Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Mapping the Emerging Curriculum for AI-Assisted Software Engineering via Syllabus Analysis

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read An analysis of 23 course syllabi finds AI-assisted software engineering is taught as project-centered, AI-required practice—with no settled curriculum yet.

desk verdict First empirical map of AI-assisted SE courses, but several headline claims are selection effects; still deserves review. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05898 v1 pith:7HFTN7U4 submitted 2026-08-06 cs.SE cs.CYcs.HC

Francis Geng , Anshul Shah , Mia Chen , Paul Denny , Juho Leinonen , Bill Griswold , Gerald Soosai Raj , Leo Porter This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SEcs.CYcs.HC
keywords AI-assistedsoftwareengineeringgenerativeAIeducationsyllabusanalysiscomputingcurriculumdesignlearningobjectivesassessmentmethods
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish an empirical baseline for a curricular area that barely existed a few years ago: university courses that teach software engineering with generative AI tools built into the workflow. By analyzing 23 public syllabi and course materials from U.S. upper-division, credit-bearing courses that explicitly require generative AI for graded software engineering tasks, the authors find that these courses commonly center project or capstone work, require substantial programming and collaboration, and tie large grade weights to AI-required work. They also find that the courses do not yet share a single curricular model: topics, tools, and assessment structures vary, while transferable practices such as prompting, agentic development, evaluation, and testing recur. The value of establishing this pattern is that instructors and curriculum designers get a baseline against which to measure future course designs, and researchers get evidence that the area is still a design space rather than a settled curriculum.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a qualitative coding apparatus applied to a purpose-built dataset. The authors constructed the dataset through structured Google searches of .edu and GitHub domains, filtered candidates through two screening stages (institutional eligibility, then three content criteria: explicit GenAI framing, coverage of at least two software development lifecycle domains, and required GenAI use in graded software engineering tasks), and ended with 23 courses. For analysis, three authors open-coded all 86 extracted learning objectives and negotiated agreement; three authors coded 211 topic entries, reaching inter-coder reliability of Fleiss' $\kappa = 0.80$ before dividing the remaining topics; and one author extracted and normalized assessment categories, assessment features, and named tools using explicit decision rules. This coding pipeline is what converts heterogeneous public documents into comparable counts across objectives, assessments, topics, and tools.

What would settle it

Contact the instructors of the 23 courses and compare their actual assessments, required AI tool use, and topics against the public documents; if many courses turn out to rely on proctored exams or to assign projects that are not mentioned publicly, the project-centered pattern would not describe the real courses. A second check would be to run an independent search with different query terms or including non-U.S. courses and see whether exam-heavy or tool-isolated course designs appear at comparable rates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that emerging AI-assisted software engineering courses, as documented in their public materials, are characterized by a practice-oriented assessment structure rather than an exam-oriented one. Among the 14 conventional percentage-based courses, every one included participation or engagement, 12 included a project or capstone with a median weight of 50%, and AI-required and programming work carried median grade weights of 70%. The 12 courses with public learning objectives most often stated objectives about human-AI collaboration, building software with AI tools, and evaluating software and AI artifacts; the 18 courses with public topic lists most often documented AI/ML fundamentals, agentic development, prompting, and testing or evaluation topics. The 9 courses that named tools clustered around Claude Code, Cursor, and GitHub Copilot, with a long tail of other tools. The authors read these patterns as showing that AI-assisted software engineering is being assembled from established software engineering practices plus AI-mediated practices layered on top, and that no standardized curriculum has emerged yet.

Load-bearing premise

The findings assume that the public syllabi, websites, schedules, and assignment pages accurately and completely reflect what these courses actually teach, assign, and require.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Course designers can use the recurring building blocks—AI-required projects, programming-intensive assignments, group work, evaluation and testing, and reflection on AI use—as a starting template for new AI-assisted software engineering courses.
  • The dominance of project and participation grading, with proctored exams appearing in only a small minority of courses, implies that instructors are betting on authentic practice over exam-based verification, and that assessing individual reasoning may require supplementary mechanisms such as code reviews, demonstrations, and process logs.
  • Because named tools cluster around developer-facing coding agents (Claude Code, Cursor, GitHub Copilot) while the overall tool landscape is fragmented, courses are more likely to converge on transferable practices than on any single tool.
  • The uneven visibility of documentation, brownfield development, responsible AI, and user-centered design in public topic lists points to gaps that future course revisions may need to fill deliberately.
  • The absence of a single curricular model means that accreditation-style guidance that predates generative AI will need empirical updating rather than a one-size-fits-all prescription.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the syllabus-level patterns generalize, one testable consequence is that AI-assisted software engineering education will converge toward a common core of AI-mediated practices (prompting, agentic orchestration, AI evaluation) while tool choices remain volatile, so curricula that teach tool-agnostic skills will age better than those tied to a single product.
  • The study's focus on U.S. courses with required GenAI use likely overstates the prevalence of project-centered, AI-required design relative to the broader population of courses where AI is optional or policy-only; an international or lower-division sample could reveal different assessment balances.
  • A direct follow-up the authors do not run would be to track the same 23 courses over successive offerings to see whether the design space collapses into a dominant model as tools and professional practice stabilize, which would turn today's baseline into a trajectory.
  • Because the public documents under-document tools (only 9 of 23 name any tool), observed tool fragmentation might partly be an artifact of documentation practice; a survey of instructors could separate 'not using tool X' from 'not documenting tool X.'
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 23 publicly available syllabi and course materials from U.S.-based, upper-division, credit-bearing courses that explicitly frame generative AI as part of software engineering and require GenAI use for graded software engineering tasks. Using iterative qualitative coding, the authors characterize learning objectives, assessment categories and features, topic coverage, and documented AI tools across three research questions. The central descriptive finding is that these courses commonly center project/capstone work, require substantial programming and collaboration, position AI use within realistic development workflows, and emphasize transferable practices such as prompting and agentic development, while not yet converging on a single curricular model. The paper is transparent about its inclusion criteria and about the fact that counts describe documented elements rather than everything taught or used.

Significance. If the reported patterns hold, the paper provides a useful early empirical baseline for a rapidly emerging curricular area, complementing prior instructor-survey work with direct analysis of course artifacts. Its strengths include explicit inclusion criteria, denominator reporting in tables, conservative labeling of ambiguous features, and acknowledgment that public documentation underrepresents actual course practice. The study is timely for computing education researchers and curriculum designers, and the data table of 23 courses is a reusable resource. However, the strength of the central claims depends on fixing the framing issue in the conclusion and on addressing the reliability of the interpretive coding.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Section 7] The conclusion's claim that courses 'require AI use' is guaranteed by inclusion criterion 3, and the claim that AI use is positioned 'within realistic software development workflows rather than isolated tool exercises' is strongly favored by inclusion criterion 2 (at least two SDLC domains), which excludes tool-only or single-activity courses. Section 4's preamble correctly notes that the results focus on variation within the scoped set, but Section 7 does not carry this caveat. The paper should report how many of the 32 institutionally eligible candidates were excluded for failing criterion 2 versus criterion 3, and should reframe 'require AI use' and 'realistic workflows' as consequences of the selection criteria rather than as empirical discoveries about AI-assisted software engineering courses generally.
  2. [Section 3.2, learning objectives subsection] The learning-objective coding relies on negotiated agreement among three authors, with no inter-coder reliability statistic reported, even though the paper reports a Fleiss kappa of 0.80 for the topic codebook. Because the learning-objective prevalence in Table 2 is a central result, the absence of any reliability statistic for that dimension makes it difficult to distinguish stable patterns from idiosyncratic labeling. The authors should either report a reliability statistic for the learning-objective coding or explicitly justify why negotiated agreement alone is sufficient for the claims made.
  3. [Section 3.2, assessment methods and tools subsection] Assessment categories, assessment features, and tool identification were coded by one author using decision rules developed in discussion with the author group, with no second-coder reliability check. Tables 3 and 4, which support the central claims about project-centric and practice-oriented assessment, rest on this single-coder extraction. A reliability check on a subset of courses, or at least a clear statement of the decision rules in an appendix, would strengthen confidence in these tables.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1] The search queries are specified, but the date range and the inclusion of GitHub as a search target could be described more precisely; it would help to state whether the searches were restricted to English-language pages and how many candidate pages were screened before reaching the 32 institutionally eligible candidates.
  2. [Table 1] Course 7 (Harvard) is marked with a footnote saying the website is no longer publicly available; consider noting in the table or text how the course materials were captured before they became unavailable, since reproducibility of the dataset depends on this.
  3. [Section 4.1.3] The sentence 'Because features are non-mutually exclusive, these weights should not be summed across rows' is helpful, but consider adding a similar note to Table 3 to remind readers that assessment categories may also overlap in some courses.
  4. [References] Reference [1] is to an ACM Task Force report; if this report is not yet publicly archived at a stable URL, consider adding an access date or noting it as a preprint.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The conclusion's 'require AI use' claim is true by construction via inclusion criterion 3; the rest of the mapping is largely independent and the paper partly discloses this.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1 (content criterion 3), Section 4 preamble, Section 7 Conclusion]
    ""Required GenAI for graded SE tasks: The course included structured graded labs, assignments, or projects in which GenAI use was explicitly required for software engineering tasks." ... "Because all included courses already met our GenAI, SDLC, and GenAI for graded tasks inclusion criteria, the results focus on variation within this scoped set rather than on the presence of those criteria." ..."

    The conclusion presents 'require AI use' as an empirical commonality of emerging courses, but every included course was admitted under inclusion criterion 3, which explicitly requires that GenAI use be required for graded software engineering tasks. The finding is therefore identical to the selection rule and cannot be discovered from the data. The Section 4 preamble acknowledges this by saying the results focus on variation 'rather than on the presence of those criteria,' but the Conclusion drops that caveat and reports the guaranteed property as a finding.

full rationale

The clearest circularity is the conclusion's 'require AI use' claim, which is a restatement of inclusion criterion 3 rather than an empirical discovery about the sampled courses. The paper discloses this in Section 4 and in the Limitations, noting that the inclusion criteria intentionally selected courses where generative AI was central to graded software engineering work, so the finding is not circular in intent but is still presented without the necessary caveat in the Conclusion. Other reported results, such as topic frequencies, tool names, assessment weights, and learning-objective themes, are not forced by the inclusion rules and are based on iterative qualitative coding of public artifacts, so they retain independent descriptive content. The self-citations in the paper, such as prior instructor-survey work by overlapping authors, support background context and are not load-bearing for the main derivation. The paper is a descriptive syllabus analysis rather than a mathematical derivation, so no other steps reduce to their inputs by construction. Overall, the partial circularity is limited to the headline commonality of required AI use, with the rest of the analysis standing independently.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on dataset construction choices (inclusion criteria, search strategy) and on the assumption that public artifacts reflect course design. These are disclosed but not independently verifiable from the paper's supplemental materials.

free parameters (2)
  • Minimum SDLC domains for inclusion = 2
    Authors chose at least two SDLC domains as an inclusion criterion; this guarantees SDLC topic coverage in every analyzed course and inflates the apparent prominence of lifecycle topics.
  • Codebook stabilization threshold (Fleiss kappa) = 0.80
    Topic codebook considered stabilized at kappa = 0.80; a different threshold would change which topics were divided among coders and the final labels.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Publicly available syllabi and course materials are valid proxies for the design and content of courses.
    The entire analysis rests on public documents; the paper acknowledges in Limitations that counts describe documented elements, not everything taught or used.
  • domain assumption Google search is an adequate strategy for identifying the population of relevant U.S. courses.
    Search-first strategy may miss courses with different terminology or non-indexed pages; the paper acknowledges this in Limitations.
  • domain assumption Negotiated agreement among coders produces valid qualitative categories.
    Learning objectives were coded with negotiated agreement without an inter-coder reliability statistic; the paper cites team-based coding practice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mapping the Emerging Curriculum for AI-Assisted Software Engineering via Syllabus Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7HFTN7U4

@misc{pith2026260805898,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mapping the Emerging Curriculum for AI-Assisted Software Engineering via Syllabus Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7HFTN7U4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05898}
}
read the original abstract

As Generative AI coding tools reshape professional software development, universities have begun designing courses to prepare students for AI-assisted development workflows. By analyzing the syllabi of these courses, we can gather empirical evidence about these courses, reveal how this emerging curricular area is being defined, and gain guidance for future curriculum design. We analyzed 23 publicly available syllabi and course materials of upper-division, credit-bearing courses that meet specific criteria, including explicitly addressing Generative AI in software engineering. Through iterative qualitative coding, we characterized courses' learning objectives, assessments, topics, and documented AI tools. Our analysis reveals commonalities and differences among these courses that allow researchers and educators to study and develop future courses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05898 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Most common AI tools publicly listed by 9 courses. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2026.ACM Task Force on Generative AI and Programming Assessment Report

    ACM Task Force on Generative AI and Programming Assessment. 2026.ACM Task Force on Generative AI and Programming Assessment Report. Technical Report. Association for Computing Machinery. https://acm-education-genai- task-force.github.io/ACM_Taskforce_GenAI_Report_16Feb26.pdf

    work page 2026

  2. [2]

    Mamdouh Alenezi. 2026. The Rise of AI-Native Software Engineering: Implica- tions for Practice, Education, and the Future Workforce. arXiv:2606.12986 [cs.SE] https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.12986

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  3. [5]

    Anthropic. 2026. Claude Code. https://claude.com/product/claude-code. Ac- cessed 2026-06-30

    work page 2026

  4. [6]

    Anysphere. 2026. Build Software with AI Agents. https://cursor.com/product. Accessed 2026-06-30

    work page 2026

  5. [7]

    Hislop, Jeff Offutt, Mark Sebern, and Willem Visser

    Mark Ardis, David Budgen, Gregory W. Hislop, Jeff Offutt, Mark Sebern, and Willem Visser. 2015. SE 2014: Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Software Engineering.Computer48, 11 (2015), 106–109. https: //doi.org/10.1109/MC.2015.345

    work page doi:10.1109/mc.2015.345 2015

  6. [8]

    Luciano Baresi, Andrea De Lucia, Antinisca Di Marco, Massimiliano Di Penta, Da- vide Di Ruscio, Leonardo Mariani, Daniela Micucci, Fabio Palomba, Maria Teresa Rossi, and Fiorella Zampetti. 2025. Students’ Perception of ChatGPT in Software Engineering: Lessons Learned from Five Courses. In2025 IEEE/ACM 37th Inter- national Conference on Software Engineerin...

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [9]

    Borghoff, Mark Minas, and Jannis Schopp

    Uwe M. Borghoff, Mark Minas, and Jannis Schopp. 2025. Generative AI in Student Software Development Projects: A User Study on Experiences and Self- Assessment. InProceedings of the 6th European Conference on Software Engineering Education (ECSEE 2025). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1145/3723010.3723012

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [10]

    Ariel Cascio, Eunlye Lee, Nicole Vaudrin, and Darcy A

    M. Ariel Cascio, Eunlye Lee, Nicole Vaudrin, and Darcy A. Freedman. 2019. A Team-Based Approach to Open Coding: Considerations for Creating Inter- coder Consensus.Field Methods31, 2 (2019), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1525822X19838237

    2019

Show all 36 references
  1. [11]

    Parker, and Jonathan Zhang

    Kathryn Cunningham, Miranda C. Parker, and Jonathan Zhang. 2024. The Land- scape of Computer Science Education Courses: A Syllabi Analysis. InProceedings of the 23rd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’23). Association for Compu...

    2024

  2. [12]

    Marian Daun and Jennifer Brings. 2023. How ChatGPT Will Change Software Engineering Education. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 (ITiCSE 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 110–116. h...

    2023

  3. [13]

    Becker, James Finnie-Ansley, Arto Hellas, Juho Leinonen, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Brent N

    Paul Denny, James Prather, Brett A. Becker, James Finnie-Ansley, Arto Hellas, Juho Leinonen, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Brent N. Reeves, Eddie Antonio Santos, and Sami Sarsa. 2024. Computing Education in the Era of Generative AI.Commun. ACM67, 2 (2024), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.11...

    2024 doi

  4. [14]

    2025.2025 DORA State of AI-assisted Software De- velopment Report

    DORA Research Team. 2025.2025 DORA State of AI-assisted Software De- velopment Report. Technical Report. DevOps Research and Assessment (DORA). https://cloud.google.com/resources/content/2025-dora-ai-assisted- software-development-report

    2025

  5. [15]

    Faros AI. 2025. The AI Productivity Paradox: AI Coding Assistants Increase Developer Output, But Not Company Productivity.Faros AI Blog(July 2025). https://www.faros.ai/blog/ai-software-engineering

    2025

  6. [16]

    D. R. Garrison, M. Cleveland-Innes, Marguerite Koole, and James Kappelman

  7. [17]

    GitHub. 2026. GitHub Copilot: Your AI Pair Programmer. https://github.com/ features/copilot. Accessed 2026-06-30

    2026

  8. [18]

    Sean N Halpin. 2024. Inter-coder agreement in qualitative coding: Considerations for its use.American Journal of Qualitative Research8, 3 (2024), 23–43

    2024

  9. [19]

    Lee, Joyce Malyn-Smith, Beatriz Perret, Vikram Tiwari, Joshua Kenitzer, Andrew Macvean, and Erin Barrar

    Matthew Kam, Cody Miller, Miaoxin Wang, Abey Tidwell, Irene A. Lee, Joyce Malyn-Smith, Beatriz Perret, Vikram Tiwari, Joshua Kenitzer, Andrew Macvean, and Erin Barrar. 2025. What do professional software developers need to know to succeed in an age of Artificial Intelligence?....

    2025

  10. [20]

    Ahmed Kharrufa, Sami Alghamdi, Abeer Aziz, and Christopher Bull. 2026. LLMs Integration in Software Engineering Team Projects: Roles, Impact, and a Peda- gogical Design Space for AI Tools in Computing Education.ACM Transactions on Computing Education26, 2, Article 20 (2026). h...

    2026 doi

  11. [21]

    Dae-Kyoo Kim and Mohammed Hamdi. 2026. Evaluating the Effectiveness of AI Integration in Software Engineering Education.ACM Transactions on Computing Education26, 4, Article 58 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1145/3802825

    2026 doi

  12. [22]

    Kirova, Cyril S

    Vassilka D. Kirova, Cyril S. Ku, Joseph R. Laracy, and Thomas J. Marlowe. 2024. Software Engineering Education Must Adapt and Evolve for an LLM Environ- ment. InProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (SIGCSE 2024). Association for Co...

    2024

  13. [23]

    Kai Korpimies, Antti Laaksonen, and Matti Luukkainen. 2024. Unrestricted Use of LLMs in a Software Project Course: Student Perceptions on Learning and Impact on Course Performance. InProceedings of the 24th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research ...

    2024

  14. [24]

    Ban It Till We Understand It

    Sam Lau and Philip Guo. 2023. From "Ban It Till We Understand It" to "Resis- tance is Futile": How University Programming Instructors Plan to Adapt as More Students Use AI Code Generation and Explanation Tools such as ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM C...

    2023

  15. [25]

    Becker, Ibrahim Albluwi, Michelle Craig, Hieke Keuning, Natalie Kiesler, Tobias Kohn, Andrew Luxton- Reilly, Stephen MacNeil, Andrew Petersen, Raymond Pettit, Brent N

    James Prather, Paul Denny, Juho Leinonen, Brett A. Becker, Ibrahim Albluwi, Michelle Craig, Hieke Keuning, Natalie Kiesler, Tobias Kohn, Andrew Luxton- Reilly, Stephen MacNeil, Andrew Petersen, Raymond Pettit, Brent N. Reeves, and Jaromir Savelka. 2023. The Robots Are Here: Na...

    2023

  16. [26]

    Reeves, Jaromir Savelka, David H

    James Prather, Juho Leinonen, Natalie Kiesler, Jamie Gorson Benario, Sam Lau, Stephen MacNeil, Narges Norouzi, Simone Opel, Vee Pettit, Leo Porter, Brent N. Reeves, Jaromir Savelka, David H. Smith, Sven Strickroth, and Daniel Zingaro

  17. [27]

    Sanka Rasnayaka, Guanlin Wang, Ridwan Shariffdeen, and Ganesh Neelakanta Iyer. 2024. An Empirical Study on Usage and Perceptions of LLMs in a Software Engineering Project. InProceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Large Language Models for Code (LLM4Code ’24). Associa...

    2024

  18. [28]

    Nimisha Roy, Oleksandr Horielko, and Olufisayo Omojokun. 2026. Benchmarking AI Tools for Software Engineering Education: Insights into Design, Implemen- tation, and Testing. InProceedings of the 57th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (SIGCSE TS 2026). ...

    2026

  19. [29]

    Chin, Reid Holmes, Thomas Fritz, and Gail C

    Marie Salomon, Kyle D. Chin, Reid Holmes, Thomas Fritz, and Gail C. Murphy

  20. [30]

    Cigdem Sengul, Rumyana Neykova, and Giuseppe Destefanis. 2024. Software Engineering Education in the Era of Conversational AI: Current Trends and Future Directions.Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence7 (2024), 1436350. https: //doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1436350

    2024

  21. [31]

    Griswold, and Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj

    Anshul Shah, Anya Chernova, Elena Tomson, Leo Porter, William G. Griswold, and Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj. 2025. Students’ Use of GitHub Copilot for Work- ing with Large Code Bases. InProceedings of the 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (SIGCSETS ...

    2025

  22. [32]

    InProceedings of the 2025 ACM SIGPLAN In- ternational Symposium on SPLASH-E (SPLASH-E ’25)

    An Exploration of How Generative AI Affects Workflow and Collaboration in a Software Engineering Course. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM SIGPLAN In- ternational Symposium on SPLASH-E (SPLASH-E ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/...

    2025

  23. [33]

    Valerio Terragni, Annie Vella, Partha Roop, and Kelly Blincoe. 2025. The Future of AI-Driven Software Engineering.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology34, 5, Article 120 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1145/3715003

    2025 doi

  24. [34]

    Cynthia Zastudil, Magdalena Rogalska, Christine Kapp, Jennifer Vaughn, and Stephen MacNeil. 2023. Generative AI in Computing Education: Perspectives of Students and Instructors. In2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343467

    2023

  25. [35]

    Judy Sheard, Paul Denny, Arto Hellas, Juho Leinonen, Lauri Malmi, and Simon

  26. [2006]

    https://doi

    Revisiting Methodological Issues in Transcript Analysis: Negotiated Coding and Reliability.The Internet and Higher Education9, 1 (2006), 1–8. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.11.001

    2006 doi

  27. [2024]

    InProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V

    Instructor Perceptions of AI Code Generation Tools - A Multi-Institutional Interview Study. InProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (SIGCSE 2024). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1223–1229. https://doi.org/10...

    2024

  28. [2025]

    In2024 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2024)

    Beyond the Hype: A Comprehensive Review of Current Trends in Gen- erative AI Research, Teaching Practices, and Tools. In2024 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2024). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, ...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.