Toward AI-Resilient Assessment in Computer Science Courses in an AI-Native World

As AI becomes part of everyday learning, many courses teach students to use it mainly as a productivity tool: how to prompt, search, summarize, write, code, and use tools more efficiently. We argue that AI education also needs a setting in which students learn to test AI and understand their own role in judging machine-produced knowledge. To this end, we introduce a course-based practice that teaches AI through benchmark construction, using deep research systems as a concrete example of AI-era knowledge work. Students turn disciplinary knowledge into verifiable expert-level questions, review one another's designs for ambiguity and shortcuts, and evaluate AI systems on the resulting tasks. This activity gives students direct exposure to a powerful tool while asking them to specify what a trustworthy answer would require. The produced benchmark, QuestBench, consists of 256 questions across 14 humanities and social-science domains. Evaluation on QuestBench shows that student-designed tasks reveal hidden failures in current deep research systems: across thirteen evaluated systems, the mean question-level pass rate is only 16.85%, and the best-performing system, GPT-5.5, reaches a 57.58% pass rate. The failures are educationally useful because they show how fluent, source-backed answers can still miss the right query, source, term, or evidence standard. Reflections from five student contributors suggest that benchmark construction can help students see professional knowledge not only as content AI may retrieve, but as the basis for judging AI outputs. We present QuestBench as a benchmark artifact and as a reusable classroom setting for a larger educational question: how students can remain responsible knowledge actors as AI enters learning and professional work. The dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/PKUAIWeb/QuestBench/tree/main.

Artificial intelligence is changing the task composition of computing work faster than curricula and training typically adapt. This is a curriculum-framework paper, grounded in a structured narrative review of labor-market and software-engineering evidence and illustrated through an exploratory pilot course: the review supports the framework, and the pilot illustrates it rather than serving as primary evidence. The central claim is that near-term change is task reallocation rather than full replacement: routine implementation is increasingly automated while verification, systems thinking, security, and the ability to supervise and orchestrate AI (keeping a human in the loop) gain value. We organize the response as a capability-assurance framework anchored by a Capability Ladder: a five-level progression (trigger, automation, workflow, AI agent, agent team) that classifies the operational autonomy of AI-augmented work and the human supervision it requires. We map the ladder to course-level updates, workload-aware assessment, and stackable workforce credentials, and illustrate it through a two-semester pilot of a team-based, no-code course enrolling computing and business students. We argue for targeted modernization around durable capabilities rather than wholesale curriculum replacement, and we are explicit about evidence limits: labor signals are confounded by non-AI forces, industry reports are directional, and the pilot is exploratory.

Current Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based tutoring systems (AI tutors) are primarily evaluated based on the pedagogical quality of their feedback messages. While important, pedagogy alone is insufficient because it ignores a critical question: what do students actually do with the feedback they receive? We argue that AI tutor evaluation should be extended with a behavioral dimension grounded in student interaction data, which complements pedagogical assessment. We propose an evaluation framework and apply it to 10,235 code submissions with corresponding AI tutor feedback from an introductory undergraduate programming course to measure whether students act on tutor feedback and whether those actions are applied correctly. Using this framework to compare two deployed AI tutors across different semesters in a large-scale introductory computer science course reveals substantial differences in student engagement patterns that are not captured by pedagogy-only evaluation. Moreover, these engagement-based behavioral signals are more strongly associated with student perception of helpful feedback than pedagogical quality alone, providing a more complete and actionable picture of AI tutor performance.