Cited by 17Artificial Intelligence in EducationTeaching and Learning ProgrammingSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

Exploring the Integration of Generative AI Tools in Software Testing Education: A Case Study on ChatGPT and Copilot for Preparatory Testing Artifacts in Postgraduate Learning

Open access
Haldar, Susmita, Pierce, Mary, Fernando Capretz, Luiz·2025·IEEE Access

Abstract

Software testing education is important for building qualified testing professionals. To ensure that software testing graduates are ready for real-world challenges, it is necessary to integrate modern tools and technologies into the curriculum. With the emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs), their potential use in software engineering has become a focus, but their application in software testing education remains largely unexplored. This study, conducted in the Capstone Project course of a postgraduate software testing program, was carried out over two semesters with two distinct groups of students. A custom-built Travel Application limited to a web platform was used in the first semester. In the second semester, a new set of students worked with an open-source application, offering a larger-scale, multi-platform experience across web, desktop, and mobile platforms. Students initially created preparatory testing artifacts manually as a group deliverable. Following this, they were assigned an individual assignment to generate the same artifacts using LLM tools such as ChatGPT 3.5 in the first semester and Microsoft Copilot in the second. This process directly compared manually created artifacts and those generated using LLMs, leveraging AI for faster outputs. After completion, they responded to a set of assigned questions. The students’ responses were assessed using an integrated methodology, including quantitative and qualitative assessments, sentiment analysis to underst…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/access.2025.3545882

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haldar, S., Pierce, M., & Fernando Capretz, L.
Affiliations
  • Fanshawe College (CA)
  • Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Western University, London, ON, Canada
Venue
IEEE Access
Published
2025
Volume
13
Pages
46070-46090
ISSN
2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4407948501
Cited by
16
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 6
FWCI
16.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Access (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Scholarship@Western (Western University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Keywords
generative AI in education, software testing education, large language models, ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, manual testing, AI-assisted learning, travel applications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review