,” International Journal of Information Technology & Computer Engineering (IJITC), vol. 3, no. 1, p. 17–22, Jan 2023. [Online]. Available: http://journal.hmjournals.com/index.php/IJITC/article/view/1679
  19. OpenAI, “GPT-4 Technical Report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023.
  20. A. Miller, C. Shoptaugh, and J. Wooldridge, “Reasons not to cheat, academic-integrity responsibility, and frequency of cheating,” Journal of Experimental Education, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 169–184, 2011.
  21. B. Bazaluk, F. Silva, M. Holanda, and D. Silva, “Source Code Plagiarism in Computer Science Courses: Facts and Impressions,” in Anais do XXXI Workshop sobre Educação em Computação.   SBC, 2023, pp. 111–121. [Online]. Available: https://sol.sbc.org.br/index.php/wei/article/view/24895
  22. R. C. Aniceto, M. Holanda, C. Castanho, and D. Da Silva, “Source code plagiarism detection in an educational context: A literature mapping,” in 2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).   IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–9.
  23. S. Engels, V. Lakshmanan, and M. Craig, “Plagiarism detection using feature-based neural networks,” in Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 2007, pp. 34–38.
  24. M. S. Orenstrakh, O. Karnalim, C. A. Suarez, and M. Liut, “Detecting LLM-Generated Text in Computing Education: A Comparative Study for ChatGPT Cases,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07411, 2023.
  25. S. Foss, T. Urazova, and R. Lawrence, “Automatic Generation and Marking of UML Database Design Diagrams,” in Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - Volume 1.   ACM, 2022, p. 626–632. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3478431.3499376
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Kevin Wang (41 papers)
  2. Seth Akins (1 paper)
  3. Abdallah Mohammed (1 paper)
  4. Ramon Lawrence (11 papers)