Embedding Generative AI into Systems Analysis and Design Curriculum: Framework, Case Study, and Cross-Campus Empirical Evidence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.17515v1
• Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2025 12:31:15 GMT
• Title: Embedding Generative AI into Systems Analysis and Design Curriculum: Framework, Case Study, and Cross-Campus Empirical Evidence
• Abstract summary: Students risk accepting AI suggestions blindly or uncritically without assessing alignment with user needs or contextual appropriateness.<n> SAGE addresses this gap by embedding GenAI into curriculum design, training students when to accept, modify, or reject AI contributions.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Systems analysis students increasingly use Generative AI, yet current pedagogy lacks systematic approaches for teaching responsible AI orchestration that fosters critical thinking whilst meeting educational outcomes. Students risk accepting AI suggestions blindly or uncritically without assessing alignment with user needs or contextual appropriateness. SAGE (Structured AI-Guided Education) addresses this gap by embedding GenAI into curriculum design, training students when to accept, modify, or reject AI contributions. Implementation with 18 student groups across four Australian universities revealed how orchestration skills develop. Most groups (84\%) moved beyond passive acceptance, showing selective judgment, yet none proactively identified gaps overlooked by both human and AI analysis, indicating a competency ceiling. Students strong at explaining decisions also performed well at integrating sources, and those with deep domain understanding consistently considered accessibility considerations. Accessibility awareness proved fragile. When writing requirements, 85\% of groups explicitly considered elderly users and cultural needs. Notably, 55\% of groups struggled identifying when AI misclassified system boundaries (what belongs inside versus outside the system), 45\% missed data management errors (how information is stored and updated), and 55\% overlooked missing exception handling. Three implications emerge for educators: (i) require students to document why they accepted, modified, or rejected each AI suggestion, making reasoning explicit; (ii) embed accessibility prompts at each development stage because awareness collapses without continuous scaffolding; and (iii) have students create their own specifications before using AI, then compare versions, and anchor to research or standards to identify gaps.

Related papers

• AI literacy over tool design: a mixed-methods study of scaffolded versus unrestricted generative AI in programming education [0.0]
  This paper reports a seven-week mixed-methods pilot study in a master's-level data analytics course.<n>33 students were randomly assigned either to a scaffolded AI Study Coach embedded in the notebook-based laboratory sessions or to unrestricted use of AI tools of their own choosing.<n>The design of the tool mattered less than the students' capacity to govern their own use of it, a capacity that is at present acquired by chance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T07:53:58Z)
• Socrates went Nuclear: Comparing Interaction Strategies for AI systems in a Learning Context using Brain Sensing [66.03354630509942]
  This paper reports on a study where we compare three designs for user-AI interaction in a learning context.<n>Fifty study participants were tasked with learning about nuclear safety protocols.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-01T02:24:35Z)
• Evaluation in the Age of AI: Output as Evidence of Learning [0.0]
  The rapid adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) has disrupted how learning is demonstrated and evaluated in higher education.<n>This paper examines the ethical challenges of educational evaluation in the age of AI from a university-level perspective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-23T23:40:30Z)
• Framing, Judging, Steering: An Assessable Competency Model for Teach-ing Students to Reason With Generative AI [47.027290803102666]
  We propose CoRe-3 (Co-Reasoning), a competency model factoring productive AI use into three assessable skills.<n>We ground the skills in theory, state five testable propositions, and instantiate them in CoReasoningLab.<n>Human-rater agreement and outcomes are next; we release the instrument, data, and protocol.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T10:25:31Z)
• Trust and Reliance on AI in Education: AI Literacy and Need for Cognition as Moderators [2.0391237204597363]
  We investigate how students' trust relates to their appropriate reliance on an AI assistant during programming problem-solving tasks.<n>We operationalize reliance behaviorally as the extent to which students' responses reflected appropriate use of the AI assistant's suggestions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-01T16:38:47Z)
• ChatGPT-5 in Secondary Education: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Student Attitudes, AI Anxiety, and Hallucination-Aware Use [0.0]
  Students used ChatGPT-5 during an eight-hour intervention in the course "Technology"<n>Students engaged in information seeking, CV generation, document and video summarization, image generation, quiz creation, and age-appropriate explanations.<n>After encountering hallucinations, many students reported restricting AI use to domains where they already possessed knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-30T19:28:48Z)
• Beyond the Hype: Critical Analysis of Student Motivations and Ethical Boundaries in Educational AI Use in Higher Education [0.0]
  We find that 92% of students use AI tools primarily to save time and improve work quality.<n>We argue that institutions must adopt comprehensive AI literacy programs that integrate technical skills and ethical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-14T14:49:29Z)
• The Impact of AI on Educational Assessment: A Framework for Constructive Alignment [0.0]
  We argue that AI influences learning objectives of different Bloom levels in a different way.<n>We propose structured guidelines on a university or faculty level, to foster alignment among the staff.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T13:02:01Z)
• Beyond Detection: Designing AI-Resilient Assessments with Automated Feedback Tool to Foster Critical Thinking [0.0]
  This research proposes a proactive, AI-resilient solution based on assessment design rather than detection.<n>It introduces a web-based Python tool that integrates Bloom's taxonomy with advanced natural language processing techniques.<n>It helps educators determine whether a task targets lower-order thinking such as recall and summarization or higher-order skills such as analysis, evaluation, and creation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-30T23:13:00Z)
• Sakshm AI: Advancing AI-Assisted Coding Education for Engineering Students in India Through Socratic Tutoring and Comprehensive Feedback [1.9841192743072902]
  Existing AI tools for programming education struggle with key challenges, including the lack of Socratic guidance.<n>This study examines 1170 registered participants, analyzing platform logs, engagement trends, and problem-solving behavior to assess Sakshm AI's impact.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-16T12:13:29Z)
• Bridging the Communication Gap: Evaluating AI Labeling Practices for Trustworthy AI Development [41.64451715899638]
  High-level AI labels, inspired by frameworks like EU energy labels, have been proposed to make the properties of AI models more transparent.<n>This study evaluates AI labeling through qualitative interviews along four key research questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-21T06:00:14Z)
• Do great minds think alike? Investigating Human-AI Complementarity in Question Answering with CAIMIRA [43.116608441891096]
  Humans outperform AI systems in knowledge-grounded abductive and conceptual reasoning. State-of-the-art LLMs like GPT-4 and LLaMA show superior performance on targeted information retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T03:53:26Z)
• Could ChatGPT get an Engineering Degree? Evaluating Higher Education Vulnerability to AI Assistants [176.39275404745098]
  We evaluate whether two AI assistants, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, can adequately answer assessment questions.<n>GPT-4 answers an average of 65.8% of questions correctly, and can even produce the correct answer across at least one prompting strategy for 85.1% of questions.<n>Our results call for revising program-level assessment design in higher education in light of advances in generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T12:11:49Z)
• Combining AI Control Systems and Human Decision Support via Robustness and Criticality [53.10194953873209]
  We extend a methodology for adversarial explanations (AE) to state-of-the-art reinforcement learning frameworks. We show that the learned AI control system demonstrates robustness against adversarial tampering. In a training / learning framework, this technology can improve both the AI's decisions and explanations through human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T15:38:57Z)
• Human-Centric Multimodal Machine Learning: Recent Advances and Testbed on AI-based Recruitment [66.91538273487379]
  There is a certain consensus about the need to develop AI applications with a Human-Centric approach. Human-Centric Machine Learning needs to be developed based on four main requirements: (i) utility and social good; (ii) privacy and data ownership; (iii) transparency and accountability; and (iv) fairness in AI-driven decision-making processes. We study how current multimodal algorithms based on heterogeneous sources of information are affected by sensitive elements and inner biases in the data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-13T16:44:44Z)
• Seamful XAI: Operationalizing Seamful Design in Explainable AI [59.89011292395202]
  Mistakes in AI systems are inevitable, arising from both technical limitations and sociotechnical gaps. We propose that seamful design can foster AI explainability by revealing sociotechnical and infrastructural mismatches. We explore this process with 43 AI practitioners and real end-users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-12T21:54:05Z)
• Personalized Education in the AI Era: What to Expect Next? [76.37000521334585]
  The objective of personalized learning is to design an effective knowledge acquisition track that matches the learner's strengths and bypasses her weaknesses to meet her desired goal. In recent years, the boost of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) has unfolded novel perspectives to enhance personalized education.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-19T12:23:32Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.