THE IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ASSISTANTS ON COGNITIVE DEPENDENCY AND CODE QUALITY IN PROGRAMMING EDUCATION
Keywords:
programming education, artificial intelligence assistants, cognitive dependency, code quality, generative models, teaching methodology, academic integrity, algorithmic thinking, technical debt, code audit.Abstract
This article comprehensively and critically analyzes the profound cognitive changes arising from the rapid integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools and automated code assistants into the teaching of programming fundamentals in higher education institutions, as well as the quality indicators of the generated software code [1], [6]. The primary objective of the research is to scientifically evaluate the risk of cognitive dependency caused by an overreliance on machine intelligence among novice programming students, to study the decline in memory and analytical capacity, and to reveal the direct impact of these technologies on algorithmic thinking and code reliability based on empirical evidence [2]. The study was conducted through a systematic review of leading international scientific sources, the synthesis of modern pedagogical methods for teaching programming, and a comparative assessment of the experiences of advanced technological universities. The obtained results firmly confirm that although AI assistants increase the speed of coding and initial prototyping to an unprecedented degree [5], their completely uncontrolled use without ethical and didactic norms weakens students' fundamental logical thinking skills and directly causes an increase in hidden vulnerabilities within the software code that pose a future risk to the entire system [4]. At the conclusion of the study, deeply strategic, scientifically grounded proposals and recommendations are put forward for forming a "culture of critical code review," keeping the human factor at the center of control, and implementing rules of digital hygiene in practice, rather than banning AI tools in the higher education system [7].
References
1. Becker, B. A., et al. (2023). "Programming Is Hard - Or at Least It Used to Be: Educational Opportunities and Challenges of AI Code Generation". Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 500-506.
2. Kazemitabaar, M., et al. (2023). "Studying the effect of AI Code Generators on Supporting Novice Learners in Introductory Programming". Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-14.
3. Vaithilingam, P., et al. (2022). "Expectation vs. Experience: Evaluating the Usability of Code Generation Tools Powered by Large Language Models". CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts, 1-7.
4. Dakhel, A. M., et al. (2023). "GitHub Copilot AI pair programmer: Asset or Liability?". Journal of Systems and Software, 203, 111734.
5. Chen, Y., et al. (2023). "Is GitHub Copilot a Substitute for Human Pair-programming? An Empirical Study". Proceedings of the 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).
6. Denny, P., et al. (2023). "Computing Education in the Era of Generative AI". Communications of the ACM, 66(6), 56-67.
7. Qadir, J. (2023). "Engineering Education in the Era of ChatGPT: Promise and Pitfalls of Generative AI for Education". 2023 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 1-9.
