This study examined whether introductory Qiskit homework could remain autogradable while requiring students to run, review, and discuss results rather than banning AI.
Abstract
Generative AI creates an assessment challenge in quantum software education: a student can provide a homework notebook to ChatGPT and request a completed submission. This study examined whether introductory Qiskit homework could remain autogradable while requiring students to run, review, and discuss results rather than banning AI. Three packages were tested: seeded basis-state circuits with bit flips and customized measurement mappings; Quantum Fourier Transform followed by inverse-transform recovery; and seeded Deutsch-Jozsa with customized oracle masks. The designs used personalization, simulator execution, JSON submissions, hidden references, circuit metrics, reflections, and optional IBM Quantum execution. For each package, one student-visible instance was tested in 50 separate ChatGPT sessions, yielding 150 sessions overall. Every final artifact was executed and passed its grader. Nine sessions were fully archived; none required operator code changes or correction of quantum logic. Under the study's operational definition, each tested instance had zero observed ChatGPT-resiliency. Seeds changed parameters rather than task structure, expected results remained derivable from visible assignment logic, scaffolding exposed key solution steps, and hidden grading verified output consistency without establishing independent authorship or understanding. Because one instance was repeated for each package, the results do not establish solvability for every seed or possible Qiskit assessment. The tested personalized, execution-oriented take-home designs therefore did not prevent successful completion under a minimally engaged-student workflow. Correct artifacts should be complemented by direct assessment through supervised modification, oral defense, prediction, and transfer tasks.
E EduGuard, a safe retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) tutoring framework for introductory programming, is presented and compared against strong baselines, suggesting safe GenAI tutoring requires not only retrieval or strong prompting, but explicit pedagogical control, evidence verification, and deployment safeguards.
S. M. Asif Hossain, Ruksat Khan Shayoni, M. F. Mridha et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
A post hoc robustness audit of the same 1,179 confirmatory answer-phase tutor turns under the frozen helpfulness and pedagogy rubrics finds that general-purpose helpfulness is not a reliable pedagogy signal.
This course teaches a repeatable, production-oriented method for debugging OpenUSD composition issues by focusing on how artists, technical directors, and pipeline developers can investigate real failures by tracing symptoms back to authored opinions, layer stacks, asset resolution, references, variants, edit targets,...
Pallav Sharma, N. Porcino, J. Panis· Proceedings of the Special I...· 0 citations
While the computer-generated feedback was broadly considered useful by students, student engagement patterns were markedly different in the solo setting, with students demonstrating reluctance to use the interface's built-in help features and tending to internalize failure in unproductive ways counter to the intention...
J. C. Meyer, S. Pollock, Bethany R. Wilcox et al.· 0 citations
It is found that there is no significant differential effect of GenAI availability on grades overall or among previously lower-performing students, and the findings temper concerns that GenAI inflates grades and reduces students's satisfaction.
James M. Zumel Dumlao, Meng Wang, Zhong-Han Xie et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
Findings are interpreted as evidence that course-aware style feedback is promising as a pre-submission revision aid, but that future versions should combine deterministic rule checks with LLM-generated explanations, rule citations, and stronger verification support.
Ethan Dickey, L. Vento, Peter Kurto et al.· 0 citations
Related blog posts
Microsoft Research Blog· microsoft.comOct 12, 2026
StudentSim is a research system for evaluating and improving AI tutoring tools before they are tested with learners. It models how individuals may engage with tutors, giving feedback to improve tutor performance across subjects like chess, writing, and mathematics. The post Simulating student learning for better AI tutoring appeared first on Microsoft Research.
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 6, 2026
Writing as a participant and researcher, PhD student JS Tan SM ’22 has co-authored a new book about the rise of tech worker protests and the employer backlash that followed.
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 2, 2026
Writing as a participant and researcher, PhD student JS Tan SM ’22 has co-authored a new book about the rise of tech worker protests and the employer backlash that followed.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.