Karl Siebold

Generative artificial intelligence (AI), especially large language models (LLMs) that can write and debug code, is changing how students approach programming work in engineering education. Unlike more open-ended conceptual or modeling tasks, programming fits closely with what these systems do well: generating syntax, fixing errors, building procedural logic, and completing code structures. Hence, programming coursework may be one of the areas in which AI changes performance patterns in a measurable way. This study examines whether that shift appears in actual student outcomes. Using a retrospective pre/post design, it compares results from a pre-AI period (2021–2022) with results from a post-AI period (2023–2025), when generative AI tools became widely available to students. The focal assessment is a comprehensive programming project graded with the same rubric across multiple sections and terms. Performance is evaluated through descriptive statistics, distributional comparisons, and mastery thresholds (≥80%). The post-AI period shows a rise in overall scores, along with strong clustering near the top of the scale. Lower- and middle-range scores become much less common, most students fall in the highest score band, and overall variability declines. These results suggest that generative AI acts as a procedural equalizer in programming contexts, referring to the role of generative AI in reducing performance differences by assisting with rule-based, syntax-driven, and execution-oriented aspects of tasks, thereby raising baseline outcomes while compressing variation among students. It appears to raise lower-end performance and make outcomes more consistent, but it also narrows the spread among stronger students and creates a ceiling effect. That pattern raises questions about assessment validity, skill differentiation, and what “mastery” means when AI can handle much of the procedural work. Using multi-term data from authentic online courses, this study adds empirical evidence to the growing literature on AI in engineering education and identifies programming coursework as a setting where generative AI may have already changed performance dynamics in a structural way.