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.
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.
The study investigates how generative AI (GenAI) affects student learning in AI-related courses, using survey data from 118 students across 12 courses. Four distinct user clusters were identified—high-use, light-use, and two moderate-use groups—each showing varying benefits and reliance patterns. The research highlights that early reliance, evaluation literacy, and instructor policies significantly influence perceived academic benefits and negative impacts, underscoring the need for institutional policies to address inequities in AI use.
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:2609.15624v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Researchers assessing competent generative-AI use at work must choose among self-reports, objective tests, and measures of oversight and reliance. We...
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:2505. 00100v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Background and Context.
arXiv:2606. 24104v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence(GenAI) is reshaping learning in higher education, with particularly pronounced implications for the humanities and social sciences(HSS), where learning outcomes are commonly expressed through written and interpretive forms that align closely with GenAI's capabilities.
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: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.
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: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.
Aggregate reliability estimates can obscure heterogeneity in measurement-design burden across response conditions, so a single G- or D-study may mischaracterize a design's adequacy for particular strata. This study introduces a conditional generalizability framework with three components.