Comment by capnrefsmmat

For introductory problems, the kind we use to get students to understand a concept for the first time, the AI would likely (nearly) nail it on the first try. They wouldn't have to fix any non-working code. And annotating the code likely doesn't serve the same pedagogical purpose as writing it yourself.

Students emerge from lectures with a bunch of vague, partly contradictory, partly incorrect ideas in their head. They generally aren't aware of this and think the lecture "made sense." Then they start the homework and find they must translate those vague ideas into extremely precise code so the computer can do it -- forcing them to realize they do not understand, and forcing them to make the vague understanding concrete.

If they ask an AI to write the code for them, they don't do that. Annotating has some value, but it does not give them the experience of seeing their vague understanding run headlong into reality.

I'd expect the result to be more like what happens when you show demonstrations to students in physics classes. The demonstration is supposed to illustrate some physics concept, but studies measuring whether that improves student understanding have found no effect: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1707018

What works is asking students to make a prediction of the demonstration's results first, then show them. Then they realize whether their understanding is right or wrong, and can ask questions to correct it.

Post-hoc rationalizing an LLM's code is like post-hoc rationalizing a physics demo. It does not test the students' internal understanding in the same way as writing the code, or predicting the results of a demo.