Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates how introductory programming students (N = 919) interact with LLM-powered tools using both text and voice input modalities for Prompt Problems. The findings reveal that students using text prompts achieved higher success rates on their first attempts compared to those using unedited voice prompts, although editing voice prompts eliminated this disparity. Qualitative insights indicate that while most students preferred text input, their experiences with voice input varied, suggesting potential for multimodal approaches in computing education.
Students using text prompts outperformed their peers using voice input, highlighting the need for careful consideration of input modalities in programming education.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into computing education, yet nearly all prior research has focused on text-based interactions. As voice-enabled interfaces become more capable and more common, there is growing interest in understanding how voice input might shape students'use of LLM-powered tools. In this exploratory study, we investigated how introductory programming students interact with Prompt Problems, which are programming tasks that require crafting natural-language prompts to generate correct code. Students (N = 919) solved a series of Prompt Problems with the freedom to select or switch between text and voice input modalities. We collected their prompt submissions as well as post-activity survey responses, then analysed differences in prompt accuracy, persistence, and perspectives by modality. For two of the three problems, we found that students who typed their prompts using text were more likely to have those prompts succeed on the first attempt than students who submitted unedited voice prompts. There was no difference in success rate if students edited their transcribed voice prompts before submission. Across the problems, we found evidence that students who tried voice prompting varied in their usage of modality - perhaps indicating a complementary, or non-preferential approach. However, most students only tried and reported preferring text. Our qualitative analysis revealed how students'perceived the roles of voice and text input in shaping their problem-solving process, as well as the reported drawbacks and advantages of each modality. We discuss implications for future multimodal tools and instructional design in computing education.
