AI Code Mentor in Teaching and Its Effects on the Education System

Abstract

An AI Code Mentor is an instructional framework that integrates automated code analysis with natural language explanations and adaptive exercises to support learners as they write programs. When thoughtfully integrated into classroom practice and teacher guidance, AI mentors can raise learning outcomes and increase student engagement as well as scale individualized feedback, but also introduce challenges: academic integrity, dependency, equity, and teacher training. observational study on intelligent tutoring systems and automated feedback shows consistent benefits when systems are well-designed and paired with classroom support (SteenbergenHu & Cooper, 20xx; Wang, 2024; ACM, 2024). This chapter outlines a practical implementation pathway, classroom workflows, technical architecture, evaluation metrics, and risk mitigation measures for deploying an AI Code Mentor in school settings.

Introduction

The document outlines the design, implementation, and evaluation of AI-powered coding mentors in education. Key benefits include immediate, targeted feedback that accelerates learning, scalable one-to-one support, encouragement of productive struggle, and improved teacher productivity. Core AI mentor features involve syntax/semantic analysis, error-to-explanation mapping, progressive hinting, personalized practice generation, code quality feedback, student modeling, sandboxed execution, and teacher dashboards.

A phased implementation roadmap is recommended: planning and policy setup, small pilot trials, evaluation and refinement, and eventual scale-up. Classroom workflow integrates AI assistance with teacher guidance to optimize learning during coding labs. The technical architecture combines code editors, backend analysis, sandboxed execution, data storage, and analytics dashboards.

Evaluation relies on quantitative metrics (learning gains, error reduction, time-on-task) and qualitative outcomes (self-efficacy, engagement, teacher feedback) using randomized or quasi-experimental designs. Research shows AI mentors improve learning outcomes, support debugging, and accelerate coding practice. Risks—academic integrity, inequity, teacher readiness, model errors, and data privacy—can be mitigated through thoughtful policies, hint throttling, oversight, professional development, and secure data handling.

Policy and curriculum implications include shifting instructional focus from syntax troubleshooting to design and problem-solving, reforming assessments to emphasize understanding, and redefining teacher roles as facilitators leveraging AI analytics. A small pilot checklist demonstrates a practical, teacher-friendly way to trial the system.

Conclusion

An AI Code Mentor, if designed with care, ethical governance, and in concert with teacher instruction, could accelerate programming learning, enhance debugging processes, and liberate teachers to focus on more project based instruction. The empirical literature on ITS and automated feedback supports measurable learning benefits, provided systems are validated and teachers retain oversight (Steenbergen-Hu & Cooper; Wang, 2024; ACM, 2024). Scaling an AI mentor across schools requires attention to equity, teacher training, assessment design, and careful evaluation.

References

[1] Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman. [2] Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8 digitalcommons.odu.edu [3] Duckworth, A. L. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. Scribner. [4] Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House. [5] Fan, G., Liu, D., Zhang, R., & Pan, L. (2025). The impact of AI-assisted pair programming on student motivation, programming anxiety, collaborative learning, and programming performance. International Journal of STEM Education, 12, 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-025-00537-3 ScienceDirect [6] Fodouop Kouam, A. W. (2024). The effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems in supporting students with varying levels of programming experience. Discover Education, 3, 278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00385-3 SpringerLink [7] Gabbay, H., & Cohen, A. (2022). Investigating the effect of automated feedback on learning behavior in MOOCs for programming. In A. Mitrovic & N. Bosch (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM 2022) (pp. 376–383). International Educational Data Mining Society. educationaldatamining.org+2ERIC+2 [8] Garzón, J., Patiño, E., & Marulanda, C. (2025). Systematic review of artificial intelligence in education: Trends, benefits, and challenges. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 9(8), 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti9080084 MDPI [9] Jansen, J., Oprescu, A., & Bruntink, M. (2017). The impact of automated code quality feedback in programming education. In H. Osman (Ed.), Post-proceedings of the 10th Seminar on Advanced Techniques and Tools for Software Evolution (SATToSE 2017) (CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 2070). CEUR-WS. ceur-ws.org+2ceur-ws.org+2 [10] Kulik, J. A., & Fletcher, J. D. (2016). Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 42–78. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315581420 ResearchGate [11] Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books. [12] Resnick, M. (2017). Lifelong kindergarten: Cultivating creativity through projects, passion, peers, and play. MIT Press. SpringerLink [13] Shihab, M. I. H., Sargeant, J., Al-Khateeb, H., & Crick, T. (2025). The effects of GitHub Copilot on computing students. [Conference paper]. Also available as an arXiv preprint. (Exact venue/DOI may need checking against the latest version on arXiv/ACM Digital Library.) [14] Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2014). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students’ academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034752 Wikipedia [15] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. [16] Wang, S., Wang, F., Zhu, Z., Wang, J., Tran, T., & Du, Z. (2024). Artificial intelligence in education: A systematic literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 252, 124167. ScienceDirect+1 [17] Wu, Y., Wei, X., Liu, M., & Qian, Y. (2024, July). Exploring the effects of automated feedback on students in introductory programming using self-regulated learning theory. In Proceedings of the ACM Turing Award Celebration Conference 2024 (ACM TURC ’24) (pp. 76–80). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3674399.3674430

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Ashish Kumar, Vansh Raj, Dr. Riya Sapra, Dr. Sarita , Dr. Anvesha Katti. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.