software engineering educators

Abstract: Generative AI (GenAI) is shifting software engineering students' work from producing artefacts towards evaluating and supervising AI-generated outputs. However, little is known about what characteristics students identify in outputs when reporting interventions, or how they exercise oversight during authentic software engineering work. We analysed 962 student-AI interaction turns documented by 145 first-year software engineering students through structured AI Journals, including 172 student-declared interventions. Using a multi-dimensional coding framework, we characterised the output characteristics identified in these reported interventions, students' reasons for intervening, the actions they took, and how those actions were enacted. Fitness problems were identified in 74.4% of interventions, compared with 16.9% involving correctness problems, indicating that oversight more often concerned whether plausible AI outputs were suitable for the engineering task than whether they contained explicit errors. Among classifiable interventions, students most frequently modified generated outputs (51.0%) or refined their prompts (28.2%), with both response types commonly associated with engineering fit. Within-student analysis further showed that outputs perceived as containing minor flaws were associated with lower evaluation confidence than outputs perceived as perfect. Taken together, these findings characterise novice AI oversight as a process that extends beyond error detection to encompass both judgement of fitness for purpose and active intervention in AI-assisted engineering work.

Abstract: Coding agents can now change code for developers, who describe goals, supply context, and respond to the agent's work. Yet prompts, screen activity, and task success each tell only part of this story. We present Say, Do, Understand, an end-to-end workflow for analyzing what developers write to an agent, what they do while it works, and what they can explain afterwards. The workflow has five stages (Capture, Prepare, Analyze, Integrate, and Interpret) and three instruments: a prompt codebook, a scheme for coding screen-recorded activities and events, and separate rubrics for explaining the process and the solution. We applied it in an observational study of ten experienced developers who used GitHub Copilot on an unfamiliar codebase. Crossing task performance with understanding produced four personas. The two measures agreed for eight developers but split for two: one passed most tests but could not explain the solution, and another passed few tests but explained it well. In this sample, the personas that most often asked the agent to check its work spent the least time testing on their own. These patterns are descriptive and do not generalize beyond the sample. We recommend the workflow to computing educators, industry practitioners, and researchers to adapt and evaluate human--AI communication in software engineering.

Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence has moved from a disruptive novelty to a recurring part of software-development and computing-education workflows, while software agents are beginning to act across repositories, command lines, browsers, tests, and other tools. The educational problem is no longer whether students should be allowed to generate code, but whether software-engineering (SE) programs can preserve and assess human understanding while preparing students to work responsibly with increasingly capable AI systems. This paper presents a structured integrative review of research and practice from 2023 through 23 September 2026, supplemented by established work on AI literacy, technical debt, and human-AI collaboration. The evidence supports a conditional conclusion: GenAI can improve access to explanations, feedback, practice, and short-term task completion, but learning outcomes depend on prior knowledge, scaffolding, verification, task design, and assessment. We examine student help-seeking and authorship, faculty assessment and policy demands, and the wider SE risks created when generated artifacts persist across repositories, teams, architectures, and deployed systems. We extend the concept of comprehension debt: the deferred learning and maintenance cost that arises when AI-assisted production outpaces a learner's or team's ability to explain, test, modify, and justify the resulting software. We then refine the AI-Augmented Software Engineering Education (AASEE) framework into five non-linear integration levels and four cross-cutting evidence obligations: explain, verify, modify, and account. The framework links delegation to evidence, governance, and recovery mechanisms appropriate to its consequences.

Abstract: This project investigates how software architecture practices in Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) are shaped by socio-technical and ethical factors, and how education can support more explicit, inclusive, and reflective architectural work. Motivated by FLOSS's role in digital sovereignty, it is observed that architectural decisions are often undocumented and scattered across issues, pull requests, and mailing lists. While prior research has studied architectural artifacts, erosion, and communication, the interplay between architectural work, governance arrangements, and ethical commitments in FLOSS remains underexplored. The research follows a three-phase design: (1) multi-method case studies of 3-4 domain-pairs of architecturally non-trivial FLOSS projects, (2) framework and intervention design with practitioners and educators, and (3) pilot evaluations in projects and courses. It will produce (i) cross-case empirical evidence on FLOSS architecture practices, (ii) a conceptual framework linking architecture practices to socio-technical conditions and ethical dimensions, and (iii) lightweight practices and teaching formats that render architectural work more explicit and inclusive.