Edumate.AI: A Generative AI Tutor to Improve Programming Skills Using Large Language Model (LLM)

Learning programming language is difficult for many beginners, not only because of syntax, logic deployment, and debugging issues, but also due to the lack of immediate personalized support. General-purpose LLM tools can help but tend to promote answer dependency by generating complete answers without enforcing reasoning. This paper presents EduMate.AI, a logic-based generative AI tutoring system for beginner C++ learners. The system is implemented using a Model-View-Controller (MVC) architecture, integrating a large language model via constrained prompt orchestration. EduMate.AI aims to improve learners’ conceptual understanding, reasoning ability, and learning experience by shifting generative AI from answer-delivery to structured tutoring support.

Generative AI; Intelligent Tutoring System; Programming Education; C++ Learning; Large Language Model; Socratic Hinting; Reasoning Control

1. Wang, X., Liu, J., & Zhang, Z. (2020). Sustainable C++ education in general high school: From teaching programming skills to developing computational thinking. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE), 35–40. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Duran, R., Zavgorodniaia, A., & Sorva, J. (2022). Cognitive load theory in computing education research: A review. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 22(4), Article 40, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. https://doi.org/10.1145/3483843 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Xi, L., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q. (2026). Investigating the effects of an LLM-based Socratic conversational agent on students’ academic performance and reflective thinking in higher education. Computers & Education, 241, Article 105494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105494 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Tanvir, S. H., & Kim, G. J. (2024). WIP: Generative and custom chatbots in computer programming education and their effectiveness: A systematic literature review. Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE61694.2024.10893425 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Li, J., Li, G., Li, Y., & Jin, Z. (2025). Structured chain-of-thought prompting for code generation. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 34(2), Article 37, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3690635 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Poitras, E., Crane, B., & Siegel, A. (2024). Generative AI in introductory programming instruction: Examining the assistance dilemma with LLM-based code generators. Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Virtual Global Computing Education Conference V. 1 (SIGCSE Virtual), 186–192. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3649165.3690111 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. He, H., & Li, X. (2025). A comparative study on the effectiveness of generative AI tools and pair programming in college students’ programming learning. Proceedings of the International Conference on Distance Education and Learning (ICDEL), 224–228. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDEL65868.2025.11193454 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Holanda, M., et al. (2023). Automatic formative and motivational feedback personalized for introductory programming course. Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343336 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Duong, T. N. B., Shar, L. K., & Shankararaman, V. (2022). AP-Coach: Formative feedback generation for learning introductory programming concepts. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), 323–330. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE54877.2022.00060 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Scholl, A., & Kiesler, N. (2024). How novice programmers use and experience ChatGPT when solving programming exercises in an introductory course. Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE61694.2024.10893442 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Torek, A., Sorensen, E., Hahle, N., & Kennington, C. (2024). A systematic evaluation of code-generating chatbots for use in undergraduate computer science education. Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE61694.2024.10893165 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Liu, Y., et al. (2024). Empirical evaluation of large language models for novice program fault localization. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability, and Security (QRS), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1109/QRS62785.2024.00027 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Santos, E. A., Salmon, A., & Hammer, K. (2025). It’s dangerous to prompt alone! Exploring how fine-tuning GPT-4o affects novices’ programming error resolution. IEEE Access, 13, 166943–166958. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3613500 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kumar, Y., Akinwunmi, I., & Kruger, D. (2025). Evaluating the advantage of an AI-native IDE cursor on programmer performance. Proceedings of the IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC). https://doi.org/10.1109/ISEC64801.2025.11147402 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kaufmann, C., Pavão, J., & Wahl, H. (2022). Is there a need for automated code review to be used in teaching? From the perspective of students. Proceedings of the 17th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Salvador, L. R., Llerena, C. A., & Dai, N. H. P. (2025). ChatGPT in education: Challenges and best practices. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Engineering Systems (INES), 291–296. https://doi.org/10.1109/INES67149.2025.11078207 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Rachh, R., & Kavatagi, S. (2024). Study on students’ perceptions of generative AI in learning programming courses. Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Technologies (ICONAT). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICONAT61936.2024.10774681 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Kostopoulos, G., Gkamas, V., Rigou, M., & Kotsiantis, S. (2025). Agentic AI in education: State of the art and future directions. IEEE Access, 13, 177467–177491. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3620473 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Olorunshola, O. E., & Ogwueleka, F. N. (2022). Review of System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) models for effective application delivery. In A. Joshi et al. (Eds.), Information and Communication Technology for Competitive Strategies (ICTCS 2020) (pp. 281–289). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0739-4_28 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Magfira, F., Matulatan, T., Fahmitra, N. F., Irawan, F., & Herikson, R. (2024). Implementation of Model View Controller architecture in designing Outcome-Based Education (OBE) curriculum management information system. BIO Web of Conferences, 134, 05002. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/202413405002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Abd El Bar, D. A., Mohaseb, M. M., & El Bassuony, J. M. (2022). Using instructional scaffolding in hybrid learning environment: A critical review. Port Said Journal of Educational Research, 1(1), 132–154. https://doi.org/10.21608/psjer.2022.160500.1004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study