PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 6, 2026ACM Transactions on Computing Education0 citations

AI Governance in Computing Education: Toward Discipline-Aware Academic Integrity Policies

View Full Paper
HJHasan M. Jamil

Key Points

  • The central aim is to propose a framework for AI governance in computing education that enhances academic integrity.
  • Opinion piece discussing the impact of generative AI on computing education.
  • Proposes a discipline-aware policy framework with five principles for AI usage.
  • Highlights the need for scalable educational infrastructure.
  • Advocates for learning-centered policy design and transparency in AI use.
  • Emphasizes tiered permissions for AI in assignments and integrity evaluation.
  • Argues the necessity of educational tools for effective policy implementation.

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) systems, particularly large language models (LLMs), are rapidly transforming the technological environment in which higher education operates. Universities have responded with a wide range of policies, from strict prohibition to unrestricted adoption, often without considering how learning processes differ across academic disciplines. In this opinion piece, I argue that computing education represents a special case within the broader debate on AI in education. In my view, programming learning occurs within artifact-centered environments where students routinely interact with code repositories, libraries, and documentation. As a result, students develop expertise through the study, adaptation, and integration of existing computational artifacts. I therefore contend that GenAI expands an existing ecosystem of learning artifacts rather than introducing an entirely new form of assistance. Building on this observation, I propose a discipline-aware policy framework for AI use in computing education. This framework advances five principles for AI governance in programming courses: learning-centered policy design, transparency and disclosure of AI use, tiered assignment-level AI permissions, evidence-based integrity evaluation, and equitable access to AI tools. I further argue that effective policy cannot rely solely on institutional rules or AI-detection mechanisms. Instead, scalable educational infrastructure – including code provenance tracking, conversational code explanations, and AI-assisted oral checks – is necessary to make policy implementation operational in large and online computing courses. By bringing together insights from learning theory, computing education research, and institutional governance, I offer a forward-looking view of AI policy that aligns technological capabilities with pedagogical goals. Rather than treating GenAI solely as a threat to academic integrity, I frame AI governance as a design problem: ensuring that AI-assisted tools support student reasoning and conceptual engagement within modern programming learning environments.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Hasan M. Jamil (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fa8e3804f884e66b53074bhttps://doi.org/10.1145/3813116
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper