The study examined the impact of expert‑verified AI‑generated study materials on first‑year university economics students. In a two‑cohort difference‑in‑differences design, half of the 170 students received podcasts, FAQs, and quiz‑based guides that were produced by a source‑grounded model and checked by a graduate teaching assistant. The intervention produced a 2.34‑mark advantage on a 50‑mark component, reduced the share of marks below the upper‑second classification boundary by 24.7 percentage points, and had the largest gains for students in the bottom quintile. Interviews with 36 students suggested that the verification label encouraged engagement while preserving critical scrutiny of the AI output.
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?
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.
The paper introduces Beacon, a course‑specific Retrieval‑Augmented Generation (RAG) system that offers private, module‑aligned academic support to students. By grounding responses in approved teaching materials, Beacon aims to lower barriers to help‑seeking and encourage independent learning, especially in computing education where tasks are cumulative and demanding. Evaluation through questionnaires and interviews showed students found Beacon’s responses trustworthy and closely aligned with course content, viewing it as a useful first point of support before consulting lecturers or official resources.
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:2603. 04982v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Can targeted user training unlock the productive potential of generative artificial intelligence in professional settings?
arXiv:2609.28470v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Artificial intelligence offers an unprecedented opportunity to augment human capabilities, yet progress at the frontier has focused primarily on advanc...
arXiv:2606. 18617v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: There exist numerous tutor training platforms.
The study examined how different designs of AI teaching assistants (AI TAs) affect students in an introductory programming course. Four AI TAs were compared based on pedagogical style (Socratic vs. Direct instruction) and context awareness (no context vs. full context). Results showed that the Socratic AI TA with full context received the lowest favorability ratings, had the highest interaction stress, the most external LLM use, and the lowest comprehension outcomes, though differences were not statistically significant.
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),...
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.
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.