Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI & Society

aiqbench analysis

This study examines how doctoral students utilized generative AI to conduct systematic reviews in software engineering, revealing that while LLMs lower entry barriers and accelerate idea generation, they also encourage excessive delegation and superficial validation. The findings highlight a critical tension between using AI as a practical learning tool versus allowing it to shift focus away from the core methodological rigor required in evidence-based research. Ultimately, the report underscores that effective integration of generative AI in academic settings demands active human supervision and critical reflection on model limitations.
Sources coveringarXiv, Fortune, InfoQ, Quantum Zeitgeist
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Observing the Conduct of Systematic Reviews with Generative AI Support: An Experience Report from a Graduate Software Engineering Course

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2609.26057v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Context: Secondary studies are fundamental practices in Evidence- Based Software Engineering, but teaching them requires activities that expose students to authentic methodological decisions. Objective: This paper reports an experience in a graduate course in which ten doctoral students in Software Engineering, organized into three groups, piloted secondary studies with and without support from generative AI. Method: A single-day classroom session was organized and observed, in which the groups conducted pilot systematic reviews with and without generative AI support. Classroom observations, produced artifacts, and interaction threads with assistants configured in ChatGPT were analyzed to reconstruct how each group appropriated the technology throughout the activity. Results: LLMs reduced initial barriers, accelerated the generation of alternatives, and made methodological problems more explicit, but they also favored excessive delegation, superficial validation, operational difficulties, and a shift in focus from conducting the SLR to using the tool. Conclusion: The experience offers a situated, observational account of how doctoral students engaged with generative AI during a systematic review activity, and the resulting insights also inform the design of a subsequent controlled study. The findings indicate that generative AI can support practical learning about SLRs, provided that its use is accompanied by human supervision, decision records, and critical reflection on its limitations.

Abstract:Context: Secondary studies are fundamental practices in Evidence- Based Software Engineering, but teaching them requires activities that expose students to authentic methodological decisions. Objective: This paper reports an experience in a graduate course in which ten doctoral students in Software Engineering, organized into three groups, piloted secondary studies with and without support from generative AI. Method: A single-day classroom session was organized and observed, in which the groups conducted pilot systematic reviews with and without generative AI support. Classroom observations, produced artifacts, and interaction threads with assistants configured in ChatGPT were analyzed to reconstruct how each group appropriated the technology throughout the activity. Results: LLMs reduced initial barriers, accelerated the generation of alternatives, and made methodological problems more explicit, but they also favored excessive delegation, superficial validation, operational difficulties, and a shift in focus from conducting the SLR to using the tool. Conclusion: The experience offers a situated, observational account of how doctoral students engaged with generative AI during a systematic review activity, and the resulting insights also inform the design of a subsequent controlled study. The findings indicate that generative AI can support practical learning about SLRs, provided that its use is accompanied by human supervision, decision records, and critical reflection on its limitations.

Computers and Society (cs.CY); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Software Engineering (cs.SE)

arXiv:2609.26057 [cs.CY]

(or arXiv:2609.26057v1 [cs.CY] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.26057 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 306 words

Related coverage