arXiv:2512. 12413v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Generative AI tools are increasingly embedded in everyday work and learning, yet their fluency, opacity, and propensity to hallucinate mean that users must critically evaluate AI outputs rather than accept them at face value.
arXiv:2606. 12086v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Contextualized assessment offers high ecological validity for evaluating creativity but introduces a critical challenge: observed performance may be confounded with cognitive proficiency (domain knowledge) and agency (willingness to engage).
arXiv:2606. 00038v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) literacy is increasingly recognized as a foundational competency for all university graduates.
arXiv:2604. 01114v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As generative AI systems are integrated into educational settings, students often encounter AI-generated output while working through learning tasks, either by requesting help or through integrated tools.
arXiv:2606. 13734v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent evidence reported by Tully, Longoni, and Appel (2025) suggests that lower artificial intelligence (AI) literacy predicts greater receptivity toward AI.
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.
High-stakes English proficiency tests treat standardized, unaided performance as evidence for score interpretations about academic English proficiency. This interpretation remains meaningful, but as target language use domains increasingly involve generative AI, the extrapolation from unaided test performance to academic communicative readiness becomes less self-evident.
arXiv:2608. 05545v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative AI used as a capable servant has greatly accelerated intellectual work, but it also risks eroding human epistemic agency by encouraging uncritical acceptance of AI-generated reasoning.
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:2606. 28749v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Although most undergraduates now use large language models (LLMs), a form of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) for academic writing, no validated method distinguishes the qualitatively different ways students rely on them.
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:2606. 05983v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Generative AI makes answers easy and understanding hard, and uncritical use invites cognitive offloading.
arXiv:2608. 11625v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Feedback processes strongly influence student learning, yet their educational value depends on addressing two distinct challenges: providing high-quality, timely, and individualised feedback at scale, and supporting students to interpret, evaluate, and act on that feedback productively.