arXiv:2606. 01375v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly entering students' learning practices, but their educational value depends on whether they support reasoning or enable task completion without engagement.
By Mohammad Amanlou, Yasaman Amou-Jafari, Mehrad Livian, Fatemeh Boloukazari, Fereshte Bagheri, Behnam Bahrak
arXiv:2505. 00100v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Background and Context.
By Ethan Dickey, Andres Bejarano, Rhianna Kuperus, B\'arbara Fagundes
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.
By Lydia Manikonda, Mei Si, Sirajam Munira, Oshani Seneviratne, Kristin Bennett
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.
By Andy Gray, Jake Hobbs
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?
By Sina Rismanchian, Hasan Uzun, Jeffrey Matayoshi, Eric Cosyn, Eyad Kurd-Misto
The study analyzes 20,462 student turns from 1,260 sessions with a guided LLM chemistry tutor, identifying 6,630 impasse turns categorized as conceptual errors, expressed uncertainty, or help‑seeking. Three tutoring conditions—baseline, no‑direct‑answer, and guided—were simulated, revealing that the baseline tutor often gave direct answers, the no‑direct‑answer tutor always asked follow‑up questions, and the guided tutor varied its responses based on context. Impasse trajectories showed that each additional impasse turn reduced the likelihood of recovery, while addressing errors became increasingly beneficial compared to repeated scripted questioning.
By Bakhtawar Ahtisham, Kirk Vanacore, Alessandra Napoli, Josh Arens, Ksenia Ionova, Clayton Cohn, Shima Salehi, Rene Kizilcec