Exploring the Impact of Generative AI for StandUp Report Recommendations in Software Capstone Project Development
Abstract
StandUp Reports play an important role in capstone software engineering courses, facilitating progress tracking, obstacle identification, and team collaboration. However, despite their significance, students often grapple with the challenge of creating StandUp Reports that are clear, concise, and actionable. This paper investigates the impact of the use of generative AI in producing StandUp report recommendations, aiming to assist students in enhancing the quality and effectiveness of their reports. In a semester-long capstone course, 179 students participated in 16 real-world software development projects. They submitted weekly StandUp Reports with the assistance of an AI-powered Slack, which analyzed their initial reports and provided suggestions for enhancing them using both GPT-3.5 and the early access GPT-4 API. After each submitted report, students voluntarily answered a survey about usability and suggestion preference. Furthermore, we conducted a linguistic analysis of the recommendations made by the algorithms to gauge reading ease and comprehension complexity. Our findings indicate that the AI-based recommendation system helped students improve the overall quality of their StandUp Reports throughout the semester. Students expressed a high level of satisfaction with the tool and exhibited a strong willingness to continue using it in the future. The survey reveals that students perceived a slight improvement when using GPT-4 compared to GPT-3.5. Finally, a computationa…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
More commonly, systems display suggestions in a separated interface.
“More commonly, systems display suggestions in a separated interface [29,43,75,89].”
From Co-Writing with AI, on Human Terms: Aligning Research with User Demands Across the Writing Process (2025) · cites this paper as [89]
Cites
Koltovskaia, S. (2020) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100450 · Cited by 447 · see citing works
ChatGPT: Applications, Opportunities, and Threats
Bahrini, A., Khamoshifar, M., Abbasimehr, H., Riggs, R. J., Esmaeili, M., Majdabadkohne, R. M., & Pasehvar, M. (2023) · 2023 Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium (SIEDS) · doi:10.1109/sieds58326.2023.10137850 · Cited by 321 · see citing works
Automated written corrective feedback: how well can students make use of it?
Ranalli, J. (2018) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994 · Cited by 228 · cited 1× · see citing works
“While some studies have explored the effectiveness of AI-assisted writing tools in educational settings [3, 15, 27], there is limited research on their application in the context of capstone software engineering courses.”
BackgroundThe daily stand-up meeting: A grounded theory study
Stray, V., Sjøberg, D. I. K., & Dybå, T. (2016) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2016.01.004 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
The automated writing assistance landscape in 2021
Dale, R., & Viethen, J. (2021) · Natural Language Engineering · doi:10.1017/s1351324921000164 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
An Empirical Study of Code Smells in Transformer-based Code Generation Techniques
Siddiq, M. L., Majumder, S. H., Mim, M. R., Jajodia, S., & Santos, J. C. S. (2022) · 2022 IEEE 22nd International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM) · doi:10.1109/scam55253.2022.00014 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Co-Writing with AI, on Human Terms: Aligning Research with User Demands Across the Writing Process
Reza, M., Thomas-Mitchell, J., Dushniku, P., Laundry, N., Williams, J. J., & Kuzminykh, A. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3757566 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
“Context-specific preferences were also evident, with Academic writing favoring S1 (61.1%), Creative writing employing S3 (50%), and Formal writing preferring S2 (42.9%).”
InfluentialMohammed, C., & Sarjusingh, W. (2024) · 2024 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) · doi:10.1109/fie61694.2024.10893028 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Neyem, A., Sandoval Alcocer, J. P., Mendoza, M., Centellas-Claros, L., Gonzalez, L. A., & Paredes-Robles, C.
- Affiliations
- Computer Science Department, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
- Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (CL)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2024-03-07
- Pages
- 951-957
- OpenAlex
- W4392564837
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3
- FWCI
- 5.33
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Agenția Națională pentru Cercetare și Dezvoltare
- Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (CENIA FB210017, 11220885, Code ICN17_002, ICN17 002, FB210017, 1200211)
- CHIST-ERA
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Keywords
- generative AI, AI-based recommendation systems, GPT-4, GPT-3.5, Slack integration, student satisfaction, readability, software engineering education, team collaboration
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
