Жоғары оқу орындарында программалау пәндерін оқытуда Vibe coding әсері және тәжірибелік бағалау

2026

Closed access Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.47344/45ce6c31
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify the causes of the phenomenon of “vibe coding,” which is often encountered in the teaching of programming disciplines in higher education institutions, and its impact on learning outcomes, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of methods aimed at preventing it. Currently, the decline in the search process and the ability of students to solve problems using artificial intelligence is becoming a serious problem in science. In the context of teaching programming disciplines, the implementation of tasks designed for algorithmization and the creation of a training program using artificial intelligence (AI) is described by the term “vibe coding.” In this regard, to determine the extent of the active spread of “vibe coding” tools among students, the level of their use, and the problems of preventing them, a survey was conducted with students of the “Informatics” program at the K. Zhubanov Aktobe Regional University. As a result of the survey, 96% of students reported regular use of AI tools. The study identified the main factors that prompted students to use AI-generated answers, ignoring the requirements of academic integrity. In addition, a methodological tool was developed aimed at developing algorithmic thinking, determining the authorship of a solution, and providing a step-by-step explanation of tasks. The effectiveness of the developed methodological tool was tested using a pilot experiment. Forty-seven students participated in the experiment: 23 of them were assigned to the experimental group and 24 to the control group. The experiment revealed a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Cohen's d statistical effect size was 0.671, confirming a medium-high effect size, i.e., the influence of the experimental methodology used was reliable.