Iman Reihanian

Iman Reihanian, Yunfei Hou, Qingquan Sun

Generative AI enables personalized computer science education at scale, yet questions remain about whether such personalization supports or undermines learning. This scoping review synthesizes 32 studies (2023-2025) purposively sampled from 259 records to map personalization mechanisms and effectiveness signals in higher-education computer science contexts. We identify five application domains: intelligent tutoring, personalized materials, formative feedback, AI-augmented assessment, and code review, and analyze how design choices shape learning outcomes. Designs incorporating explanation-first guidance, solution withholding, graduated hint ladders, and artifact grounding (student code, tests, and rubrics) consistently show more positive learning processes than unconstrained chat interfaces. Successful implementations share four patterns: context-aware tutoring anchored in student artifacts, multi-level hint structures requiring reflection, composition with traditional CS infrastructure (autograders and rubrics), and human-in-the-loop quality assurance. We propose an exploration-first adoption framework emphasizing piloting, instrumentation, learning-preserving defaults, and evidence-based scaling. Recurrent risks include academic integrity, privacy, bias and equity, and over-reliance, and we pair these with operational mitigation. The evidence supports generative AI as a mechanism for precision scaffolding when embedded in audit-ready workflows that preserve productive struggle while scaling personalized support.

Iman Reihanian, Yunfei Hou, Yu Chen et al.

This paper surveys the use of Generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT and Claude, in computer science education, focusing on key aspects of accuracy, authenticity, and assessment. Through a literature review, we highlight both the challenges and opportunities these AI tools present. While Generative AI improves efficiency and supports creative student work, it raises concerns such as AI hallucinations, error propagation, bias, and blurred lines between AI-assisted and student-authored content. Human oversight is crucial for addressing these concerns. Existing literature recommends adopting hybrid assessment models that combine AI with human evaluation, developing bias detection frameworks, and promoting AI literacy for both students and educators. Our findings suggest that the successful integration of AI requires a balanced approach, considering ethical, pedagogical, and technical factors. Future research may explore enhancing AI accuracy, preserving academic integrity, and developing adaptive models that balance creativity with precision.