arXiv:2607. 11749v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly reshaping workplace communication, yet whether AI-assisted writing changes how recipients actually behave, and through what channel, remains unknown.
The study investigates whether AI assistance leaves a temporal fingerprint in writing and programming tasks. By analyzing keystroke-level data from three corpora, the authors find that AI contributions appear in distinct bursts and that temporal patterns can almost perfectly distinguish wholesale delegation from authentic work, though ordinary collaboration remains hard to detect. The research suggests that process visibility could serve as a basis for academic integrity checks.
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: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.
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. Generative AI offers a credible means of addressing the provision challenge, but students' uptake of AI-generated feedback remains limited.
arXiv:2608. 11625v1 Announce Type: new 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.
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.
arXiv:2609.14638v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This paper is an encore submission of our 2026 journal article "Expertise and Information Seeking in the Age of Generative AI: New Procedures, New Pr...
arXiv:2606. 00250v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Investigating the degree to which large language models (LLMs) affect teaching and learning in universities can help identify strategies for integrating LLMs in a way that supports, rather than undermines, student learning outcomes.
arXiv:2406. 13049v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Personalized phishing is difficult to defend against because messages can be tailored to a target's work, interests, and social context.
arXiv:2605. 21629v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: How much have students' ordinary learning processes shifted in response to generative AI, and how does that affect their durable learning outcomes?
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.