This research full paper examines how undergraduate students use large language models (LLMs) across computer science subfields. As LLMs become increasingly integrated into computing education, understanding how their use varies across technical and pedagogical contexts is essential for designing effective, subfield-aware instruction. This paper presents a cross-subfield analysis of LLM usage among 211 undergraduate students in a problem-solving course intentionally designed to support responsible and effective LLM use through structured instruction and reflection. Using post-assignment reflection data collected across seven instructional modules spanning multiple computer science subfields, we examine prompt counts, LLM role conceptualization, and verification behavior. Results show that LLM adoption varies substantially by assignment, with higher usage in algorithms and web development and lower usage in software engineering. Students predominantly treat LLMs as assistive tools rather than authoritative sources, and verification is common across all subfields, with most students using multiple strategies. Verification behavior also varies by assignment context, with testing more common in structured tasks and web search more common in open-ended tasks. These findings suggest that assignment characteristics play a central role in shaping how students interact with and evaluate LLM outputs, even under a single, consistently applied instructional design. This work contributes empirical evidence on how LLM adoption, role conceptualization, and verification behavior vary across computer science subfields, extending our prior work on structured, reflective LLM instruction to show how its effects differ by task rather than only in aggregate.

翻译：暂无翻译