arXiv:2606. 00040v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As Generative AI (GenAI) becomes integral to education, fostering GenAI literacy is critical.
arXiv:2609.36544v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative AI has changed how students produce writing assignments. The final artifact is no longer sufficient to understand the process through whic...
arXiv:2607. 28630v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative AI (GenAI) holds significant promise for advancing educational equity among ethnic minority students by broadening access to learning resources and mitigating linguistic barriers.
arXiv:2607. 00211v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Epistemic thinking plays a central role in students' learning processes when applying generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), particularly in programming contexts where learners must construct queries, evaluate and validate AI-generated outputs, and regulate problem-solving strategies.
arXiv:2505. 00100v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Background and Context.
arXiv:2608. 12351v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has challenged the validity of unsupervised online assessment, especially in technical subjects where plausible answers can be produced with little effort.
arXiv:2607. 05411v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Higher education institutions are increasingly expected to ensure that both students and staff develop Generative AI (GenAI) literacies.
arXiv:2602. 09907v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: College students increasingly use AI chatbots to support academic reading, yet we lack granular understanding of how these interactions shape their reading experience and cognitive engagement.
arXiv:2602. 09907v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: College students increasingly use AI chatbots to support academic reading, yet we lack granular understanding of how these interactions shape their reading experience and cognitive engagement.
arXiv:2608. 16016v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) can produce high-quality essays, code, and design artefacts, challenging the validity of conventional assessments that rely on single-point submissions and product-only grading.
arXiv:2605. 05598v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The proliferation of large language models (LLMs) in educational settings has paradoxically undermined the cognitive processes they purport to support.
The study explores how undergraduate computing students in Saudi Arabia perceive AI‑generated writing feedback when they are explicitly told that ChatGPT, not a human instructor, produced the score and comments. Through qualitative reflections, four themes emerged: students found the feedback useful for surface‑level revisions, recognized AI’s contextual and pedagogical limits, trusted the feedback conditionally—separating its utility from its authority—and reaffirmed the human instructor’s role as the ultimate grading authority. The findings highlight a clear distinction students make between feedback usefulness and evaluative authority, treating them as separate judgments rather than opposing ends of a single approval scale.
arXiv:2607. 14301v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As generative AI (GenAI) becomes increasingly embedded in undergraduate academic writing, how students rely on these tools, rather than simply whether they use them, has become a central question for learning, academic integrity, and educational equity.