Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has entered classrooms faster than teachers have been prepared to use it well, producing a GenAI literacy lag in which technological diffusion outpaces educators' conceptual, pedagogical, and ethical readiness. Established AI literacy frameworks predate the widespread adoption of large language models and, while acknowledging ethics, position it as a discrete competency rather than a constitutive commitment, with equity and agency as supplementary design principles.
arXiv:2608.21391v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: In this research-to-practice paper we present a survey that can be used to assess students' AI knowledge. As the use of artificial intelligence (AI),...
By Aditya Johri, Cory Brozina, Akriti Bagale
arXiv:2606. 00038v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) literacy is increasingly recognized as a foundational competency for all university graduates.
By J. Paul Liu, Rachel Levy
arXiv:2607. 04049v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We argue that generative AI can degrade research by eroding the very practices through which scholarly judgement is formed and academic trust is built.
By Claudio Novelli, Luciano Floridi
arXiv:2607. 12296v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: With the increased use of generative AI (GenAI) applications such as ChatGPT, higher education institutions (HEIs) have released a range of guidelines and policies to direct adoption within their institutions.
By Amrita Ganguly, Aditya Johri, Nora McDonald, Areej Ali, Umama Dewan, Aayushi Hingle Collier
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.
By Rajan Kadel, Bellal Hossain, Samar Shailendra, Bushra Naeem
arXiv:2608. 07475v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) presents a governance challenge for STEM assessment.
By Yizhu Gao, Zhongzhou Chen, Min Li, Xiaoming Zhai
The study examines how generative AI tools like ChatGPT perform on typical first‑year undergraduate mathematics assessment questions. By generating, transcribing, and blind‑marking AI responses to eight assessments covering the entire curriculum, the authors find that AI attains a first‑class level of performance, with consistency across modules that exceeds that of students in invigilated exams. The results suggest a need to redesign mathematics assessments to address the impact of generative AI.
By Benjamin J. Walker, Nikoleta Kalaydzhieva, Beatriz Navarro Lameda, Ruth A. Reynolds
arXiv:2503. 05785v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT, Copilot, or Gemini have a crucial impact on academic research and teaching.
By Dennis Kraemer, Anja Bosold, Martin Minarik, Cleo Schyvinck, Andre Hajek
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.
By Riasat Islam (School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom), Thomas Roelleke (School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom)
arXiv:2608. 03584v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming high-skilled domains, requiring higher education institutions (HEI) to balance the teaching of foundational principles with the integration of emerging tools to ensure workforce readiness.
By Lydia Manikonda, Dominique Outlaw
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.
By Rayed AlGhamdi