Tag Archives: ai

In the final installment of this three-part interview, Roselyn Baronia shares her students’ reactions and her reflections after she introduced an oral defense into a coding lab in her AP Computer Science A (CSA) course. In part one, Baronia described her background and the problems she encountered with the students that made her realize that something had to change. Baronia has been teaching at the Tsinglan School, a private international school in Dongguan, China, since 2020. She’s also the Head of the Computer Science department, the Technology Coordinator, and the chair of the school’s AI committee. This interview has been edited for length and clarity and formatted by Adelaida Kim. 

As a resource for teachers interested in adapting an oral defense into their work, a public website provides access to some of Baronia’s materials from the virtual pet project, including a timeline, a lesson overview, student examples, and a rubric.

For previous posts related to AI, see: Could concerns about the academic pressure on students in China lead to real changes in conventional schooling? Stability & change in the education system in China (Part 4); Scanning the global headlines for recent news on AI, schools, and education: Rapid growth in uses, users, and concerns.

++++++++++++

Thomas Hatch (TH): You’ve described for us why you created the oral defense for your students’ coding lab and how the oral defense worked; can you tell us about the students’ reaction? Once they had completed their presentations and participated as panelists — what were their reflections?

Roselyn Baronia (RB): Generally, their reflections showed the students found the oral defense helpful in terms of preparing them for their external exam and understanding the coding process. That’s really a big thing for me, because that’s what I want. I want them not to just submit a project, but to understand how they were able to come up with that project. The reality is that in the future, they will really be using AI when they’re working. But making choices — why are you creating this kind of collection instead of just a simple variable, for instance — it’s important that they understand why, justify their choices, and consider what alternatives there might be. That’s what they were saying in the feedback. They were also saying they found it very helpful and want to do it again, but there are also some students who felt that some of the questions — coming from their peers — were not technical enough. Some of them said they hoped the audience could ask questions. But overall, they are looking forward to doing it again.

“I want them not to just submit a project, but to understand how they were able to come up with that project.”

TH: What about your experience? You told us a little about the different kinds of presentations, but as you were watching the presentations and then as you reflected on the whole process — what did you notice? What stood out to you?

RB: I was so proud of my students. I can’t tell you how proud I am to see them like that. I could see how excited they were; they were beaming with excitement. And even the teachers were very happy, saying, ‘Wow, I didn’t know that it would be this fulfilling to hear the students explain the reasons why they chose this or that functionality.” That was really good, because for instance, some students would add a feature and say, “I did this because I also have cats at home” — they could relate it to real life. They’d say, “I added this feature because when my cat keeps playing with other cats, they’ll be happy, but they’ll also get tired. So in my program, I created this variable that keeps track of the happiness of the pet, and then I had to create a formula so that it would impact the level of energy and the level of thirst of the pet.” It’s amazing when you hear this from the kids — how creative they can be. You can’t help but laugh while they’re sharing. I’m really, really proud of what they did.

Takeaways from the oral defense and implications for the future 

TH: We’re conducting this interview only a few weeks since you held the oral defense. What are you taking away? Are you planning to make changes in the future? 

RB: Next year I think I’ll have mini oral defenses throughout the year. I might do this in pairs — giving each pair 5–10 minutes for small projects or small coding activities where they’ll have a defense among each other. That way they’ll practice how to ask questions, feel more confident doing this kind of activity, and see the value of understanding algorithms and problem decomposition. Problem decomposition is actually one of the key issues I see in computer science. Students get too excited and immediately open the Integrated Development Environment (IDE) and start coding without even knowing what the problem is. I think this is not just a computer science issue; it’s connected to math as well. I spoke to the math teachers and told them maybe we can look at strengthening the skill of decomposing a problem by giving students more structure. For instance, I tell them to find all nouns and put them in a rectangle and find all verbs and put them in circles — verbs and nouns connected to programming. I think this is a very, very important skill that students should master if we want them to be better in computing.

TH: Where in your schedule — in your labs or your PBLs — would you put these mini oral defenses?

RB: Probably during the coding activities. For example, in every unit, we have coding activities to develop students’ skills followed by a coding challenge. I have two 40-minute blocks. In the first 40-minute block, 25 minutes is for coding activities intended to build student skills. In the second 40-minute block, I usually give a programming challenge — the students now have the skills, so I level up the coding activity. There’s less structure for this challenge, and the students really have to think about how to solve the problem. That’s probably when they can do the mini oral defense. I’m thinking they would have these mini-defenses maybe twice per topic, because I don’t have too much time. Or perhaps I could have them record their work and put it on a SharePoint site where classmates can comment or ask questions and interact through the platform, so as not to take time from the class. 

TH: Any other takeaways or ways that this experience is affecting your thinking or planning for the rest of this year or next year?

RB: I think I can say that if we involve students in the process and are honest with them about what we’re seeing, they will also see the value of what we want to achieve. This is what I experienced. I told them I was really concerned, and I stated some facts with them. Because of that, students felt the sincerity that there really is a need for modifying how we do things in the class. 

The students were very helpful, and they were the ones who actually came up with many of the ideas. They would say: “Miss, I think it’s going to be better if we do it this way.” So, my key takeaway is: be honest, grow with your students. It’s okay to make mistakes, and you can admit it with your students and laugh about it. I know a lot of teachers are very much afraid of using technology in class or of pointing out problems when using technology, because they themselves are not confident about making mistakes in front of their students. But I think the more we become honest with our students, the more we become reachable, relatable, and more human. And that makes the class more exciting and more colorful.

“[T]he more we become honest with our students, the more we become reachable, relatable, the more human we become for them. And that makes the class more exciting and more colorful.”

TH: Wonderful. What were some of the other ideas that came from the students that you might implement?

RB: As I said, one of the things is the students said they should be able to ask more questions, which is a really good idea. They also suggested inviting teachers from other departments. This virtual pet lab is similar to creating a Tamagotchi, and they were thinking of what it would be like to sell their apps. One student said, “What if we could invite a business teacher to listen to this?” I said, “Yeah, that’s a good idea; maybe we can do that.” Those ideas are helpful because I can see that they also want to connect what we’re doing in the classroom with other disciplines, and I think that’s what we also aim for. It’s good to be hearing it from the students themselves.

The limits of time for co-designing activities with students and implementing new assessments

TH: Are you going to include more opportunities in your classes for students to share their ideas about assessment or other things?

RB: To be honest with you, I don’t think I can do that too often because we have so many interruptions, and so many things to do to prepare them for the external exam. But, whenever possible, I already involve my students in designing activities or assessments because I want them to own their learning. Aside from what I’ve shared during the interview, I use the time that I walk around to informally gather their thoughts about the activities and assessments. I also ask them to reflect every time they do coding activities. They write these in their notebooks – writing errors, how did they correct it, key takeaways, etc. and then how they think they can best showcase their learning on this matter. I also reach out to students during the summer and ask them then, because I already know who my students will be. We have a course selection platform that students use, so I know who’s going to be in my class. I usually reach out to them before the holiday, and I assign them some homework or readings on certain topics, so I can save time and have more time for other things. I need to identify what topics I think students can actually do themselves.

TH: Talking about the limited time, a lot of teachers are concerned that they can’t add anything like an oral defense because there’s no time. How did you make the time to add in the oral defense? What did you drop?

RB: I actually did not drop anything. I just used a flipped approach and recorded things. For differentiation, I have different ways for my students to learn a topic. Some students who are already skilled don’t need to listen to my lecture — they can immediately jump into programming activities. But some students will watch my lecture at home so that when they come to school, they can do the activity. So I did not drop anything, but I would say I tried to speed things up.

But also, before the holidays, I will explain to my students: “We have this laboratory coming up, and I know that you like doing this, and I want you to have fun. But for this to happen, I’m sorry, but there are things you have to do during the holiday. Is that fine with you?” And they will say “yes.” Again, I try to be as honest as possible with them instead of dictating. The more they know the reasoning behind something, the more they cooperate.

Oral assessment, differentiation and support for language learners

TH: You mentioned differentiation, so I wanted to go back to that student you mentioned in the second part of our interview who you said was struggling with English. I think one of the biggest concerns about oral defenses and oral assessments is that whether it’s a home language or a second language, students’ communication or language abilities can get in the way of their ability to show their technical skills or content knowledge. How did you deal with that with the oral defense?

RB: That was a real issue for us. For the oral defense, I explained to the teachers who served as panelists and who could only speak English that I allow the student panelists to ask questions in Chinese, since they know this student is struggling in English. Then the student panelists would also relay the question to us in English so we could understand. The other teachers and I gave our questions in English, and I asked the student, “Do you need someone to translate this for you?” Sometimes he would say “yes,” but most of the time he would say, “No, Miss Rose, I know, I understand.” I could really see how much he was trying. He would bring a dictionary with him all the time. He was really working very hard to remember vocabulary words. When I speak to him, I try to repeat those words so he gets used to them — and those vocabulary words are the ones used in the external exam as well. When he tried to respond, he couldn’t always come up with a full sentence, but I told him, “That’s fine. If you want to answer in Chinese, I’ll ask your classmates to translate.”

In the end, I don’t think assessing him was more difficult than assessing other students — his coding abilities came through. Every time I wanted to emphasize something, I would ask his classmates to say it in Chinese. But before doing that, I would ask him first if he needed a translation. Because of a good connection with him — I would say we have a very good teacher-student relationship — he would honestly tell me whether he needed translation or not. I don’t see that as a problem at all.

Implications for AI and assessment across classes

TH: In your role as technology coordinator — not just in your coding class, but in the school — what else have you noticed about the use of AI and assessment? What are you learning and what will you be changing as a result?

RB: Reflecting on our various efforts to improve AI integration, I have come to realize the need for more explicit and structured guidance. Previously, for faculty, I shared sample tasks with simple tables indicating where AI use was permitted or restricted, or adjustments to assessment guidelines. However, I now see that this level of guidance is not sufficient—teachers require more concrete support.  Similar to how we scaffold learning and make thinking visible for students, I believe we need to apply the same approach for teachers. Recently, I have been developing step-by-step guidance, such as:

• how to initiate conversations with students about AI,
• which tools to recommend,
• how to guide students in crafting effective and appropriate prompts, and
• how to support student reflection on their use of AI.

I am also applying this structured approach to develop resources for teacher-related tasks. With the help of the AI Committee, I’ve created a presentation and some support for lesson planning. Rather than simply advising teachers to “think before using AI,” we are explicitly outlining what prior thinking is expected and what data or inputs need to be prepared before engaging with AI tools.

In a draft policy I submitted to the principal, I also wrote that when teachers are using AI in the classroom, at the very least, they have to have students reflect on the kind of results AI has generated, because this is aligned to the different research studies I’ve read. That’s also part of the reason I created the summative assessment guideline and the oral defense — to show teachers that there should be another way of using AI without negatively impacting the critical thinking skills of students. And I can prove that. In the unit test connected to the Virtual Pet Lab with the oral defense, there was only one student who got less than 15 out of 18 — that’s really good. 

[T]hat’s the reason I created the summative assessment guideline and the oral defense — to show teachers that there should be another way of using AI without negatively impacting the critical thinking skills of students.

TH: What you mentioned about the teachers in the school is fascinating. One of the things I’m struggling with as a teacher is just keeping up with which assignments can now be done by AI and what I should do instead. Do you have a sense of which activities we should no longer assign because students are just using AI to do them?

RB:  There is a framework from Common Sense — I’m also a Common Sense Education Ambassador – and the framework is more about breaking down the task. For example, if a student is creating an essay, what are the stages? The first stage is brainstorming, the second stage is writing the first draft, and so on. The teacher has to break down the task, and then there’s a column that says ‘AI is allowed’ and ‘AI is not allowed,’ so the teacher marks it so students know exactly when AI can be used. And when AI is allowed — for example, in the first draft column — the teacher has to provide structure. I showed this in my training to teachers: I will have a table where on the left side you paste your draft, and the second part of the table shows how AI changed or modified the student’s draft. That document also includes what prompts were used, what parts of the AI-generated output the student accepted, what parts they didn’t, and why. 

With concerns that AI was undermining her students’ critical thinking, Roselyn Baronia didn’t ban it — she redesigned her assessment around it. In the second installment of this three-part interview, Baronia discusses the oral defense she created for a coding lab to produce a “virtual pet” and the rationale behind it. In part one, Baronia described her background and the problems she encountered with students that led her to realize something had to change in her teaching of AP Computer Science A (CSA). Part three will share some of Barnonia’s reflections on what she’s learned as she’s made these changes and on the implications for her future teaching. Baronia has been teaching at the Tsinglan School, a private international school in Dongguan, China, since 2020. Baronia’s also the Head of the Computer Science department, Technology Coordinator, and chair of the school’s AI committee. This interview has been edited for length and clarity and formatted by Adelaida Kim. 

As a resource for teachers interested in adapting an oral defense into their work, a public website provides access to some of Baronia’s materials from the virtual pet project, including a timeline, a lesson overview, student examples, and a rubric.part

For previous posts related to AI, see: Could concerns about the academic pressure on students in China lead to real changes in conventional schooling? Stability & change in the education system in China (Part 4); Scanning the global headlines for recent news on AI, schools, and education: Rapid growth in uses, users, and concerns.

++++++++++++++

Thomas Hatch (TH): You’ve already talked about how, as you walked around your classroom, you could see that students were relying too much on AI when they were coding. When did you realize you had a problem? Can you pick up the story from there? 

Roselyn Baronia (RB): This was in November and December of 2025. I had already done the first two units, which are the foundation units of AP Computer Science A (CSA). In Unit 3, students are asked to apply what they learned in Units 1 and 2 in a project-based learning activity. In that activity, I’m not teaching in the traditional sense. The students will be building something, and I will guide them, but I won’t be delivering lessons. That was the time I realized my students were heavily depending on AI, because there were so many times I could see it. I would know because the students would try to hide it. They would try to close a window on their computer, or they’d look surprised when I walked by. I would just tell them, “Why does it feel like you’re cheating? Why do you think you’re cheating?” I’d ask them, “Why don’t you want to admit to me that you’re using AI?” They felt ashamed about using AI. That was the turning point. I was like, this has to change. Somebody has to make these kids understand that they are losing a very, very important aspect of learning if they totally depend on AI.

“Somebody has to make these kids understand that they are losing a very, very important aspect of learning if they totally depend on AI.” 

I told them, AI is a tool that should help us, but not something we can solely depend on. There are some kids that really need AI. For instance, I have a student who is struggling with English, and some teachers are concerned he might not graduate. But in my class, this student is really doing his best. It’s difficult for him because it’s in English and his English level is low — but that’s why he needed AI. For that particular instance, I think that’s fine. But for other students, AI is just an easy way to get the answers, and this is not right — that’s why I needed to change the assessment.

TH: What steps did you take once you realized you needed to do something?

RB: I had a conversation with my students. I told them about recent MIT research in an article called “Your brain on ChatGPT” that suggested that AI can be helpful. However, if you just use it to do the work for you, it can undermine your learning. I also shared some statistics from McKinsey, the World Economic Forum, and related research from MIT about the problems with relying too much on AI. I told my students: you are taking computer science, and you are at the front line of the technology used in the classroom, so you have to do it right and influence your peers. That’s why I need you to really think about why there’s a need for using AI.  Surprisingly, they acknowledged the problem. They said they rely too much on AI, and I was happy that they understood there is an impact from using AI — it’s a double-edged sword.

“They said they rely too much on AI, and I was happy that they understood there is an impact from using AI — it’s a double-edged sword.“

After that, I asked them: How do you think we should modify our assessments to make sure you are not relying too much on AI and are actually learning? I tried to involve them in the process, because I have teenagers myself, and I know this is a sensitive matter. That’s why I realized maybe I should involve them — ask them how they feel about changing the assessment, how they feel about giving lower weights to final products and instead focusing on the process. Then, when I suggested doing an oral defense, they said, ‘Yes, we’re fine, we’re excited, we want to do the oral defense.’ 

Another reason they agreed to the defense was because, as they were doing their first lab, some of them were already using AI, and when they took the unit test and progress check afterward, there was a gap between what they were able to show in their final product and their performance on the free-response questions. That means some of them really relied on AI — maybe the students couldn’t admit it to me, but they admitted it to themselves — because the test results didn’t match the quality of the product they submitted.

“The test results didn’t match the quality of the product they submitted. The students couldn’t admit it to me, but they admitted it to themselves.”

The Oral Defense

TH: So you realized you had to do something last November while they were doing one of the project-based learning in Unit 3, and then you had the discussion with them in December, in preparation for their second Lab. After you had the discussion and got them on board, what did you do?

RB: When they said it was fine to change our assessments, I presented them with a plan for an oral defense to come at the end of their 2nd lab, and they were okay with it. They told me they were excited and looking forward to the oral defense. We brainstormed how they would be assessed and who would be part of a panel of judges who would assess them. Then they continued working on their projects. For this lab, all the students chose to create, and they worked on it between December and February. There actually wasn’t that much class time, because in January we had our final exam for the first semester, so there was an interruption; and then one week after their exam, we stopped again because of the Chinese New Year holiday — that was a three-week holiday. So we held the oral defense about two or three weeks after the Chinese New Year. 

TH: Can you describe for us how the oral defense went?

RB: The panel was composed of two adults — I was one of them, and the second was one of the other computer science teachers. I also invited the head of curriculum, teaching and assessment, and the division directors, because in my mind I also wanted to offer this learning opportunity that might help change assessments in other subjects. Unfortunately, the administrators were not able to come because of their busy schedules. 

TH: Just so I’m clear: you and one other computer science teacher were on the panel. Was there anyone else? 

RB: There were two students. One suggestion from the students was to allow everyone in the audience to ask questions, but that would take too long, but instead I was able to include two students on every panel. 

TH: Did every student have a chance to be a panelist?

RB: Yes. Because I wanted them to also experience what it’s like to ask questions.

TH: Did you do any preparation for them in terms of being a panelist, or did you just assign them and let it go? 

RB: That’s a very good question. I shared with them some of my experiences as a panelist, but I did not have a formal session to practice asking questions — and that’s something I have to reflect on. I experienced one or two students who, when they were supposed to ask questions, either didn’t want to ask questions or asked questions that were more connected to emotions and not very technical, like, “Did you enjoy it?” or “Did you have fun?”

TH: Can you describe for me your experience with the oral defense? How long did it take to do all of them? How did it work?

RB: The students worked in groups to create their virtual pets, and every group had 15 minutes for the defense — it was actually quite short. So basically, each group had 3 minutes for the presentation, and they could do it in any way they wanted.

A lot of students in the first class did a traditional presentation — they demonstrated their app and what it could do. But in the second class, it was more video-based. They created a video, and one of them did something like a podcast, as a way to share what their project was about. After the 3-minute presentation, the panelists started asking questions. Every panelist could ask up to 2 questions, for a total of eight questions. I designed for about 1 to 1 and 1/2 minutes per question, plus the presentation, so it took about 15 to 20 minutes per group. But that meant I could only have two groups do the defense in one 40-minute class block. In my first class, it took me 2 days — or 4 blocks — to finish the oral defense. The second class was smaller so it only took 1 day. Then they did a reflection the following day.

The teachers and students on the panel get a copy of the manuscript before the day of the defense so they can go over their answers and base their questions on what the group has written. It also comes with a link showing a demo video of how the code works. Due to limited time, review of students’ work happens before the defense, so what we focus on during the 20-minute activity is more on students proving their work, justifying their choices, sharing rationale behind, understanding how AI is used or influenced in their choices, and checking if the work is originally done by them with AI assistance.

The Assessment

TH: That’s really helpful. You created a Summative Coding sheet for the Virtual Pet Lab, which has a set of questions in the different sections. What was your rationale for this — why did you structure it that way?

RB: I created it because I want to focus on the process. If you look at the summative assessment guidelines, it focuses more on brainstorming — what is the algorithm, how did they come up with it? I was looking at the debugging ability of the students, and I wanted to see what bugs they encountered and how they fixed them. I was looking at the revisions they made — what are the changes, what are the new features they added? So if you look at the rubric, you’ll see the weighting is more on the process itself.

I created the sections so that students also know where the questions will come from during the oral defense — so they don’t feel blindsided. They also know from the rubric how much each section weighs, which tells them what’s more important. 

TH: And these criteria are connected to your learning goals and also to the expectations for the AP exam?

RB: Yes, I make sure this is aligned to what is being asked in the external exam as well. It’s like hitting two birds with one stone. I want them to have fun, I want them to be responsible in using AI, but at the same time I want to make sure they are prepared for the external exam. And true enough, when they reflected on this, that’s actually what I saw in the reflection.

“I want them to have fun, I want them to be responsible in using AI, but at the same time I want to make sure they are prepared for the external exam. It’s like hitting two birds with one stone.”

Next week: “Be Honest, Grow With Your Students”: An Interview with Rose Baronia on her experiences with AI, Assessment, and a New Oral Defense (Part 3)

“AI is a tool that should help us, not something to depend on”: An Interview with Roselyn Baronia on her experiences with AI, Assessment, and a New Oral Defense (Part 2) © 2026 by Thomas Hatch is licensed under CC BY 4.0

What do you do when virtually every activity you ask students to complete can be carried out almost entirely by AI? That’s the challenge Roselyn Baronia faces as she tries to help her students learn to code in AP Computer Science A (CSA). In the first installment of our three-part interview about her efforts to integrate AI into her teaching and transform her assessment process in the 2025-26 school year, Baronia describes her background, how AI crept into her classroom, and the moment she knew something had to change. Part 2 will describe a key change Baronia made in the course: the development and implementation of an oral defense that students are now expected to complete along with one of their coding projects. Part 3 shares some of Baronia’s reflections on what she’s learned as she’s made these changes, as well as the implications for her future teaching. Baronia has been teaching at Tsinglan School, a private international school in Dongguan, China, since 2020. She is also the Head of the Computer Science Department, Technology Coordinator, and chair of the school’s AI committee. This interview has been edited for length and clarity and formatted by Adelaida Kim.For previous posts related to AI, see: Could concerns about the academic pressure on students in China lead to real changes in conventional schooling? Stability & change in the education system in China (Part 4); Scanning the global headlines for recent news on AI, schools, and education: Rapid growth in uses, users, and concerns.

As a resource for teachers interested in adapting an oral defense into their work, a public website provides access to some of Baronia’s materials from the virtual pet project, including a timeline, a lesson overview, student examples, and a rubric.

+++++

Thomas Hatch (TH): Could you give us a little bit of background about how long you’ve been teaching and what courses you’ve taught, and then a little bit about the AP Computer Science A course and how long you’ve been teaching that?

Roselyn Baronia (RB): I’m actually a computer engineer by profession, and I used to work in an IT company in the Philippines. But then I was invited to serve as one of the panelists in an oral defense — in the undergraduate thesis defense at the university where I graduated. That actually started my career in teaching because, after that experience, I became a university instructor. Before I knew it, I fell in love with teaching. 

I’ve been teaching for 18 years in total, and in K-12 for the last 13 years. I used to be a teacher in an International Baccalaureate (IB) school, so all the schools I’d worked at were IB schools, except Tsinglan, which I joined six years ago. I’ve been teaching AP Computer Science A (CSA) for 5 years.

TH: How many sections have you been teaching each year?

RB: It started with one class, and I only had 5 students in that very first class. Then it started to grow every year, and currently I have 29 students in two sections. I meet them for eight blocks of 40 minutes in every six-day cycle.

A full teaching load at Tsinglan is 24 blocks, and I handle 16 blocks a cycle. This is reduced because I’m the Head.of the Computer Science Department and the Technology Coordinator for the whole school. At one point, the school asked me if I wanted to just concentrate on being the Technology Coordinator and stop teaching, but I said no; I still want to teach. I love teaching — I just really cannot let it go. I feel that my students need me, even if I have other whole-school work.

TH: And as the Technology Coordinator, you’re working with faculty to help them integrate new technologies and deal with all of their technology issues as well?

RB: Yes, and I’m also the Head of the Computer Science department for the whole school, so I wear multiple hats. In addition, I’m helping the school in data analysis, and I also chair the AI committee — that’s also a whole-school responsibility. There are so many things that I do, but somehow, they overlap. There’s a connection between all of it. It actually puts me in a very good position to understand why assessments should change or be modified, because I can see what is happening and how other teachers are thinking. If I were just a classroom teacher, maybe I wouldn’t have that insight.

TH: Can you describe the basic structure of Computer Science A? 

RB: There are actually four units. This is the first year the College Board changed the syllabus. In the past, it was always 10 units, but this year was the first time they reduced it to just four units, and there are four recommended laboratories that we have to do so that students will be more prepared for the external exam.

I’m using a book created by RuneStone Academy called CS Awesome. It’s free, and it’s very helpful because it’s very much aligned to how the College Board expects us to deliver the lesson. That book also comes along with an IDE, or Integrated Development Environment; it’s like the platform where students can actually create code. But the students also have access to other IDE’s, and this is where I realized the need to modify the assessment, because the moment students leave the College Board platform or the CS Awesome platform, they begin to use an IDE that has AI embedded in it. This was a turning point for me when I kept seeing that.

TH: Just so I’m clear, can you describe what an IDE is for those of us who don’t know anything about coding?

RB: In the old days, if you used Windows, you had a text pad, and this is where you actually coded, and we coded a lot of HTML or CSS to build a web page. The IDE is similar to that text pad, but it’s much more sophisticated because AI is already built into it. So if you type the first line, AI will already predict what you’re going to do and provide some parts of your code and suggest what you should do next. 

However, inside the College Board platform, there is no IDE at all. So, if students are going to answer something or take a test, they don’t have an IDE — they really just have to write code without indentation, without anything that shows it’s code. But for the labs, because they have to create a real project that actually runs, you cannot use the College Board platform. You really need to go outside of that, and that is when we begin having a problem, because they will be using an IDE like GitHub or Visual Studio. When they start using these IDEs, AI is already built in. When they start to write a line of code, AI will automatically suggest the rest. That got me thinking: how will I know that my students are actually thinking critically if they keep on using an IDE that has AI built in?

AI and the Challenges and Opportunities for Assessment and Learning

TH: When did you realize you needed to make a change in your teaching and assessment because of AI?  

RB: It started this past year, in our spring semester of 2025. It all happened after the Chinese New Year. The principal spoke about AI and that we have to use AI, so everything became about AI. The teachers were excited about it because they were thinking it was going to save their time — that was the initial feeling.

But then, as Technology Coordinator, I observe classes, and even when I walk through the hallway, I can hear teachers saying, ‘Okay, you can use AI.’ But the students don’t know how to use it effectively. That started the conversation among teachers, and because I’m also chair of the AI committee and also connected to our Continuous Improvement Group, I was a part of a number of conversations where teachers started talking about their concerns about the use of AI. That started me rethinking what I was doing in the classroom.

Before that, I would just kind of ignore AI or try not to recognize that my students were using it. Maybe I was in the denial stage at the beginning, but I was thinking, ‘Oh, my students probably won’t do that,’ or I would remind them, ‘Please don’t use AI.’ I was like that. But then this past fall when I saw that AI was getting more sophisticated, I realized I had to make a change. 

TH: Bring me back to the moment last fall — what led you to the realization that you had to change your practice because of AI? 

RB: What I usually do in the classroom is spend maybe 5–10 minutes in the beginning to set the tone — to tell the students what the learning objective is, how we’re going to achieve it, point out the vocabulary words, have a little discussion, and then have them do an activity. While they are coding, I walk around, and I usually see errors—there are bugs—and I check if they need my help. If they do, I’ll help them, or I’ll ask them about their reasons. Why is your algorithm like this? Why are you using conditional statements, for example, or why are you using a “while loop” instead of a “for loop”? 

In the past, maybe two or three years ago, when AI was not yet very well known to my students, I noticed they could articulate their decisions much better than now. Just as I said, a lot of my students now say, ‘This is what AI told me, I have to do this.’ That was frightening — there would come a point where students would no longer be thinking because they would just follow what AI tells them to do. AI here in China is also embedded in the browser — they have something called Doubao. I don’t know if you’re familiar, but it’s the most popular AI assistant in China; it’s like Gemini in Google Chrome. It’s very accessible to the students, and some of the students even use DeepSeek because their parents told them they can use it for their homework. So, I felt like I was losing my role in the classroom — like I was competing with AI.

“A lot of my students now say, ‘This is what AI told me, I have to do this.’ That was frightening — there would come a point where students would no longer be thinking because they would just follow what AI tells them to do… I felt like I was losing my role in the classroom.”

TH: What do you mean when you say “I feel like I’m losing my role in the classroom”?

RB: I feel like I’m competing with AI. If I say something, and a student says, ‘But Miss, AI said it like this,’ then I feel like I need to justify what I’m doing. And then there’s tension, because I might tell them they’re not supposed to use AI. So I realized maybe what I’m doing is wrong. Maybe I should acknowledge that AI really exists, and that they can use it and do their projects with AI. But then the focus of my marking and scoring should no longer be about the final project, because I can no longer trust that it is fully their work.

What I really want is for my students to be very prepared for the external exam, because the parents are expecting their kids to get a good mark. I was thinking, how can I do that if I allow them to use AI but then mark the final product, which I know they can do so easily because of AI’s suggestions? That’s why I thought there has to be a change in how I conduct my assessment.

TH: That’s really helpful, but let me make sure I understand: The final product you’re talking about — is that the AP exam itself, or is it a project or culmination of your class?

RB: The final product I meant is the projects created based on the AP’s laboratory requirements. The College Board does not require projects for AP Computer Science A, but students have to do laboratory activities because that will help them retain the concepts and skills that are being assessed in the free-response questions, or FRQs, on the AP exam. For the exam, AP uses an app called Blue Book. It’s a kind of software with an embedded secure browser where students cannot leave that window. So when they take the test, they stay only in that environment, and they can’t use AI. 

TH: So was part of the problem that, on the one hand, you wanted them to be able to use AI, but on the other hand, you worried that they would then not be able to do well on the exam when they didn’t have AI?

RB: I want them to be prepared for the test — that’s a given. And when they take the test, there’s no AI; that’s for sure. But when they do the laboratory activity — which is very engaging for them because it prepares them for the exam — they’re being very playful, creative, and thinking of other things to add. But for them to be able to do that, they have to go beyond the curriculum, and so they need AI to help them.

It’s kind of tricky, because they are pushing themselves very much to come up with something. For instance, one of the students created a rhythm game. For her to be able to do that, she had to know how to create an interface in Java — and that is not part of the syllabus. She said, ‘Miss, it won’t feel good if I can’t finish this.’ That’s why she needed AI. But at the same time, I was also afraid that if she kept on using AI, maybe she wouldn’t be thinking deeply, and maybe she wouldn’t score high on the exam.

Next week: “AI is a tool that should help us, not something to depend on”: An Interview with Rose Baronia on her experiences with AI, Assessment, and a New Oral Defense (Part 2)

“I Felt Like I Was Losing My Role in the Classroom”: An Interview with Roselyn Baronia on her experiences with AI, Assessment, and a New Oral Defense (Part 1) © 2026 by Thomas Hatch is licensed under CC BY 4.0