Welcome to the forefront of conversational AI as we explore the fascinating world of AI chatbots in our dedicated blog series. Discover the latest advancements, applications, and strategies that propel the evolution of chatbot technology. From enhancing customer interactions to streamlining business processes, these articles delve into the innovative ways artificial intelligence is shaping the landscape of automated conversational agents. Whether you’re a business owner, developer, or simply intrigued by the future of interactive technology, join us on this journey to unravel the transformative power and endless possibilities of AI chatbots.
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
Advertisement
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume 12, Article number: 558 (2025) Cite this article
3186 Accesses
10 Altmetric
Metrics details
With the development of the times, programming education has become increasingly important for individual development. However, for programming beginners such as primary and secondary school students, learning programming is not a simple task and requires additional learning support. Generative AI (GenAI) chatbots are effective teaching aids that can reduce the learning difficulty of programming by providing real-time guidance and personalized learning support based on students’ abilities. Therefore, it has been a trend to apply GenAI chatbots in teaching. However, technology always has two sides. Over-reliance on these chatbots may weaken students’ ability to think independently and affect their learning effectiveness. Therefore, how to rationally utilize GenAI chatbots in the classroom and improve their application effectiveness has become an important issue for both researchers and frontline teachers. Based on this, the present study proposed a learning method that integrates mind mapping with GenAI chatbots. To assess the effectiveness of this learning method and to investigate whether there are differences in the impact of various types of mind mapping-supported GenAI chatbots on students’ programming academic performance, computational thinking, and programming self-efficacy, the research team conducted a quasi-experimental study. The participants were 111 seventh-grade students at a junior high school in southeastern China. Experimental Group 1 (36 students) used a learning approach that integrated progressive mind maps with a Generative AI chatbot, Experimental Group 2 (36 students) used a learning approach that integrated self-constructed mind maps with a GenAI chatbot, and the control group (39 students) used a traditional AI chatbot-based learning approach. The results showed that participants in both experimental groups had significantly better programming learning performance as well as computational thinking than the control group, and that the learning method integrating progressive mind mapping with GenAI chatbots was more effective.
In the era of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the importance of programming education is becoming increasingly prominent, and it has become one of the key ways to cultivate future innovators (González-Pérez & Ramírez-Montoya, 2022). Computational thinking (CT), as a core competency for adapting to changes in digital society and AI, is widely recognized as a foundational skill(Tikva & Tambouris, 2021), and programming is an effective way to develop CT (Belmar, 2022). According to the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), CT includes problem solving, creativity, critical thinking, algorithmic thinking, and collaborative skills, elements that help students meet the challenges of increasingly complex and open digital technologies (ISTE, 2015). A growing number of scholars are advocating for the introduction of programming education at the primary and secondary school levels due to the fact that it not only equips students with knowledge and skills in the field of computing, but also positively impacts their future learning; moreover, the earlier programming education begins, the more pronounced the benefits will be (Lai et al., 2021; Lindberg et al., 2019). However, programming is particularly challenging for primary and secondary school students (Yang & Lin, 2024), requiring sufficient external support during the learning process (Webb et al., 2017), such as assistance from teachers. However, due to the low teacher-student ratio in programming classes, it is difficult to provide timely help, leaving some students unable to achieve the expected outcomes in programming learning, which in turn reduces their programming self-efficacy (Medeiros et al., 2018). Self-efficacy, defined as an individual’s confidence in their ability to complete specific tasks, directly influences their persistence and effort when facing challenges (Bandura, 1978). Previous research has shown that self-efficacy plays a critical role in programming learning (Gurer & Tokumaci, 2020). Therefore, how to provide timely support for students in K-12 programming education and improve their programming performance, CT, and self-efficacy has become an important issue that needs to be addressed in the field of educational technology.
The rapid development of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) technology brings some solutions to the above problems. GenAI chatbots based on advanced converter architectures (e.g., GPT-4) can predict, understand, and generate human-like text (Pavlik, 2023), generate coherent and contextually relevant responses during long interactions (Mohamed, 2024), and provide targeted assistance based on individual needs. With their powerful natural language understanding and extensive knowledge base, GenAI-based chatbots can provide timely feedback to users, and thus a growing number of researchers are applying them in the field of education (Kasneci et al., 2023). In programming instruction, GenAI chatbots can give various solutions to students’ problems, provide code examples, or modify code (Husain, 2024). Using GenAI chatbots as programming learning assistants for elementary and secondary school students will increase confidence in solving programming problems and improve learning outcomes and motivation (Muñoz et al., 2023; Shoufan, 2023). Although the GenAI chatbot shows great potential in the field of programming education, there are certain problems. Currently, GenAI chatbots are commonly used for the delivery of learning knowledge or as practice tools (McGrath et al., 2024). Without additional instruction or strategies to guide students in the use of chatbots, students may struggle to effectively correlate newly acquired knowledge with existing knowledge, leading to disappointing learning outcomes (Chin et al., 2014; Hwang et al., 2019). In addition, learners may lack critical thinking when using GenAI and get answers to questions directly through the tool. This adversely affects the development of skills such as critical thinking creativity, and if students become overly reliant on GenAI chatbots, they may fail to develop the skills needed to solve problems on their own, which may even lead to cognitive stagnation (Dwivedi et al., 2023; Qin et al., 2023).
In terms of helping learners organize what they have learned, researchers have suggested the use of mind maps, which is a method of instructing learners to present elements related to core concepts in a graphical pattern (Edwards & Cooper, 2010). As a thinking visualization tool, mind mapping can externalize learners’ thinking processes and guide students to think in an orderly manner and engage in reflective learning(Merchie & Van Keer, 2012; Stokhof et al., 2020). Many previous studies have reported the benefits of mind mapping for improving students’ academic performance and problem-solving skills (Cristea et al., 2011; Eppler, 2006). Feedback of answers from GenAI chatbots relies on students’ questioning skills (Xia et al., 2022). Mind mapping organizes and develops students’ ideas (Buzan, 2024), which will facilitate their provision of clearer and more structured information when interacting with the chatbot to enhance the accuracy of its feedback (Abd-Alrazaq et al., 2023), and will also help students to understand and internalize what they have learned in a deeper way, which will lead to better learning outcomes. The inclusion of a mind mapping session will also avoid the tendency of students to get their answers directly from the GenAI chatbot, which helps to develop their critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Dwivedi et al., 2023). Therefore, this study proposed a learning approach that integrates mind mapping with a GenAI chatbot to improve students’ programming performance. In addition, numerous studies have shown that the type of mind maps and the way they are used can also affect the impact of learning outcomes (Shi et al., 2023; Zhao et al., 2022). It is also an interesting topic to explore how generative chatbots, supported by different types of mind maps, affect students’ programming learning outcomes. Based on this, this study proposed the following research questions:
RQ1: Does an integrated mind mapping and GenAI chatbot learning approach improve students’ programming academic performance?And is there a difference in the impact of different types of mind mapping-supported GenAI chatbots on students’ programming academic performance?
RQ2: Does an integrated mind mapping and GenAI chatbot learning approach improve students’ computational thinking? And is there a difference in the impact of GenAI chatbots supported by different types of mind maps on students’ computational thinking?
RQ3: Does an integrated mind mapping and GenAI chatbot learning approach improve students’ self-efficacy? And are there differences in the effects of different types of mind mapping-supported GenAI chatbots on students’ self-efficacy?
In recent years, programming education has received increasing attention from educators and researchers as an effective way to develop students’ 21st-century skills (Hu, 2024). Many countries and regions are incorporating programming into K-12 education in response to the future demand for talent in a digital society (Åkerfeldt et al., 2024).
However, numerous studies have shown that programming poses a significant challenge for K-12 students due to their lack of relevant knowledge. The abstract and complex nature of programming concepts is a significant barrier for K-12 learners (Ma et al., 2023). To address the obstacles students face in learning programming, researchers have introduced various teaching tools and methods in programming education (Lai & Wong, 2022). For example, graphical programming languages help students intuitively understand programming concepts and processes (Tsai, 2019). Game-based programming learning, through a series of designed instructional scenarios, makes learning both challenging and fun, potentially motivating students to achieve better learning outcomes. Additionally, collaborative programming is another teaching method (Wu et al., 2019) whereby students work in groups to complete programming tasks and build knowledge (Van Aalst, 2009), understanding complex concepts and solving problems through communication and conflict resolution. Although these tools and methods can somewhat reduce the difficulty of learning programming, challenges remain. Programming, as an activity that involves logic and problem solving, requires complex thinking skills, which are often difficult for students to develop independently (Shadiev et al., 2014). They need instructional support to clearly articulate programming logic and express solutions (Kwon, 2017).
Chatbots, also known as conversational agents, are computer programs designed to simulate human-like conversations (Wu & Yu, 2024; R. Zhang et al., 2023b). They interact with users on specific topics or in specific domains through text and speech in a natural conversational manner (Smutny & Schreiberova, 2020). There are significant differences between traditional chatbots and AI chatbots (Wu & Yu, 2024). Traditional chatbots rely on predefined patterns and templates, and their interactions are limited by rules that do not allow them to accurately understand students’ questions, leading to the provision of irrelevant or fixed answers (Coniam, 2014; Yang et al., 2022). Not only does this not help solve the problem, but it may also increase student negativity and decrease technology acceptance (Yang et al., 2022). GenAI chatbots use a variety of AI techniques such as natural language processing, machine learning, information retrieval, and deep learning, which retain user input and learns from previous user input, promoting enhanced engagement and interaction (Nguyen et al., 2022).
Researchers have noted that GenAI chatbots have great potential in education to improve student performance to some extent (McGrath et al., 2024). For example, Tai and Chen (2024) developed a GenAI chatbot based on ChatGPT and applied it to teaching English speaking in elementary schools, and the results showed that it significantly improved the speaking ability of English learners. Chae et al. (2023) developed a GenAI chatbot for English language learning, which, by mimicking the language education behaviors of human teachers, could autonomously organize teaching tasks and progress. In programming education, Yilmaz and Yilmaz (2023b) also demonstrated the positive effects of GenAI tools on students’ CT, programming self-efficacy, and motivation to learn programming. However, some studies have found that GenAI chatbots do not have a positive impact on students’ programming learning. Sun et al. (2024) integrated GenAI chatbots into programming education and found that they did not significantly improve programming performance. By applying GenAI chatbots directly in the classroom, students can receive timely feedback on their knowledge. However, this immediate feedback mechanism may only contribute to students’ surface understanding of knowledge, and not really promote their deeper internalization of knowledge.
Mind maps can help learners externalize their thinking processes and lead them to visual thinking and orderly thinking, which can in turn improve their problem-solving skills (Liu et al., 2018). Some previous studies have shown that mind maps can transform complex ideas into visual diagrams, which not only help learners integrate new knowledge with existing knowledge, but also help them memorize and comprehend the learning content (Buzan & Buzan, 2002) and promote their creative thinking (Abd Karim & Abu, 2018; Bonk & Cunningham, 2012). Some researchers have reported the potential of mind maps for promoting learners’ critical thinking by helping them to analyze and identify associations between different aspects of knowledge (Abd Karim & Mustapha, 2022; Fu et al., 2019; Wu & Wu, 2020).
Mind maps also have a very positive impact in programming education. Ismail et al. (2010) pointed out in their study that combining mind map learning scaffolds with cooperative learning significantly positively impacted students’ problem-solving skills, programming performance, and metacognitive knowledge. Liu et al. (2018)investigated the impact of mind maps on undergraduate programming learning, finding that they could transform abstract and intangible thought patterns into visible and radiating thought patterns, thus improving students’ logical and creative thinking. Chen (2020) integrated mind maps into the teaching of visual programming with Scratch to enhance students’ motivation and reflective abilities in learning.
However, training with mind maps as a cognitive tool can be time-consuming and might impose a significant cognitive load on K-12 learners (Van Gog et al., 2006). Therefore, educators need to identify more suitable mind map scaffolding methods for K-12 learners.
In order to assess the effects of a learning approach that integrates mind mapping with a GenAI chatbot on middle school students’ programming academic performance, CT, and programming self-efficacy, and to investigate whether there is a difference in students’ performance in the above areas when using different types of mind mapping-supported GenAI chatbots, this quasi-experimental study was conducted with three groups of 111 middle school students. The participants, study-related design, experimental procedures, and measurement tools are described in detail below.
The 111 participants in this study were seventh-grade students (11–12 years old) from three classes in a public junior high school in southeastern China. Two classes were randomly selected as Experimental Group 1 (16 boys, 20 girls) and Experimental Group 2 (17 boys, 19 girls), and the other class as a control group (19 boys, 20 girls). All participants had taken information technology(IT) courses at the primary school level and had basic computer skills. Students in the three groups completed an 11-week experimental course. The course taught the same content and was taught by the same IT teacher. The main content included “Python Programming Basics” and “Python Programming Basic Structure.”
In order to successfully complete this experiment, the research team constructed a GenAI chatbot based on a large language model, choosing GPT-4 as the core model, a choice that makes it significantly different from traditional AI chatbots. Compared to chatbots that rely on rules or simple pattern matching, GPT-4 implements dynamic language processing via deep neural networks, trained on a wide range of datasets, and has the ability to understand and generate human-like responses across multiple topics(Tai & Chen, 2024). This advanced capability significantly enhances the chatbot’s conversational capabilities, enabling it to interact with users in a more natural and contextually relevant way. By integrating GPT-4, the chatbot’s level of intelligence is enhanced to provide a more realistic and immersive interactive experience for the user. The chat interface is shown in Fig. 1. Students can initiate conversations on various topics with the chatbot by entering their questions in the main window.
GenAI chatbot based on large language modeling.
Deploying GPT-4 (or the Large Language Model) within the educational domain requires careful consideration of the construction of prompts to maximize the efficiency of the model (Liu et al., 2024). In this study, a modular hybrid prompt design (Liu et al., 2022) was used to ensure relevance and precision across course stages by combining general course prompts with stage-specific prompts. General course prompts provide meta-information such as course objectives, expected outcomes, and target grade level at the beginning of the course, laying the groundwork for students to interact with the GenAI chatbot. Stage-specific prompts, on the other hand, provide customized guidance according to the different stages of the course (e.g., clarifying the problem, analyzing the problem, formulating a solution, writing a program, and summarizing and reflecting on it) to ensure that the chatbot’s feedback is tightly correlated with the learning objectives of the current stage. In addition, students were free to interact with the GenAI chatbot at various stages of the course to ask questions, seek clarification, or request more examples, thus enabling dynamic support for personalized learning. In addition, the chatbot designed for this study supports voice interaction to provide students with more convenient input-output feedback to meet the cognitive and emotional needs of different students.
Protecting students’ private data is important while ensuring interaction with a GenAI chatbot. We developed a dedicated web application based on open source code. The application allows educators to update system prompts in real time based on course dynamics. Especially critical is that all sensitive information, such as personalization settings and conversation logs, is securely stored in the indexedDB database of the local browser. Interaction with GPT-4 is via OpenAI’s API, ensuring that data privacy standards are strictly adhered to.
When using a GenAI chatbot, appropriate and accurate questions can help to get higher-quality answers. By creating a mind map to clarify the knowledge points and logical ideas needed to solve problems, it helps to clarify the direction and purpose of communication with the chatbot and obtain more accurate and useful responses. After getting feedback from the chatbot, learners can modify and optimize the mind map to make the problem-solving ideas clearer and more visible. Therefore, the relationship between the mind map and the chatbot is mutually reinforcing, with the mind map facilitating the chatbot to generate high-quality answers and the chatbot facilitating the iterative optimization of the mind map. The relationship between students, mind maps, and chatbots is shown in Fig. 2.
Diagram of the relationship between students, mind maps, and the GenAI chatbot.
In traditional teaching, some teachers let students construct mind maps by themselves, that is, “self-constructed” mind maps. Since junior high school students are young and lack hands-on skills and sufficient thinking logic, it is difficult for them to complete mind maps independently. To solve this problem, we designed a progressive mind map scaffold with three stages, using different forms of mind maps in each stage to gradually reduce the support for learners’ knowledge construction. The first stage was a gap-filling mind map; the second stage was a prompting mind map; and the third stage was a self-constructed mind map. Gap-filling mind maps are mind map frames pre-designed by the teacher, which contain clues to solve the problem and some blank spaces for students to fill in the key knowledge points. In prompting mind maps, the teacher no longer provides the framework of the mind map, but gives some hints or key points to solve the problem, and students need to design the solution and complete the mind map according to the hints. Self-constructed mind maps refer to mind maps that students construct independently according to their own understanding of the knowledge and thinking logic. These three stages are interrelated and present a progressive approach to promote students’ cognitive and thinking development. The progressive mind map is shown in Fig. 3.
Example of a progressive mind map.
In this study, the instructional activities consisted of five segments, namely: clarifying the problem, analyzing the problem, formulating the program, writing the program, and summarizing and reflecting on the program.
Defining the problem
In the Defining the Problem session, the teacher set up situational problems based on daily life scenarios, presented the teaching case through the scenarios, and posed questions to the students. Students then entered the problem situation designed by the teacher and identified the core of the problem. The role of mind mapping in this session was to help students break down the problem and focus on the core of the problem. Students could sort out the information in the situation through the mind map, so as to clarify the different aspects and levels of the problem, and sort out the logical relationship of the problem through the presentation of structured thinking. The GenAI chatbot helped students quickly capture the key issues in a situation through question explanations and interactive feedback.
Analyze the problem
In the Analyze the problem session, the teacher guided the students to specifically analyze the identified problem and create an initial mind map. Students were guided by the teacher to use the mind map to break down the problem, sort out the knowledge points needed to solve the problem, and break down the problem. The mind map helped students sort out the logic in the analysis process and build a clear logical structure in this session. The GenAI chatbot could provide rich analyzing suggestions in this session to help students further expand their thinking. Difficulties encountered by students in the analysis process could be inspired and answered through conversations with the chatbot.
Developing solutions
In this session, the teacher organized the students to complete the mind maps and monitored the teaching and learning process. Students needed to conceptualize the solution to the problem based on the previous session and complete the mind map as a whole. The mind map helped students organize the solution and clarify the steps at this stage, transforming abstract solution ideas into concrete operational solutions. The GAI chatbot helped students expand their ideas by providing different solution suggestions and discussions to ensure that their solutions were reasonable and innovative. Through interaction, the chatbot could also help students evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different solutions.
Program writing
In this session, the teacher organized the students to write code on the computer and made rounds to supervise the students to see if they were generating code directly. Students needed to transform the mind mapping solution they created into code and debug and run it for optimization. Mind mapping helped students to visualize the problem solution scenarios in this session. Through mind mapping, students were able to check whether the implementation steps in the programming process matched the solution against the ideas they had designed, thus ensuring that the programming was logical and systematic. The GenAI chatbot provided debugging suggestions and instant error correction functions in real time based on the students’ code, helping them solve specific problems in the programming process, optimize the program structure and logic, and improve the effectiveness and performance of the program.
Summarize and reflect
In the summary reflection session, the teacher guided the students to use the GAI chatbot to analyze their programming process and comprehensively reviewed the students’ learning outcomes and classroom performance. The chatbot could provide personalized suggestions based on the interaction process with students to assist them in summarizing and reflecting. Students reflected on the summarization and suggestions of the teacher and the GenAI chatbot, and revised and improved their mind maps. The complete flow of the teaching activities is shown in Fig. 4.
Teaching activity flow.
The experimental procedure is shown in Fig. 5. Participants conducted the study in a computer classroom for a duration of 11 weeks, with one 40-min session per week. Since the participant group had not previously learned the Python language and were having their first exposure to the GenAI chatbot, the first 3 weeks of the study consisted of lessons on the basics of the Python programming language and the use of the GenAI chatbot. In week 4, students completed pretest questions on programming knowledge as well as a pretest questionnaire. The first phase of progressive learning in Experimental Group 1 was weeks 5 and 6, in which students learned programming using the learning method of integrating fill-in-the-blank mind maps with the GenAI chatbot. The second phase was weeks 7 and 8, in which students learned programming using the learning method of integrating prompted mind maps with the GenAI chatbot, and the third phase was weeks 9 and 10, in which they learned programming using the learning method of integrating self-constructed mind maps with the GenAI Chatbot to learn programming. Students in Experimental Group 2 learned programming using the learning method of integrating self-constructed mind maps with the GenAI chatbot during the 5th to 10th weeks of the program. Students in the control group did not use the mind map scaffolding, but learned programming only with the assistance of the GenAI chatbot during weeks 5 through 10 of the course.
Experimental flow chart.
In this study, we conducted a pretest and posttest of programming knowledge, pre- and post-questionnaire surveys of CT, programming self-efficacy, and programming learning motivation, as well as interviews. We designed the pre- and posttest questions of programming knowledge based on the course syllabus, which were revised by two senior IT teachers. The number and type of questions in the pre- and posttests were the same, with a full score of 100. The pretest questions were designed to assess learners’ prior knowledge of Python programming, and the posttest questions were designed to assess participants’ mastery of programming knowledge after completing the course.
The questionnaire used to measure participants’ CT was adapted from the scale developed by Korkmaz et al. (2015). The scale was developed based on the theoretical framework of the ISTE to measure the CT of K-12 students. The scale comprises 22 questions, representing the five dimensions of CT: creativity, algorithmic thinking, collaboration, critical thinking, and problem-solving tendency. The total Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the questionnaire was 0.82, and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the five dimensions were 0.84, 0.87, 0.86, 0.78, and 0.73, respectively. The questionnaire used a 5-point Likert scale, and the answer range was from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
The programming self-efficacy questionnaire was adapted from the scale of the self-efficacy part of the Learning Motivation Strategies Questionnaire (MSLQ) developed by Pintrich and De Groot (1990). The scale consisted of nine 7-point Likert scales, and each item ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7(strongly agree). After testing, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was 0.835, indicating good reliability.
In this study we used the Jamovi 2.3.28 software to conduct statistical analysis on the three groups’ data. Before data analysis, the dependent variables were tested for normal distribution and homogeneity of variances.
After completion of the relevant foundational knowledge instruction and before the formal teaching intervention, a pretest on programming was administered to students from the three classes. The descriptive results of the programming pretest scores are shown in Table 1. According to the statistical data in Table 1, the average pretest scores for Experiment Group 1, Experiment Group 2, and the control group were 59.75, 60.06, and 58.64, respectively. The differences in the average score deviations were minimal.
To test whether there were differences in the three classes’ pretest scores of programming performance, a one-way analysis of variance was conducted. The results are shown in Table 2. There was no significant difference in the pretest scores of the three classes. Therefore, the initial programming level of the participants in the three classes was relatively close.
In this study, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post hoc test analysis were used to examine differences in the posttest scores of programming achievement among the three groups of students, with the results represented by Tables 3 and 4, respectively. The ANOVA showed that there was a significant difference (p < 0.01) in the programming scores of the three groups of students: Experimental Group 1, Experimental Group 2 and the control group. In order to specifically analyze which groups differed, a post hoc test was conducted, and the results are shown in Table 2. The posttest mean of the performance of Experimental Group 1 was 5.11 points higher than that of Experimental Group 2, and the difference was statistically significant (t = 2.98, p = 0.013); the posttest mean of Experimental Group 1 was 9.31 points higher than that of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (t = 5.34, p < 0.001); the posttest mean of Experimental Group 2 was 4.20 points higher than that of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (t = 2.41, p = 0.046). Therefore, the three teaching methods had different impacts on participants’ programming learning; the teaching method of integrating mind mapping and the GenAI chatbot was beneficial for students’ programming learning, while the chatbot supported by progressive mind mapping was more favorable to students’ programming learning.
The pretest questionnaire of CT was subjected to one-way ANOVA. The mean and standard deviation of CT for Experimental Group 1 were 75.8 and 6.64, respectively; the mean and standard deviation of Experimental Group 2 were 74.8 and 7.20, respectively; and the mean and standard deviation of the control group were 74.3 and 6.01, respectively. The results (see Table 5) showed that there was no statistically significant difference in overall CT ability among the three groups (F = 0.452, p = 0.638 > 0.05).
One-way analysis of variance was performed on the total scores of the CT posttest of the three groups of students; the results are shown in Table 6. The data showed that there were significant differences in the three groups’ total scores of CT. A Tukey post hoc test was performed and pairwise comparisons were made to specifically analyze which groups had differences. The results are shown in Table 7. The posttest average of the total CT score of Experimental Group 1 was 3.33 points higher than that of Experimental Group 2, with a statistically significant difference (t = 2.40, p = 0.047); the posttest average of Experimental Group 1 was 7.63 points higher than that of the control group, with a statistically significant difference (t = 5.61, p < 0.001); and the posttest average of Experimental Group 2 was 4.29 points higher than that of the control group, with a statistically significant difference (t = 3.16, p = 0.006). Therefore, the three teaching methods did not affect participants’ CT in the same way; the teaching method of integrating mind mapping and the GenAI chatbot was beneficial for students’ CT development, and the chatbot supported by progressive mind mapping was more favorable to students’ CT.
One-way analysis of variance was performed on the total posttest scores of the creativity dimensions of the three groups of students; the results are shown in Table 8. The data showed that there were significant differences in the total creative posttest scores of the three groups of students. For this reason, Tukey’s post-hoc test was performed and pairwise comparisons were made to specifically analyze which groups had differences. The results are shown in Table 9. The posttest average of the creativity of Experimental Group 1 was 0.0278 points lower than that of Experimental Group 2, but the difference was not statistically significant (t = −0.0634, p = 0.998). The posttest average of Experimental group 1 was 1.04 points higher than that of the control group, with a statistically significant difference (t = 2.43, p = 0.044); while the posttest mean value of Experimental Group 2 was 1.07 points higher than that of the control group, with a statistically significant difference (t = 2.50, p = 0.037). This shows that the teaching method of integrating mind mapping and the GenAI chatbot was favorable for the development of students’ creative thinking tendencies.
One-way analysis of variance was performed on the algorithmic thinking posttest scores of the three groups of students; the results are shown in Table 10. The data showed that there was no significant difference in the algorithmic thinking posttest scores of the three groups of students. Therefore, the three teaching methods had similar effects on improving students’ algorithmic thinking.
One-way analysis of variance was performed on the three groups’ posttest scores of cooperative learning tendencies; the results are shown in Table 11. The data showed that there was no significant difference in the posttest scores of the three groups of students’ cooperative learning tendencies. The three teaching methods, therefore had similar effects on students’ cooperative learning tendency.
One-way analysis of variance was performed on the total posttest scores of the critical thinking dimension of the three groups of students. The results are shown in Table 12. The data showed that there were significant differences in the critical thinking dimension scores of the three groups of students. To this end, Tukey’s post hoc test was performed and pairwise comparisons were made to specifically analyze which groups had differences. The results are shown in Table 13. The average critical thinking posttest of Experimental Group 1 was 0.583 points higher than that of Experimental Group 2; this difference was not statistically significant (t = 1.17, p = 0.475). The posttest average of Experimental Group 1 was 1.77 points higher than that of the control group, with a statistically significant difference (t = 3.62, p = 0.001); the posttest mean value of Experimental Group 2 was 1.19 points higher than that of the control group, with a statistically significant difference (t = 2.43, p = 0.044). Therefore, the three teaching methods did not have the same impact on the participants’ critical dimension; the teaching method of integrating mind mapping and the GenAI chatbot was favorable to the development of students’ critical thinking, but the chatbot supported by progressive mind mapping was more favorable to the development of students’ critical thinking.
One-way analysis of variance was performed on the total posttest scores of the three groups of students’ problem-solving tendencies; the results are shown in Table 14. The data showed that there were significant differences in the posttest scores of the problem-solving tendency dimension of the three groups of students. To this end, a Tukey post hoc test was performed and pairwise comparisons were made to specifically analyze which groups had differences. The results are shown in Table 15. The posttest mean value of Experimental Group 1 was 2.03 points higher than that of Experimental Group 2, and the difference was statistically significant (t = 3.27, p = 0.004); the posttest mean value of Experimental Group 1 was 3.54 points higher than that of the control group, with a statistically significant difference (t = 5.83, p < 0.001); the posttest mean value of Experimental Group 2 was 1.51 points higher than that of the control group, with a statistically significant difference (t = 2.49, p = 0.037). As a result, the three instructional approaches had different impacts on participants’ problem-solving tendencies. The instructional approach of integrating mind mapping and the GenAI chatbot was favorable to the development of students’ problem-solving tendencies, but the chatbot supported by progressive mind mapping was more favorable to the development of students’ problem-solving tendencies.
One-way analysis of variance was performed on the self-efficacy posttest scores of the three groups of students. The results (see Table 16) showed that there was no significant difference in the self-efficacy posttest scores of the three groups (F = 1.39, p = 0.253 > 0.05).
A paired sample t test was conducted on the pre- and posttest scores of the self-efficacy of the three groups of students. The results (see Table 17) showed that there were significant differences in the pre- and posttest scores of the self-efficacy of the three groups of students. Therefore, the analysis of this study showed that all three methods could improve students’ self-efficacy in learning programming.
In order to improve students’ programming performance, we designed a learning approach that integrated mind mapping with a GenAI chatbot. The results of the study showed that the learning method of integrating mind mapping with a GenAI chatbot had a positive impact on students’ academic performance, computational thinking, and programming self-efficacy compared with the traditional chatbot-based learning method. There were also some differences in the effects of GenAI chatbots supported by different mind maps on the above aspects.
In terms of academic performance, the programming performance of students in Experimental Group 1 was significantly higher than that of students in Experimental Group 2 and in the control group. The programming performance of students in Experimental Group 2 was significantly higher than that of students in the control group. This result is consistent with previous research results (J.-H. Zhang et al., 2023a). Mind maps can stimulate learners’ interest and increase their enthusiasm and attention (Feng et al., 2023), which will then have a positive impact on their academic performance (Yildiz Durak, 2020). By making mind maps, students can express the flow and hierarchical structure of their thoughts, which is beneficial for their understanding of programming concepts (Zhao et al., 2022). Compared with self-constructed mind mapping, progressive mind mapping allows students to go through training from filling in the blanks to prompting and finally self-constructing learning scaffolds. This process can more effectively improve students’ ability to understand complex problems and their programming skills. With proper prompting, students can describe the problem-solving steps in detail and ask more specific questions to the GenAI chatbot for more in-depth discussions. At this point, the GenAI chatbot can provide more specific and explicit support to the students, thus promoting their academic performance.
In terms of computational thinking, the overall scores of participants in Experimental Group 1 were significantly higher than those of students in Experimental Group 2 and in the control group. The overall scores of the participants in Experimental Group 2 were significantly higher than those of the students in the control group. In terms of the sub-dimensions of computational thinking, the study found that there were significant differences between the three groups of participants in the areas of “creativity,” “critical thinking,” and “problem solving,” but not in the areas of “algorithmic thinking” and “cooperative learning.” There were no significant differences in “algorithmic thinking” and “cooperative learning.” This finding suggests that while the learning method of integrating mind maps with a GenAI chatbot promotes the development of students’ computational thinking, it does not provide support for every aspect of computational thinking. The results of the post hoc test showed that the two groups of students who used the learning method of integrating mind mapping with the GenAI chatbot outperformed the students in the control group on the creativity dimension, which is consistent with the results of previous studies (Su et al., 2022). Mind mapping makes complex concepts and ideas more visual. This visualization of the thinking process helps learners to more easily see the connections between different concepts, sparking new ideas and inspiration (Dong et al., 2021). Students in the process of drawing mind maps can constantly sort out the veins of knowledge, summarize the framework, and understand the knowledge at different levels, and in the process, can promote the enhancement of creative thinking. For the two experimental groups, the data showed that there was no significant difference in the creativity performance of the two groups, but the students in Experimental Group 2 scored slightly higher on creativity than the students in Experimental Group 1. In Experimental Group 2, students were able to construct their own thinking network through self-constructed mind maps. Self-constructed knowledge systems help to enhance students’ creative thinking because they are free to explore different thinking paths and develop new ways of solving problems in the process (Hunter et al., 2008). Although progressive mind mapping provides more systematic guidance, such guidance may not necessarily have a clear advantage over fully autonomous thought construction in the creativity dimension. In terms of critical thinking, participants in the Experimental Group 1 and Experimental Group 2 also performed significantly better than those in the control group. Cottrell (2023) stated that critical thinking provides people with the tools to constructively use doubt and questioning, allowing them to analyze the information available to students and make better and more informed decisions about whether this information is likely to be true. In this study, students in the two experimental groups were first communicating and interacting with the GenAI chatbot on the basis of mapping their thinking and clarifying their ideas, so students would select more favorable and reliable support. In addition, students were asked to reflect on the process of designing a mind map, which provided them with an opportunity to apply critical thinking for more detailed analysis and internalization of the learning process (Polat & Aydın, 2020). Self-constructed mind mapping requires students to actively construct their own knowledge networks, a process that helps them think independently and integrate new information through critical analysis. While progressive mind mapping provides students with additional guidance, the two may ultimately converge in terms of critical thinking development, as both forms of mind mapping support students to reflect on and analyze problems in depth. In terms of problem-solving tendency, students in Experimental Group 1 scored significantly higher than students in Experimental Group 2 and those in the control group, and students in Experimental Group 2 scored significantly higher than students in the control group. This indicates that the learning method of integrating mind mapping and the GenAI chatbot had a positive effect on students’ problem solving, and the effect of the learning method supported by progressive mind mapping was more significant. Through mind mapping, students can decompose abstract and complex programming problems into more concrete and simple problems, which makes the structure of the problems more inclined, and this externalized thinking process not only enhances students’ comprehension but also promotes the development of their problem-solving ability. In addition, progressive mind mapping to some extent helps students clarify the steps of problem solving, so they are more clearer about their learning goals(J.-H. Zhang et al., 2023a). With clear goals, students are motivated to invest their energy in finding solutions and communicating and interacting with the GenAI chatbot.
Self-efficacy represents a person’s inner confidence in completing a certain task and is an important factor affecting the success of programming learning (Wei et al., 2021). Problem solving in programming learning is a task that requires complex cognitive processes. Lack of prior knowledge and experience may make it difficult for students to solve problems due to a lack of confidence (Cheah, 2020). The analysis of variance results of the posttest questionnaire showed that there was no significant difference in the programming self-efficacy of the three groups of students. However, according to the paired t-test results of the pre- and posttest questionnaires of the three groups of students, the programming self-efficacy of the three groups increased significantly, which suggests that the GenAI chatbot can help students build up their confidence in programming learning. The real-time feedback provided by the GenAI chatbot during the learning process can enhance students’ programming self-efficacy; this result is consistent with the results of previous studies. Therefore, it can be said that the use of GenAI chatbots in programming education is effective in terms of enhancing students’ programming self-efficacy.
The use of GenAI chatbots in teaching programming has become a trend. It can provide instant feedback to help students with their programming learning (Yilmaz & Yilmaz, 2023a). However, there are some problems with GenAI chatbots applied in programming teaching (Husain, 2024). According to the characteristics of mind mapping, it can weaken the disadvantages of GenAI chatbots and strengthen its advantages to some extent. However, few studies have investigated the impact of integrating mind maps with GenAI chatbots on students’ programming learning. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of integrating a learning approach of mind mapping with a GenAI chatbot on students’ programming academic performance, computational thinking, and programming self-efficacy. The results showed that the learning method of integrating mind maps with a GenAI chatbot had a positive effect on students’ programming performance, creative thinking, critical thinking, and problem-solving tendencies. The learning approach of integrating progressive mind mapping with GenAI chatbots had an even more significant positive effect on students’ programming achievement and problem-solving skills.
Based on the research process and results, we make some recommendations for researchers and educators: first, teachers should guide students to make reasonable use of artificial intelligence, such as GenAI chatbots, to promote independent learning and higher-order thinking development. In instructional design, teachers should encourage students to think independently before using GenAI chatbots to validate ideas, expand knowledge, or obtain assistive suggestions. Through the rational use of AI tools, students are promoted to become active agents of independent learning, not just passive receivers of information. Second, it is necessary to strengthen the effective integration of mind maps and GenAI chatbots, and to emphasize the application of progressive mind maps. Mind maps can help students intuitively clarify their thoughts and structure complex programming knowledge, while GenAI chatbots can provide students with timely feedback and support. Progressive mind mapping can effectively support students’ knowledge construction process in programming teaching. Through the gradual guidance, students can better understand programming concepts and show higher flexibility of thinking when solving programming problems. Finally, it is important to focus on the cultivation of students’ motivation and engagement. Teachers need to carefully design programming problems so that they can both arouse students’ interest and stimulate their desire to learn. For example, by setting interesting and challenging programming problems, students can not only feel the fun of programming, but also experience the sense of accomplishment of gradually overcoming difficulties in the process of completing the tasks, thus further enhancing their learning motivation.
This study provides a reference for the application of generative AI chatbots in programming teaching, but there are still limitations. First, the experimental intervention time was short, only 6 weeks, and the improvement of programming performance requires long-term investment, so the findings need to be further validated by long-term studies. Second, the sample size and representativeness were limited, involving only three classes of first-year students. Future research should expand the sample size to cover students of different ages and backgrounds to improve the generalizability of the results. Finally, the evaluation content and methods were insufficient; this study was mainly based on test questions and scale data; a reasonable evaluation method has not been determined for students’ mind mapping works and the process data of students’ interactions with the GenAI chatbot. In the future, it is still necessary to choose more reasonable evaluation methods to obtain more rigorous evaluation results.
Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files.
Abd-Alrazaq A, AlSaad R, Alhuwail D, Ahmed A, Healy PM, Latifi S, Aziz S, Damseh R, Alrazak SA, Sheikh J (2023) Large language models in medical education: opportunities, challenges, and future directions. JMIR Med Educ 9(1):e48291
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 
Abd Karim R, Abu AG (2018) Using mobile-assisted mind mapping technique (mammat) to improve writing skills of ESL students. J Soc Sci Humanit 1(2):1–6
Google Scholar 
Abd Karim R, Mustapha R (2022) TVET student’s perception on digital mind map to stimulate learning of technical skills in Malaysia. J Tech Educ Train 14(1):1–13
Google Scholar 
Åkerfeldt A, Kjällander S, Petersen P (2024) A research review of computational thinking and programming in education. Technol Pedagog Educ 33(3):375–390
Article  Google Scholar 
Bandura A (1978) The self system in reciprocal determinism. Am Psychol 33(4):344
Article  Google Scholar 
Belmar H (2022) Review on the teaching of programming and computational thinking in the world. Front Comput Sci 4:997222
Article  Google Scholar 
Bonk CJ, Cunningham DJ (2012) Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In Electronic collaborators (pp. 25-50). Routledge
Buzan T (2024) Mind map mastery: The complete guide to learning and using the most powerful thinking tool in the universe. Jaico Publishing House
Buzan T, Buzan B (2002) How to mind map. Thorsons London
Google Scholar 
Chae, H, Kim, M, Kim, C, Jeong, W, Kim, H, Lee, J, Yeo, J (2023) TUTORING: instruction-grounded conversational agent for language learners. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence,
Cheah CS (2020) Factors contributing to the difficulties in teaching and learning of computer programming: a literature review. Contemp Educ Technol 12(2):ep272
Article  Google Scholar 
Chen T-L (2020) Learning programming language in higher education for sustainable development: point-earning bidding method. Sustainability 12(11):4489
Article  Google Scholar 
Chin K-Y, Hong Z-W, Chen Y-L (2014) Impact of using an educational robot-based learning system on students’ motivation in elementary education. IEEE Trans Learn Technol 7(4):333–345
Article  Google Scholar 
Coniam D (2014) The linguistic accuracy of chatbots: usability from an ESL perspective. Text Talk 34(5):545–567
Article  Google Scholar 
Cottrell S (2023) Critical thinking skills: Effective analysis, argument and reflection. Bloomsbury Publishing
Google Scholar 
Cristea AD, Berdie AD, Osaci M, Chirtoc D (2011) The advantages of using mind map for learning web dynpro. Comput Appl Eng Educ 19(1):201–207
Article  Google Scholar 
Dong Y, Zhu S, Li W (2021) Promoting sustainable creativity: an empirical study on the application of mind mapping tools in graphic design education. Sustainability 13(10):5373
Article  Google Scholar 
Dwivedi YK, Kshetri N, Hughes L, Slade EL, Jeyaraj A, Kar AK, Baabdullah AM, Koohang A, Raghavan V, Ahuja M (2023) Opinion Paper:“So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. Int J Inf Manag 71:102642
Article  Google Scholar 
Edwards S, Cooper N (2010) Mind mapping as a teaching resource. Clin Teach 7(4):236–239
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 
Eppler MJ (2006) A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing. Inf Vis 5(3):202–210
Article  Google Scholar 
Feng, R, Alsager, HN, Azizi, Z, & Sarabani, L (2023). Impact of mind-mapping technique on EFL learners’ vocabulary recall and retention, learning motivation, and willingness to communicate. Heliyon, 9(6)
Fu Q-K, Lin C-J, Hwang G-J, Zhang L (2019) Impacts of a mind mapping-based contextual gaming approach on EFL students’ writing performance, learning perceptions and generative uses in an English course. Comput Educ 137:59–77
Article  Google Scholar 
González-Pérez LI, Ramírez-Montoya MS (2022) Components of Education 4.0 in 21st century skills frameworks: systematic review. Sustainability 14(3):1493
Article  Google Scholar 
Gurer MD, Tokumaci S (2020) Factors affecting engineering students’ achievement in computer programming. Int J Comput Sci Educ Sch 3(4):n4
Google Scholar 
Hu L (2024) Programming and 21st century skill development in K‐12 schools: a multidimensional meta‐analysis. J Comput Assist Learn 40(2):610–636
Article  Google Scholar 
Hunter ST, Bedell-Avers KE, Hunsicker CM, Mumford MD, Ligon GS (2008) Applying multiple knowledge structures in creative thought: Effects on idea generation and problem-solving. Creat Res J 20(2):137–154
Article  Google Scholar 
Husain A (2024) Potentials of ChatGPT in computer programming: insights from programming instructors. J Inf Technol Educ: Res 23:002
Google Scholar 
Hwang G-J, Lee H-Y, Chen C-H (2019) Lessons learned from integrating concept mapping and gaming approaches into learning scenarios using mobile devices: analysis of an activity for a geology course. Int J Mob Learn Organ 13(3):286–308
Article  Google Scholar 
Ismail MN, Ngah NA, Umar IN (2010) The effects of mind mapping with cooperative learning on programming performance, problem solving skill and metacognitive knowledge among computer science students. J Educ Comput Res 42(1):35–61
Article  Google Scholar 
ISTE. (2015) Computational thinking for all. https://cdn.iste.org/www-root/2020-10/ISTE_CT_Leadership_Toolkit_booklet.pdf?_ga=2.26895865
Kasneci E, Seßler K, Küchemann S, Bannert M, Dementieva D, Fischer F, Gasser U, Groh G, Günnemann S, Hüllermeier E (2023) ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learn Individ Differ 103:102274
Article  Google Scholar 
Korkmaz Ö, Çakır R, Özden M (2015) Computational thinking levels scale (CTLS) adaptation for secondary school level. Gazi J Educ Sci 1(2):143–162
Google Scholar 
Kwon K (2017) Novice programmer’s misconception of programming reflected on problem-solving plans. Int J Comput Sci Educ Sch 1(4):n4
Google Scholar 
Lai C-F, Zhong H-X, Chiu P-S (2021) Investigating the impact of a flipped programming course using the DT-CDIO approach. Comput Educ 173:104287
Article  Google Scholar 
Lai X, Wong GKW (2022) Collaborative versus individual problem solving in computational thinking through programming: a meta‐analysis. Br J Educ Technol 53(1):150–170
Article  Google Scholar 
Lindberg RS, Laine TH, Haaranen L (2019) Gamifying programming education in K‐12: a review of programming curricula in seven countries and programming games. Br J Educ Technol 50(4):1979–1995
Article  Google Scholar 
Liu Y, Tong Y, Yang Y (2018) The application of mind mapping into college computer programming teaching. Procedia Comput Sci 129:66–70
Article  Google Scholar 
Liu, Z-M, Hwang, G-J, Chen, C-Q, Chen, X-D, & Ye, X-D (2024). Integrating large language models into EFL writing instruction: effects on performance, self-regulated learning strategies, and motivation. Comput Assist Lang Learn 1-25
Liu ZM, Fan X, Liu Y, Ye XD (2022) Effects of immersive virtual reality cardiopulmonary resuscitation training on prospective kindergarten teachers’ learning achievements, attitudes and self‐efficacy. Br J Educ Technol 53(6):2050–2070
Article  Google Scholar 
Ma N, Qian J, Gong K, Lu Y (2023) Promoting programming education of novice programmers in elementary schools: a contrasting cases approach for learning programming. Educ Inf Technol 28(7):9211–9234
Article  Google Scholar 
McGrath, C, Farazouli, A, & Cerratto-Pargman, T (2024). Generative AI chatbots in higher education: a review of an emerging research area. High Educ 1-17
Medeiros RP, Ramalho GL, Falcão TP (2018) A systematic literature review on teaching and learning introductory programming in higher education. IEEE Trans Educ 62(2):77–90
Article  Google Scholar 
Merchie E, Van Keer H (2012) Spontaneous mind map use and learning from texts: the role of instruction and student characteristics. Procedia-Soc Behav Sci 69:1387–1394
Article  Google Scholar 
Mohamed AM (2024) Exploring the potential of an AI-based Chatbot (ChatGPT) in enhancing English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching: perceptions of EFL Faculty Members. Educ Inf Technol 29(3):3195–3217
Article  Google Scholar 
Muñoz SAS, Gayoso GG, Huambo AC, Tapia RDC, Incaluque JL, Aguila OEP, Cajamarca JCR, Acevedo JER, Rivera HVH, Arias-Gonzáles JL (2023) Examining the impacts of ChatGPT on student motivation and engagement. Soc Space 23(1):1–27
Google Scholar 
Nguyen QN, Sidorova A, Torres R (2022) User interactions with chatbot interfaces vs. Menu-based interfaces: an empirical study. Comput Hum Behav 128:107093
Article  Google Scholar 
Pavlik JV (2023) Collaborating with ChatGPT: Considering the implications of generative artificial intelligence for journalism and media education. Journal Mass Commun Educ 78(1):84–93
Google Scholar 
Pintrich PR, De Groot EV (1990) Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. J Educ Psychol 82(1):33
Article  Google Scholar 
Polat Ö, Aydın E (2020) The effect of mind mapping on young children’s critical thinking skills. Think Skills Creat 38:100743
Article  Google Scholar 
Qin C, Zhang A, Zhang Z, Chen J, Yasunaga M, Yang D (2023) Is ChatGPT a general-purpose natural language processing task solver? arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06476
Shadiev R, Hwang W-Y, Yeh S-C, Yang SJ, Wang J-L, Han L, Hsu G-L (2014) Effects of unidirectional vs. reciprocal teaching strategies on web-based computer programming learning. J Educ Comput Res 50(1):67–95
Article  Google Scholar 
Shi Y, Yang H, Dou Y, Zeng Y (2023) Effects of mind mapping-based instruction on student cognitive learning outcomes: a meta-analysis. Asia Pac Educ Rev 24(3):303–317
Article  Google Scholar 
Shoufan A (2023) Exploring students’ perceptions of ChatGPT: Thematic analysis and follow-up survey. IEEE Access 11:38805–38818
Article  Google Scholar 
Smutny P, Schreiberova P (2020) Chatbots for learning: a review of educational chatbots for the Facebook Messenger. Comput Educ 151:103862
Article  Google Scholar 
Stokhof H, De Vries B, Bastiaens T, Martens R (2020) Using mind maps to make student questioning effective: Learning outcomes of a principle-based scenario for teacher guidance. Res Sci Educ 50(1):203–225
Article  Google Scholar 
Su Y-S, Shao M, Zhao L (2022) Effect of mind mapping on creative thinking of children in scratch visual programming education. J Educ Comput Res 60(4):906–929
Article  Google Scholar 
Sun D, Boudouaia A, Zhu C, Li Y (2024) Would ChatGPT-facilitated programming mode impact college students’ programming behaviors, performances, and perceptions? An empirical study. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 21(1):14
Article  Google Scholar 
Tai T-Y, Chen HH-J (2024) Improving elementary EFL speaking skills with generative AI chatbots: Exploring individual and paired interactions. Comput Educ 220:105112
Article  Google Scholar 
Tikva C, Tambouris E (2021) Mapping computational thinking through programming in K-12 education: a conceptual model based on a systematic literature review. Comput Educ 162:104083
Article  Google Scholar 
Tsai C-Y (2019) Improving students’ understanding of basic programming concepts through visual programming language: the role of self-efficacy. Comput Hum Behav 95:224–232
Article  Google Scholar 
Van Aalst J (2009) Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and knowledge-creation discourses. Int J Comput-Supported Collab Learn 4:259–287
Article  Google Scholar 
Van Gog T, Paas F, Van Merriënboer JJ (2006) Effects of process-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer performance. Learn Instr 16(2):154–164
Article  Google Scholar 
Webb M, Davis N, Bell T, Katz YJ, Reynolds N, Chambers DP, Sysło MM (2017) Computer science in K-12 school curricula of the 2lst century: Why, what and when? Educ Inf Technol 22:445–468
Article  Google Scholar 
Wei X, Lin L, Meng N, Tan W, Kong S-C (2021) The effectiveness of partial pair programming on elementary school students’ computational thinking skills and self-efficacy. Comput Educ 160:104023
Article  Google Scholar 
Wu B, Hu Y, Ruis AR, Wang M (2019) Analysing computational thinking in collaborative programming: a quantitative ethnography approach. J Comput Assist Learn 35(3):421–434
Article  Google Scholar 
Wu H-Z, Wu Q-T (2020) Impact of mind mapping on the critical thinking ability of clinical nursing students and teaching application. J Int Med Res 48(3):0300060519893225
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 
Wu R, Yu Z (2024) Do AI chatbots improve students learning outcomes? Evidence from a meta‐analysis. Br J Educ Technol 55(1):10–33
Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 
Xia Q, Chiu TK, Lee M, Sanusi IT, Dai Y, Chai CS (2022) A self-determination theory (SDT) design approach for inclusive and diverse artificial intelligence (AI) education. Comput Educ 189:104582
Article  Google Scholar 
Yang H, Kim H, Lee JH, Shin D (2022) Implementation of an AI chatbot as an English conversation partner in EFL speaking classes. ReCALL 34(3):327–343
Article  Google Scholar 
Yang T-C, Lin Z-S (2024) Enhancing elementary school students’ computational thinking and programming learning with graphic organizers. Comput Educ 209:104962
Article  Google Scholar 
Yildiz Durak H (2020) The effects of using different tools in programming teaching of secondary school students on engagement, computational thinking and reflective thinking skills for problem solving. Technol, Knowl Learn 25(1):179–195
Article  Google Scholar 
Yilmaz R, Yilmaz FGK (2023a) Augmented intelligence in programming learning: Examining student views on the use of ChatGPT for programming learning. Comput Hum Behav: Artif Hum 1(2):100005
Google Scholar 
Yilmaz R, Yilmaz FGK (2023b) The effect of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool use on students’ computational thinking skills, programming self-efficacy and motivation. Comput Educ: Artif Intell 4:100147
Google Scholar 
Zhang J-H, Meng B, Zou L-C, Zhu Y, Hwang G-J (2023a) Progressive flowchart development scaffolding to improve university students’ computational thinking and programming self-efficacy. Interact Learn Environ 31(6):3792–3809
Article  Google Scholar 
Zhang, R, Zou, D, Cheng, G (2023b) A review of chatbot-assisted learning: pedagogical approaches, implementations, factors leading to effectiveness, theories, and future directions. Interact Learn Environ 1-29
Zhao L, Liu X, Wang C, Su Y-S (2022) Effect of different mind mapping approaches on primary school students’ computational thinking skills during visual programming learning. Comput Educ 181:104445
Article  Google Scholar 
Download references
College of Education, Wenzhou University, Wenzhou, China
Xindong Ye, Wenyu Zhang, Yuxin Zhou & Xiaozhi Li
Key Research Center of Philosophy and Social Sciences of Zhejiang Province(Institute of Medical Humanities, Wenzhou Medical University), Wenzhou, China
Xindong Ye & Qiang Zhou
Department of Psychology, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China
Qiang Zhou
Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar
Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar
Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar
Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar
Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar
Wen-Yu Zhang. and Yu-Xin Zhou. designed research, performed research. Wen-Yu Zhang. analyzed data and wrote the paper. Xin-Dong Ye, Qiang Zhou, and Xiao-Zhi Li. reviewed and edited the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Correspondence to Xiaozhi Li or Qiang Zhou.
The authors declare no competing interests.
This work involved human subjects or animals in its research. This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Wenzhou University (Date: April 16,2024/No: WZU-2024-097).
Before the study commenced, all participants and their parents or legal guardians provided written informed consent. The consent covered participation in the study, data collection, and the publication of research findings. The consent procedure was conducted on April 16, 2024. All participants and their legal guardians were informed that their identities would remain anonymous, participation was voluntary, and they could withdraw from the study at any time.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Reprints and permissions
Ye, X., Zhang, W., Zhou, Y. et al. Improving students’ programming performance: an integrated mind mapping and generative AI chatbot learning approach. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 558 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04846-4
Download citation
Received: 29 October 2024
Accepted: 01 April 2025
Published: 20 April 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04846-4
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Advertisement
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (Humanit Soc Sci Commun)
ISSN 2662-9992 (online)
© 2025 Springer Nature Limited

source