Abstract:This paper presents a longitudinal, observational case study of how student GenAI adoption shifted across three cohorts (Fall 2022, 2023, and 2025) of the same graduate-level HCI prototyping course, using computational analysis of 203 GitHub repositories with student activity and 23,065 student commits. Building on a prior qualitative study of the 2023 cohort, we distinguish two levels of AI accountability trace: disclosure (naming that an AI tool was used) and attribution (crediting a specific artifact or task to an AI tool). We find that tool disclosure grew from 0% to 66% of repositories across the three cohorts, while explicit contribution attribution remains a minority practice, and the gap between the two reveals where accountability is missing even among students who disclose. By 2025, AI is infrastructure embedded in course templates and student-built devices: students increasingly name the tools they used, but rarely specify what those tools contributed. We argue that disclosure-based frameworks are insufficient for the vibe-coding era. The failure is not that students conceal AI use; it is that a norm built for episodic, identifiable acts cannot capture continuous, ambient co-creation. We offer this case study as grounding for the workshop's conversation about what genuine co-thinking accountability looks like.
From: Maria Teresa Parreira [view email]
[v1]
Fri, 12 Jun 2026 02:59:22 UTC (106 KB)
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。