arXiv preprint ·
When AI Can Build It, What Should We Assess? Rethinking Evidence of Engineering Competence
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Generative AI can produce code, tests, documentation, and technical explanations that resemble artefacts traditionally used as evidence of student competence, weakening the inference from artefact quality to the engineering capability behind it. We report the redesign and first deployment of a 13-week, AI-permissive, software-intensive engineering course in which students may delegate substantial work to AI while retaining responsibility for planning, verification, review, integration, and explanation. The redesign couples an engineering accountability workflow, which structures human-AI work and preserves human decision authority, with an assessment evidence architecture comprising six complementary channels: product, process/origin, verification, explanation, reflection, and individual assurance. A collect--cross-check--escalate (CCE) reasoning logic connects these channels rather than treating any single artefact or trace as sufficient evidence of competence. By the end of Week 11, the deployment involved 87 students organised into 17 teams, with 957 individual weekly Git repositories and 34 group-project Git repositories supporting repeated assessment and engineering activity. The first deployment yielded four practical lessons: AI assistance changes where rubric criteria carry evidential weight; multiple evidence channels require deliberate cross-checking and meaningful complementarity; the evidential strength realised in practice may differ from that intended in the assessment design; and automation scales evidence collection more readily than interpretation. The contribution is a conceptually grounded, deployed design for making engineering responsibility and competence more visible when AI can perform substantial artefact production.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Software Engineering
Rewriting the Self: User Perceptions of AI-Mediated Cognitive Reframing
What Victims Take Away: Attack Reuse and Defense Revision after Prompt-Injection Attacks
Dream to Assist: Intent-Conditioned World Models for Shared Vehicle Control
CogArena: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents on Interactive Behavioral Experiments
The CAPED Framework: Characterizing User Skills in Chart Authoring through the Lens of Tasks and Tools
Get the few papers worth your time in Software Engineering every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.