AI as a Procedural Equalizer: Performance Comparison in Programming-Based Engineering Coursework Following the Emergence of Generative AI

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.