Injected bugs prompt more direct code edits while natural bugs prompt more reprompting in prompt-based programming tasks¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q3
Currency · no dated study recorded · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Students are more likely to edit code directly after injected bugs (67.57% i:first vs 45.42% n:first) and more likely to reprompt after natural bugs (51.71% n:first vs 31.46% i:first). → rq1-actions
Evidence¶
rq1-actions¶
Victor-Alexandru Pădurean, Kaitlin Riegel, Alkis Gotovos, Jyotika Mahapatra, Ahana Ghosh, Paul Denny, Juho Leinonen, James Prather, and Adish Singla. 2026. When AI Is Wrong on Purpose: How Students Respond to Buggy GenAI Code. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research Vol. 1 (ICER 2026 Vol. 1). https://doi.org/10.1145/3765964.3811667
q3 · i? · causal · r1
Classroom log analysis of 2,636 sessions from 917 CS1 students using a prompt-based programming platform with a bug injection pipeline. Pooled first-turn summaries show a clear shift by bug source in follow-up action choice, with "edit actions are more common" after injected bugs.
"Students are more likely to choose prompting inn:firstthan in i:first(51 .71%vs.31 .46%), while edit actions are more common in i:firstthan inn:first(67 .57%vs.45 .42%)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Immediate success rates are higher after injected bugs than after natural bugs — related
- Students make smaller code changes and fewer edit-and-run attempts after injected bugs than after natural bugs — related
- Prompting strategies differ by bug source: natural bugs elicit specification-oriented strategies while injected bugs elicit guidance-oriented strategies — related
- Students report code understanding, debugging, and AI-limitation awareness as primary learning benefits of buggy GenAI programming tasks — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
injected-bugs-eliciting-direct-edits-natural-bugs-reprompting |
title |
Injected bugs prompt more direct code edits while natural bugs prompt more reprompting in prompt-based programming tasks |
description |
Injected bugs prompt more direct code edits while natural bugs prompt more reprompting in prompt-based programming tasks |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-10 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — rq1-actions |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.