Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study rigorously evaluates the performance of five leading generative AI systems on authentic introductory object-oriented programming (OOP) assessments, comparing their results to historical student performance. While all systems outperformed the average student cohort, they still exhibited significant weaknesses, particularly with advanced OOP concepts and graphics-related tasks. The analysis highlights both the improvements made over the previous year and the persistent error patterns, providing critical insights for educators and researchers in AI-assisted programming education.
Generative AI systems can outperform average students in programming assessments, but they still falter on advanced OOP concepts and graphics tasks.
Recent advances in Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) have substantially improved the ability of large language models (LLMs) to generate and explain source code. However, their performance on authentic object-oriented programming (OOP) assessments remains insufficiently understood. This study evaluates five widely used GenAI systems, ChatGPT-5.2, DeepSeek-V3, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and M365 Copilot, using programming tests and examination tasks from an introductory university OOP course. The generated solutions were assessed using the same grading criteria applied to students and compared with historical student results from the same course, as well as findings from the previous year. Common errors were also analyzed to identify recurring limitations across models. All evaluated GenAI systems achieved higher scores than the average student cohort and frequently obtained full marks on longer programming tasks. Nevertheless, they occasionally produced non-compiling code and continued to struggle with advanced OOP concepts, particularly interfaces, abstract classes, and certain inheritance-related tasks. Performance was also limited on graphics-related questions involving image interpretation. Compared with the previous year, the evaluated systems demonstrated noticeable improvements across most assessments while exhibiting several recurring error patterns. The findings provide an updated evaluation of the capabilities and limitations of contemporary GenAI systems on authentic introductory OOP assessments. They also offer evidence that can inform the design of programming assessments, the responsible integration of GenAI tools into software engineering education, and future studies evaluating the evolution of AI-assisted programming.
