Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 103 references

The New Calculator? Practices, Norms, and Implications of Generative AI in Higher Education

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Students self-govern their use of generative AI when university rules stay vague.

desk verdict Solid qualitative snapshot of GenAI use in higher education, but the 'unspoken rules' finding is partly prompted and the educator counts have denominator errors. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08864 v1 pith:JUCHKJB4 submitted 2025-01-15 cs.HC

Auste Simkute , Viktor Kewenig , Abigail Sellen , Sean Rintel , Lev Tankelevitch This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords generativeAIhighereducationstudentpracticesself-governanceunspokenrulesplagiarismanxietyqualitativeinterviewsstructurationtheory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that university students are not waiting for institutions to define acceptable use of generative AI: in the absence of clear guidelines, they quietly develop their own rules about when and how to use tools like ChatGPT. Drawing on interviews with 26 students and 11 educators at two UK universities, it shows students' choices are governed by unspoken conventions—reference rather than plagiarise, edit rather than copy-paste, assist rather than do the work—and by practical reliance strategies for checking AI output. The study also finds that institutional fixation on plagiarism, inconsistent messages from educators, and fear of being wrongly accused create 'plagiarism anxiety' that can push students to hide their use. If this picture is right, universities' current compliance-focused response is incomplete, and what is needed is clearer communication, responsible-use training, and assessments redesigned for a world where generative AI is already part of students' working habits.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is students' self-governance of GenAI use, organized into a structuration-based model. It consists of unspoken rules about appropriate use, reliance strategies for handling limitations (double-checking outputs, weighing task importance, and using domain expertise), and considerations of agency and skill development. The model links these internal structures to external structures—university guidelines, educator communication, peer communication—and to outcomes such as confidence shifts and plagiarism anxiety; the paper explicitly marks reciprocal influences it did not explore as dashed arrows.

What would settle it

A large-scale observational study that logs students' actual GenAI interactions (rather than interviewing them) and compares them with their institution's stated policies could settle the claim: if students in institutions with clear, well-communicated guidelines still develop the same unspoken rules and plagiarism anxiety, the proposed link between unclear guidelines and self-governance would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that students' generative-AI practices in higher education are shaped less by official policy than by self-governance under ambiguity. Students use GenAI in three roles—tutor, assistant, and ideation partner—and justify their choices through three unspoken rules: 'reference, do not plagiarise'; 'edit, do not copy and paste'; and 'use it to assist you, not to do work for you.' These rules, along with reliance strategies and concerns about skills and agency, emerge in a context of unclear university guidelines, institutional fixation on plagiarism, and inconsistent educator communication; they produce perceived impacts on confidence, skill development, relationships with educators, and plagiarism anxiety. The paper presents this as a guiding model that integrates micro, meso, and macro perspectives and expects both external structures (guidelines, training, assessments) and internal structures (students' motivations and self-governance) to change as GenAI becomes normalised.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the assumption that the self-reported behaviours of 26 students and 11 educators at two UK universities accurately represent what a broader, more diverse student and educator population actually does with generative AI.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If universities want to shape GenAI use, they need to replace vague, plagiarism-focused guidance with systematic, clearly communicated rules that reflect how students actually work.
  • Students' reliance on self-governance means many are developing bespoke, inconsistent norms; formal GenAI literacy training could reduce disparities in skill and confidence.
  • Assessments will need to change, e.g., by incorporating GenAI into assignments or asking students to document and reflect on their use, to preserve academic integrity without punishing legitimate help-seeking.
  • Open communication among educators about GenAI is currently suppressed by fear of peers' judgement; encouraging these conversations is a prerequisite for consistent teaching practice.
  • If current patterns persist, students' relationships with educators may weaken as they go to ChatGPT first, while their vocabulary for asking questions and admitting uncertainty may shrink.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's sample is skewed toward humanities and self-selected users, so a plausible testable extension is a larger, more diverse survey to quantify how widespread these unspoken rules and plagiarism anxiety are across disciplines and institution types.
  • The finding that students double-check outputs and weigh task importance suggests that over-reliance may be less severe than feared in this population, but the design implication is to build tools that nudge verification rather than assume it.
  • If universities adopt clear, permissive-but-bounded guidelines, students' self-governance may become explicit and shared; observing whether plagiarism anxiety drops would test the causal claim that vagueness drives anxiety.
  • The dashed arrows in the model (outcomes feeding back into structures) could be examined longitudinally to see whether student practices reshape institutional policy, as participants expect.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a qualitative interview study of 26 students and 11 educators from two UK universities, examining how students use generative AI in higher education, what norms and reliance strategies shape that use, and what impacts they perceive. The authors apply Strong Structuration Theory post hoc to organize themes into a model with actions, internal structures (motivations, self-governance), external structures (university guidelines, educator communication), and outcomes (confidence, skill concerns, relationships, plagiarism anxiety, future expectations). The central claim is that, in the absence of clear institutional guidance and amid a plagiarism-focused policy environment, students develop their own 'unspoken rules' (reference, do not plagiarize; edit, do not copy-and-paste; assist, not do-for) and reliance strategies, with implications for their skills, confidence, relationships with educators, and anxiety about plagiarism. The paper includes full interview and survey protocols in appendices and explicitly discusses limitations and positionality.

Significance. If the findings are robust, the paper makes a useful contribution to HCI and higher-education research by providing an ecological, context-sensitive account of early-stage GenAI adoption, moving beyond attitude surveys to describe student practices, norms, and the structural conditions that shape them. The comparative student-educator design is a strength, and the SST-based model offers a framework for future work on policy, assessment design, and AI literacy. The paper also explicitly publishes its instruments and acknowledges its limitations, which supports transparency. However, the exploratory sample is small, self-selected, and heavily skewed toward humanities students and junior educators, and the central 'unspoken rules' claim is partly elicited by the interview protocol's direct wording. These issues constrain the generalizability and the strength of the interpretive claim, but the underlying data and model are valuable enough to warrant revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.4.1, Appendix B] The central claim that students follow 'unspoken rules' is not fully supported by the evidence as presented, because the semi-structured interview protocol explicitly asks participants 'Are there any "unspoken rules" you follow when using these new AI tools?' and 'Do you think using these new AI tools is like cheating?'. The paper does not report whether any participant articulated a norm or boundary rule before the moderator introduced the term, nor does it distinguish between spontaneous mention and prompted agreement. As the contribution depends on the emergence of these norms from students' own framing, the authors should either re-analyze the transcripts to show that rules were mentioned unprompted, or revise the interpretation to state that, when asked, students articulated such norms. Without this, the 'unspoken rules' theme risks being an artifact of the research instrument rather than a discovery about students' tacit self-governance.
  2. [§5.6.2, §5.6.3, §5.6.4] Several educator-frequency counts are reported with a denominator of 26 instead of 11, which is inconsistent with the educator sample size. Concretely, the 'Educators' perspective' paragraphs in Sections 5.6.2, 5.6.3, and 5.6.4 report (6/26), (5/26), (7/26), and (4/26) when the correct denominator is 11. Because the paper uses counts to indicate the prevalence of themes among educators, these errors undermine the trustworthiness of the quantitative summaries. The authors should correct these values and audit all other sections for similar mistakes, since the current misreporting weakens the evidentiary base for the educator-related claims.
  3. [§4.4] The limitations section is candid about the sample composition and the post hoc use of SST, but it does not address the more acute construct-validity threat posed by the interview protocol's direct prompting of 'unspoken rules' and 'cheating'. The authors should add a paragraph that acknowledges this possible framing effect, explains what evidence (if any) indicates that participants held these norms independently of the questions, and qualifies the claims accordingly. This is a load-bearing issue because the paper's key contribution is the discovery of these self-governance norms.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.3.1] There is a minor spacing error in 'students(17/26)'; it should read 'students (17/26)'.
  2. [§5.4.1] The sentence 'It is okay to use GenAI within certain boundaries ,' has an extra space before the comma and should be polished.
  3. [§5.6.2] In the sentence beginning 'Students desired education about the capabilities...', there is a missing space before the count '(15/26)'.
  4. [§6.2.1] The phrase 'will need to built into educational practice' should read 'will need to be built into educational practice'.
  5. [§5.5.2] The word 'dint' in 'as a dint to their confidence' should be 'dent'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: findings are grounded in interview data, the SST lens is applied post hoc and acknowledged, and self-citations are background support, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical generalizations from semi-structured interviews, not derivations from fitted parameters or prior results. The SST framework was explicitly applied after initial inductive coding (§4.3.2), and the paper acknowledges this in §4.4 ('the study would have benefited from using SST to guide the study design'), which forecloses any claim that the framework forced the findings. The 'unspoken rules' theme does appear to be directly prompted in Appendix B ('Are there any "unspoken rules" you follow when using these new AI tools?'), which is a legitimate methodological concern about leading questions, but it is not circularity in the derivation sense: participants could and did answer in varied ways, and the paper reports counts and dissenting views. Self-citations (e.g., [101] Tankelevitch et al. for GenAI errors; [32] Drosos et al. for overreliance in lab studies) support background claims and are not used to justify the paper's central findings. No equation, fitted parameter, or uniqueness theorem is invoked. The derivation chain, such as it is, is transparent and self-contained against the interview evidence.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is an interpretive qualitative study: there are no free parameters or invented physical entities. The analysis rests on assumptions about self-report validity, sample representativeness, and the post-hoc applicability of Strong Structuration Theory, all of which the authors partly acknowledge.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Participant self-reports in interviews are treated as accurate accounts of GenAI practices and motivations.
    The entire findings section rests on the validity of interview self-reports; Section 5 presents counts of themes based on these reports.
  • ad hoc to paper Strong Structuration Theory is an appropriate analytical lens applied post hoc to organize themes.
    Section 4.3.2 states SST was selected after initial inductive analysis, and section 4.4 notes the study 'would have benefited from using SST to guide the study design'.
  • domain assumption The sample of 26 students and 11 educators from two UK universities supports themes about higher education broadly.
    The paper claims a 'snapshot' and generalizable implications despite the acknowledged self-selected, humanities-heavy sample in section 4.4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The New Calculator? Practices, Norms, and Implications of Generative AI in Higher Education." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JUCHKJB4

@misc{pith2026250108864,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The New Calculator? Practices, Norms, and Implications of Generative AI in Higher Education},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JUCHKJB4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08864}
}
read the original abstract

Generative AI (GenAI) has introduced myriad opportunities and challenges for higher education. Anticipating this potential transformation requires understanding students' contextualised practices and norms around GenAI. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 26 students and 11 educators from diverse departments across two universities. Grounded in Strong Structuration Theory, we find diversity in students' uses and motivations for GenAI. Occurring in the context of unclear university guidelines, institutional fixation on plagiarism, and inconsistent educator communication, students' practices are informed by unspoken rules around appropriate use, GenAI limitations and reliance strategies, and consideration of agency and skills. Perceived impacts include changes in confidence, and concerns about skill development, relationships with educators, and plagiarism. Both groups envision changes in universities' attitude to GenAI, responsible use training, assessments, and integration of GenAI into education. We discuss socio-technical implications in terms of current and anticipated changes in the external and internal structures that contextualise students' GenAI use.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08864 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of study findings. Students’ actions (A) (GenAI tool uses) are driven by a set of internal structures, including their motivations (B), and self-governance of GenAI use (D). These internal structures are influenced by a set of external structures: including university guidelines, communication from and among educators, and communication among students (C). Finally, students’ actions leads to outcomes, inclu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Survey findings. (A) Students’ and educators’ uses of GenAI. (B) Students’ and educators’ frequency of GenAI use. (C) Students’ and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    General Principles for use of Generative AI, Department of Education, University of Cambridge

    2023. General Principles for use of Generative AI, Department of Education, University of Cambridge. (2023). https://blendedlearning.cam.ac.uk/guidance- support/ai-and-education/using-generative-ai

    2023

  2. [2]

    Russell Group principles on the use of generative AI tools in education

    2023. Russell Group principles on the use of generative AI tools in education. 2023 (2023). https://russellgroup.ac.uk/media/6137/rg_ai_principles-final.pdf

    2023

  3. [3]

    Mark Abdelshiheed, John Wesley Hostetter, Preya Shabrina, Tiffany Barnes, and Min Chi. 2023. The Power of Nudging: Exploring Three Interventions for Metacognitive Skills Instruction across Intelligent Tutoring Systems. http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11965 arXiv:2303.11965 [cs]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Shryock, Kelly Brumbelow, and Karan L

    Sara Amani, Lance White, Trini Balart, Laksha Arora, Kristi J. Shryock, Kelly Brumbelow, and Karan L. Watson. 2023. Generative AI Perceptions: A Survey to Measure the Perceptions of Faculty, Staff, and Students on Generative AI Tools in Academia. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.14415 arXiv:2304.14415

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.14415 2023

  5. [6]

    Roger Azevedo, François Bouchet, Melissa Duffy, Jason Harley, Michelle Taub, Gregory Trevors, Elizabeth Cloude, Daryn Dever, Megan Wiedbusch, Franz Wortha, and Rebeca Cerezo. 2022. Lessons Learned and Future Directions of MetaTutor: Leveraging Multichannel Data to Scaffold Self-Regulated Learning With an Intelligent Tutoring System. Frontiers in Psycholog...

    arXiv 2022

  6. [7]

    Ryan Shaun Baker and Paul Salvador Inventado. 2014. Educational Data Mining and Learning Analytics. In Learning Analytics: From Research to Practice , Johann Ari Larusson and Brandon White (Eds.). Springer, New York, NY, 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3305-7_4

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3305-7_4 2014

  7. [8]

    Alex Barrett and Austin Pack. 2023. Not quite eye to A.I.: student and teacher perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence in the writing process. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 20, 1 (Nov. 2023), 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00427-0

    doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00427-0 2023

  8. [9]

    Gemma Bayliss. 2013. Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions. New Review of Academic Librarianship (Jan. 2013). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13614533.2012.740439 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group

    arXiv 2013

Show all 103 references
  1. [11]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (Jan. 2006), 77–101. https: //doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    2006 doi

  2. [12]

    Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Yi Zhang. 2023. Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments ...

    2023 doi arXiv

  3. [13]

    Zana Buçinca, Maja Barbara Malaya, and Krzysztof Z. Gajos. 2021. To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (April 2021), 1–21. https://doi.org/10...

    2021 doi

  4. [14]

    Glassman

    Alice Cai, Ian Arawjo, and Elena L. Glassman. 2024. Antagonistic AI. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.07350 arXiv:2402.07350 [cs] version: 1

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [15]

    Ana Raquel Carvalho and Carlos Santos. 2022. Developing peer mentors’ collaborative and metacognitive skills with a technology-enhanced peer learning program. Computers and Education Open 3 (Dec. 2022), 100070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100070

    2022

  6. [16]

    Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan. 2023. A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 20, 1 (July 2023), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3

    2023 doi

  7. [17]

    Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan and Wenjie Hu. 2023. Students’ Voices on Generative AI: Perceptions, Benefits, and Challenges in Higher Education. https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.00290 arXiv:2305.00290 [cs]

    2023 doi arXiv

  8. [18]

    Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan and Katherine K. W. Lee. 2023. The AI generation gap: Are Gen Z students more interested in adopting generative AI such as ChatGPT in teaching and learning than their Gen X and millennial generation teachers? Smart Learning Environments 10, 1 (Nov. 2023), 6...

    2023 doi

  9. [19]

    Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan and Louisa H. Y. Tsi. 2024. Will generative AI replace teachers in higher education? A study of teacher and student perceptions. Studies in Educational Evaluation 83 (Dec. 2024), 101395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101395

    2024

  10. [20]

    Reigeluth

    Jaesam Chung and Charles M. Reigeluth. 1992. Instructional Prescriptions for Learner Control. Educational Technology 32, 10 (1992), 14–20. https: //www.jstor.org/stable/44427631 Publisher: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.. Manuscript submitted to ACM 20 Simkute and Ke...

    1992

  11. [21]

    Czerkawski

    Betul C. Czerkawski. 2014. Designing deeper learning experiences for online instruction. Journal of Interactive Online Learning 13, 2 (2014), 29–40. http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84914156270&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    2014

  12. [22]

    Valdemar Danry, Pat Pataranutaporn, Yaoli Mao, and Pattie Maes. 2023. Don’t Just Tell Me, Ask Me: AI Systems that Intelligently Frame Explanations as Questions Improve Human Logical Discernment Accuracy over Causal AI explanations. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on ...

    2023

  13. [23]

    Fred D. Davis. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 3 (1989), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 Publisher: Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota

    1989 doi

  14. [24]

    Davis, Richard P

    Fred D. Davis, Richard P. Bagozzi, and Paul R. Warshaw. 1989. User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science 35, 8 (Aug. 1989), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 Publisher: INFORMS

    1989 doi

  15. [25]

    Duysal Demirbas and Sebnem Timur Ogut. 2020. Re-Designing the Design Brief as a Digital Learning Tool with Participatory Design Approach. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 21, 1 (Jan. 2020), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.690356

    2020 doi

  16. [26]

    Becker, and Brent N

    Paul Denny, Juho Leinonen, James Prather, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Thezyrie Amarouche, Brett A. Becker, and Brent N. Reeves. 2024. Prompt Problems: A New Programming Exercise for the Generative AI Era. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Educati...

    2024

  17. [27]

    Smith, Max Fowler, James Prather, Brett A

    Paul Denny, David H. Smith, Max Fowler, James Prather, Brett A. Becker, and Juho Leinonen. 2024. Explaining Code with a Purpose: An Integrated Approach for Developing Code Comprehension and Prompting Skills. InProceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Sc...

    2024

  18. [28]

    Digital Education Council. 2024. What Students Want: Key Results from DEC Global AI Student Survey 2024. https://www.digitaleducationcouncil.com/ post/what-students-want-key-results-from-dec-global-ai-student-survey-2024

    2024

  19. [29]

    Christian Dindler, Rachel Smith, and Ole Sejer Iversen. 2020. Computational empowerment: participatory design in education. CoDesign 16, 1 (Jan. 2020), 66–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2020.1722173 Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.20...

    2020

  20. [30]

    Ditta, Julia S

    Annie S. Ditta, Julia S. Soares, and Benjamin C. Storm. 2023. What happens to memory for lecture content when students take photos of the lecture slides? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 12, 3 (Sept. 2023), 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000069

    2023 doi

  21. [31]

    Stephen W. Draper. 2009. Catalytic assessment: understanding how MCQs and EVS can foster deep learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 40, 2 (2009), 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00920.x _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j....

    2009

  22. [32]

    It’s like a rubber duck that talks back

    Ian Drosos, Advait Sarkar, Xiaotong Xu, Carina Negreanu, Sean Rintel, and Lev Tankelevitch. 2024. "It’s like a rubber duck that talks back": Understanding Generative AI-Assisted Data Analysis Workflows through a Participatory Prompting Study. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual M...

    2024

  23. [33]

    Damian Okaibedi Eke. 2023. ChatGPT and the rise of generative AI: Threat to academic integrity? Journal of Responsible Technology 13 (April 2023), 100060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100060

    2023

  24. [34]

    Mansoor Fahim and Nima Shakouri Masouleh. 2012. Critical thinking in higher education: A pedagogical look. Theory & Practice in Language Studies (TPLS) 2, 7 (2012). http://academypublication.com/issues/past/tpls/vol02/07/tpls0207.pdf#page=56

    2012

  25. [35]

    Mehmet Firat. 2023. How Chat GPT Can Transform Autodidactic Experiences and Open Education? https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/9ge8m

    2023 doi

  26. [36]

    Katy Ilonka Gero, Tao Long, and Lydia B Chilton. 2023. Social Dynamics of AI Support in Creative Writing. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. https://doi.org/1...

    2023

  27. [37]

    Aashish Ghimire and John Edwards. 2024. Coding with AI: How Are Tools Like ChatGPT Being Used by Students in Foundational Programming Courses. In Artificial Intelligence in Education, Andrew M. Olney, Irene-Angelica Chounta, Zitao Liu, Olga C. Santos, and Ig Ibert Bittencourt ...

    2024 doi

  28. [38]

    Aashish Ghimire, James Prather, and John Edwards. 2024. Generative AI in Education: A Study of Educators’ Awareness, Sentiments, and Influencing Factors. http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.15586 arXiv:2403.15586 [cs]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [39]

    Anthony Giddens. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration . University of California Press. Google-Books-ID: x2bf4g9Z6ZwC

    1984

  30. [40]

    Trisha Greenhalgh and Rob Stones. 2010. Theorising Big IT Programmes in Healthcare: Strong Structuration Theory Meets Actor-Network Theory. Social science & medicine (1982) 70 (Feb. 2010), 1285–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.12.034

    1982 doi

  31. [41]

    Trisha Greenhalgh, Shanti Vijayaraghavan, Joe Wherton, Sara Shaw, Emma Byrne, Desirée Campbell-Richards, Satya Bhattacharya, Philippa Hanson, Seendy Ramoutar, Charles Gutteridge, Isabel Hodkinson, Anna Collard, and Joanne Morris. 2016. Virtual online consultations: advantages ...

    2016 doi

  32. [42]

    Kwon, Ahmed Hosny Saleh Metwally, Ahmed Tlili, Simone Bassanelli, Antonio Bucchiarone, Sujit Gujar, Lennart E

    Reza Hadi Mogavi, Chao Deng, Justin Juho Kim, Pengyuan Zhou, Young D. Kwon, Ahmed Hosny Saleh Metwally, Ahmed Tlili, Simone Bassanelli, Antonio Bucchiarone, Sujit Gujar, Lennart E. Nacke, and Pan Hui. 2024. ChatGPT in education: A blessing or a curse? A qualitative study explo...

    2024

  33. [43]

    Ariel Han, Xiaofei Zhou, Zhenyao Cai, Shenshen Han, Richard Ko, Seth Corrigan, and Kylie A Peppler. 2024. Teachers, Parents, and Students’ perspectives on Integrating Generative AI into Elementary Literacy Education. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com...

    2024

  34. [44]

    Hasanein and Abu Elnasr E

    Ahmed M. Hasanein and Abu Elnasr E. Sobaih. 2023. Drivers and Consequences of ChatGPT Use in Higher Education: Key Stakeholder Perspectives. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 13, 11 (Nov. 2023), 2599–2614. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13110...

    2023 doi

  35. [45]

    Arto Hellas, Juho Leinonen, and Leo Leppänen. 2024. Experiences from Integrating Large Language Model Chatbots into the Classroom. https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.04817 arXiv:2406.04817

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [46]

    Anna Holland and Constantin Ciachir. 2024. A qualitative study of students’ lived experience and perceptions of using ChatGPT: immediacy, equity and integrity. Interactive Learning Environments (May 2024). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10494820.2024.2350655 Publi...

    2024

  37. [48]

    Jorge Jinchuña Huallpa and Et Al. 2023. Exploring the ethical considerations of using Chat GPT in university education. Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences 11, 4 (Aug. 2023), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.21533/pen.v11i4.3770 Number: 4

    2023 doi

  38. [49]

    Wells, Elizabeth M

    Heather Johnston, Rebecca F. Wells, Elizabeth M. Shanks, Timothy Boey, and Bryony N. Parsons. 2024. Student perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence technologies in higher education. International Journal for Educational Integrity 20, 1 (Feb. 2024), 2. htt...

    2024 doi

  39. [50]

    Irina Jurenka, Markus Kunesch, Kevin McKee, Daniel Gillick, Shaojian Zhu, Sara Wiltberger, Shubham Milind Phal, Katherine Hermann, Daniel Kasenberg, Avishkar Bhoopchand, Ankit Anand, Miruna Pîslar, Stephanie Chan, Lisa Wang, Jennifer She, Parsa Mahmoudieh, Aliya Rysbek, Andrea...

  40. [51]

    Ericson, David Weintrop, and Tovi Grossman

    Majeed Kazemitabaar, Justin Chow, Carl Ka To Ma, Barbara J. Ericson, David Weintrop, and Tovi Grossman. 2023. Studying the effect of AI Code Generators on Supporting Novice Learners in Introductory Programming. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comp...

    2023

  41. [52]

    Ericson, David Weintrop, and Tovi Grossman

    Majeed Kazemitabaar, Xinying Hou, Austin Henley, Barbara J. Ericson, David Weintrop, and Tovi Grossman. 2023. How Novices Use LLM-Based Code Generators to Solve CS1 Coding Tasks in a Self-Paced Learning Environment. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.14049 arXiv:2309.14049 [cs]

    2023 doi arXiv

  42. [53]

    Henley, and Tovi Grossman

    Majeed Kazemitabaar, Oliver Huang, Sangho Suh, Austin Z. Henley, and Tovi Grossman. 2024. Exploring the Design Space of Cognitive Engagement Techniques with AI-Generated Code for Enhanced Learning. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.08922 arXiv:2410.08922

    2024 doi arXiv

  43. [54]

    Majeed Kazemitabaar, Jack Williams, Ian Drosos, Tovi Grossman, Austin Henley, Carina Negreanu, and Advait Sarkar. 2024. Improving Steering and Verification in AI-Assisted Data Analysis with Interactive Task Decomposition. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/im...

    2024

  44. [56]

    Ahmed Kharrufa and Ian Johnson. 2024. The Potential and Implications of Generative AI on HCI Education. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual Symposium on HCI Education (EduCHI ’24) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3658619.3658627

    2024

  45. [57]

    Caleb Kicklighter, Jinsil Hwaryoung Seo, Mayet Andreassen, and Emily Bujnoch. 2024. Empowering Creativity with Generative AI in Digital Art Education. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Educator’s Forum (SIGGRAPH ’24) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–2. https://do...

    2024

  46. [58]

    Koedinger, Emma Brunskill, Ryan S

    Kenneth R. Koedinger, Emma Brunskill, Ryan S. J. d. Baker, Elizabeth A. McLaughlin, and John Stamper. 2013. New Potentials for Data-Driven Intelligent Tutoring System Development and Optimization. AI Magazine 34, 3 (2013), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v34i3.2484 _eprin...

    2013 doi

  47. [59]

    Chokri Kooli. 2023. Chatbots in Education and Research: A Critical Examination of Ethical Implications and Solutions. Sustainability 15, 7 (Jan. 2023), 5614. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075614 Number: 7 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

    2023 doi

  48. [60]

    Ann-Kathrin Kubullek, Nadire Kumaç, and Aysegül Dogangün. 2024. Understanding the Adoption of ChatGPT in Higher Education: A Comparative Study with Insights from STEM and Business Students. In Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2024 (MuC ’24) . Association for Computing Machin...

    2024

  49. [61]

    Kulik and J

    James A. Kulik and J. D. Fletcher. 2016. Effectiveness of Intelligent Tutoring Systems: A Meta-Analytic Review. Review of Educational Research 86, 1 (March 2016), 42–78. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315581420 Publisher: American Educational Research Association

    2016 doi

  50. [62]

    Harsh Kumar, Ilya Musabirov, Mohi Reza, Jiakai Shi, Xinyuan Wang, Joseph Jay Williams, Anastasia Kuzminykh, and Michael Liut. 2024. Guiding Students in Using LLMs in Supported Learning Environments: Effects on Interaction Dynamics, Learner Performance, Confidence, and Trust. P...

    2024 doi

  51. [63]

    Rothschild, Daniel G

    Harsh Kumar, David M. Rothschild, Daniel G. Goldstein, and Jake M. Hofman. 2023. Math Education with Large Language Models: Peril or Promise? https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4641653

    2023 doi

  52. [64]

    Harsh Kumar, Ruiwei Xiao, Benjamin Lawson, Ilya Musabirov, Jiakai Shi, Xinyuan Wang, Huayin Luo, Joseph Jay Williams, Anna Rafferty, John Stamper, and Michael Liut. 2024. Supporting Self-Reflection at Scale with Large Language Models: Insights from Randomized Field Experiments...

    2024 doi arXiv

  53. [65]

    Duong Hoai Lan and Tran Minh Tung. 2023. Analyzing the Impact of Chat-GPT Usage by University Students in Vietnam. Migration Letters 20, S10 (Nov. 2023), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.59670/ml.v20iS10.5134 Number: S10

    2023 doi

  54. [66]

    Lee, Jean Daunizeau, and Giovanni Pezzulo

    Douglas G. Lee, Jean Daunizeau, and Giovanni Pezzulo. 2023. Evidence or Confidence: What Is Really Monitored during a Decision? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (March 2023). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02255-9

    2023 doi

  55. [67]

    Soohwan Lee, Seoyeong Hwang, and Kyungho Lee. 2024. Conversational Agents as Catalysts for Critical Thinking: Challenging Design Fixation in Group Design. http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11125 arXiv:2406.11125

    2024 arXiv

  56. [68]

    Mark Liffiton, Brad E Sheese, Jaromir Savelka, and Paul Denny. 2023. CodeHelp: Using Large Language Models with Guardrails for Scalable Support in Programming Classes. In Proceedings of the 23rd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research . ACM, Koli ...

    2023

  57. [69]

    J Lowyck and J Pöysä. 2001. Design of collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior 17, 5 (Sept. 2001), 507–516. https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00017-6

    2001 doi

  58. [71]

    Margulieux, James Prather, Brent N

    Lauren E. Margulieux, James Prather, Brent N. Reeves, Brett A. Becker, Gozde Cetin Uzun, Dastyni Loksa, Juho Leinonen, and Paul Denny. 2024. Self- Regulation, Self-Efficacy, and Fear of Failure Interactions with How Novices Use LLMs to Solve Programming Problems. In Proceeding...

    2024

  59. [72]

    Amado-Salvatierra, and Rocael Hernandez-Rizzardini

    Miguel Morales-Chan, Hector R. Amado-Salvatierra, and Rocael Hernandez-Rizzardini. 2024. AI-Driven Content Creation: Revolutionizing Educational Materials. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S ’24) . Association for Computing Machinery, New Yo...

    2024

  60. [73]

    I just Wikipedia it

    M. Whitney Olsen and Anne R. Diekema. 2012. “I just Wikipedia it”: Information behavior of first-year writing students. Proceed- ings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 49, 1 (2012), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504901176 _eprint: https://on...

    2012 doi

  61. [74]

    Hyanghee Park and Daehwan Ahn. 2024. The Promise and Peril of ChatGPT in Higher Education: Opportunities, Challenges, and Design Implications. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, ...

    2024

  62. [75]

    Samir Passi, Shipi Dhanorkar, and Mihaela Vorvoreanu. 2024. Appropriate Reliance on Generative AI: Research Synthesis . Microsoft Technical Report MSR-TR-2024-7. Microsoft. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/uploads/prodnew/2024/03/GenAI_AppropriateReliance_Published2024...

    2024

  63. [76]

    Samir Passi and Mihaela Vorvoreanu. 2022. Overreliance on AI: Literature Review . Microsoft Technical Report MSR-TR-2022-12. Microsoft. https: //www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/overreliance-on-ai-literature-review/

    2022

  64. [77]

    Olga Petrovska, Lee Clift, Faron Moller, and Rebecca Pearsall. 2024. Incorporating Generative AI into Software Development Education. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Computing Education Practice (CEP ’24) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 37–40....

    2024

  65. [78]

    Becker, Ibrahim Albluwi, Michelle Craig, Hieke Keuning, Natalie Kiesler, Tobias Kohn, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Stephen MacNeil, Andrew Petersen, Raymond Pettit, Brent N

    James Prather, Paul Denny, Juho Leinonen, Brett A. Becker, Ibrahim Albluwi, Michelle Craig, Hieke Keuning, Natalie Kiesler, Tobias Kohn, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Stephen MacNeil, Andrew Petersen, Raymond Pettit, Brent N. Reeves, and Jaromir Savelka. 2023. The Robots Are Here: Nav...

    2023

  66. [79]

    It’s Weird That it Knows What I Want

    James Prather, Brent N. Reeves, Paul Denny, Brett A. Becker, Juho Leinonen, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Garrett Powell, James Finnie-Ansley, and Eddie Antonio Santos. 2023. "It’s Weird That it Knows What I Want": Usability and Interactions with Copilot for Novice Programmers. https:...

    2023 doi arXiv

  67. [80]

    Becker, Bailey Kimmel, Jared Wright, and Ben Briggs

    James Prather, Brent N Reeves, Juho Leinonen, Stephen MacNeil, Arisoa S Randrianasolo, Brett A. Becker, Bailey Kimmel, Jared Wright, and Ben Briggs. 2024. The Widening Gap: The Benefits and Harms of Generative AI for Novice Programmers. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference...

    2024

  68. [81]

    Shushanta Pudasaini, Luis Miralles-Pechuán, David Lillis, and Marisa Llorens Salvador. 2024. Survey on Plagiarism Detection in Large Language Models: The Impact of ChatGPT and Gemini on Academic Integrity. http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.13105 arXiv:2407.13105 [cs]

    2024 arXiv

  69. [82]

    Md Mehadi Rahman. 2019. 21st Century Skill ’Problem Solving’: Defining the Concept. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3660729

    2019

  70. [83]

    Parsa Rajabi, Parnian Taghipour, Diana Cukierman, and Tenzin Doleck. 2023. Exploring ChatGPT’s impact on post-secondary education: A qualitative study. In Proceedings of the 25th Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education (WCCCE ’23) . Association for Computing Machine...

    2023

  71. [84]

    Justin Reich. 2020. Failure to Disrupt: Why Technology Alone Can’t Transform Education . Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv322v4cp

    2020 doi

  72. [85]

    Justin Reich and Tom Daccord. 2015. Best Ideas for Teaching with Technology: A Practical Guide for Teachers, by Teachers . Routledge, New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315706160

    2015 doi

  73. [86]

    B Rihoux and C Ragin. 2009. Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques . SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226569

    2009 doi

  74. [87]

    Everett M. Rogers. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition . Simon and Schuster. Google-Books-ID: 9U1K5LjUOwEC

    2003

  75. [88]

    Suzanne Sackstein, Machdel Matthee, and Lizette Weilbach. 2023. Theories and Models Employed to Understand the Use of Technology in Education: A Hermeneutic Literature Review. Education and Information Technologies 28, 5 (May 2023), 5041–5081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-02...

    2023 doi

  76. [89]

    Suzanne Lee Sackstein. 2021. Understanding Teachers’ Beliefs, Professional Dispositions, Orientation towards Technology and Technology Use in South African Secondary Schools: A Longitudinal Micro-, Meso- and Meta-Theory Perspective . Thesis. University of Pretoria. https://rep...

    2021

  77. [90]

    Advait Sarkar. 2024. AI Should Challenge, Not Obey. Commun. ACM (2024)

    2024

  78. [91]

    Judy Sheard, Paul Denny, Arto Hellas, Juho Leinonen, Lauri Malmi, and Simon. 2024. Instructor Perceptions of AI Code Generation Tools - A Multi- Institutional Interview Study. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 . ACM, Portland...

    2024

  79. [92]

    Brad Sheese, Mark Liffiton, Jaromir Savelka, and Paul Denny. 2024. Patterns of Student Help-Seeking When Using a Large Language Model-Powered Programming Assistant. In Proceedings of the 26th Australasian Computing Education Conference . ACM, Sydney NSW Australia, 49–57. https...

    2024

  80. [93]

    Abdulhadi Shoufan. 2023. Exploring Students’ Perceptions of ChatGPT: Thematic Analysis and Follow-Up Survey. IEEE Access 11 (2023), 38805–38818. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3268224 Conference Name: IEEE Access

    2023

  81. [94]

    Harpreet Singh, Mohammad-Hassan Tayarani-Najaran, and Muhammad Yaqoob. 2023. Exploring Computer Science Students’ Perception of ChatGPT in Higher Education: A Descriptive and Correlation Study. Education Sciences 13, 9 (Sept. 2023), 924. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090924...

    2023 doi

  82. [95]

    Pragya Singh, Nidhi Phutela, Priya Grover, Deepti Sinha, and Sachin Sinha. 2023. Student’s Perception of Chat GPT. In 2023 International Conference on Electrical, Communication and Computer Engineering (ICECCE) . 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICECCE61019.2023.10442033

    2023

  83. [96]

    Skitka, Kathleen L

    Linda J. Skitka, Kathleen L. Mosier, Mark Burdick, and Bonnie Rosenblatt. 2000. Automation Bias and Errors: Are Crews Better Than Individuals? The International Journal of A viation Psychology 10, 1 (Jan. 2000), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327108IJAP1001_5 Publisher: Tay...

    2000 doi

  84. [97]

    Kizilcec

    Adele Smolansky, Andrew Cram, Corina Raduescu, Sandris Zeivots, Elaine Huber, and Rene F. Kizilcec. 2023. Educator and Student Perspectives on the Impact of Generative AI on Assessments in Higher Education. In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S ’2...

    2023

  85. [98]

    Irene Stone. 2024. Exploring Human-Centered Approaches in Generative AI and Introductory Programming Research: A Scoping Review. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on United Kingdom & Ireland Computing Education Research . ACM, Manchester United Kingdom, 1–7. https://doi.or...

    2024 doi

  86. [99]

    Rob Stones. 2005. Structuration Theory. Palgrave-Macmillan

    2005

  87. [100]

    Mei Tan and Hari Subramonyam. 2024. More than Model Documentation: Uncovering Teachers’ Bespoke Information Needs for Informed Classroom Integration of ChatGPT. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24) . Association for Computin...

    2024

  88. [101]

    Lev Tankelevitch, Viktor Kewenig, Auste Simkute, Ava Elizabeth Scott, Advait Sarkar, Abigail Sellen, and Sean Rintel. 2024. The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24) . Asso...

    2024

  89. [102]

    David R. Thomas. 2006. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation 27, 2 (2006), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748 Place: US Publisher: Sage Publications

    2006 doi

  90. [103]

    Hickey, Ronghuai Huang, and Brighter Agyemang

    Ahmed Tlili, Boulus Shehata, Michael Agyemang Adarkwah, Aras Bozkurt, Daniel T. Hickey, Ronghuai Huang, and Brighter Agyemang. 2023. What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments 10, 1 (Feb. 2023), 1...

    2023 doi

  91. [104]

    Jordan Usdan, Allison Connell Pensky, and Harley Chang. 2024. Generative AI’s Impact on Graduate Student Writing Productivity and Quality. https: //papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4941022

    2024

  92. [105]

    Kurt VanLehn. 2011. The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist 46, 4 (2011), 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.611369 Place: United Kingdom Publisher: Taylor & Francis

    2011

  93. [106]

    Wang, Ana T

    Rose E. Wang, Ana T. Ribeiro, Carly D. Robinson, Susanna Loeb, and Dora Demszky. 2024. Tutor CoPilot: A Human-AI Approach for Scaling Real-Time Expertise. http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.03017 arXiv:2410.03017

    2024 arXiv

  94. [107]

    Winne and John C

    Philip H. Winne and John C. Nesbit. 2010. The psychology of academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology 61 (2010), 653–678. https://doi.org/10. 1146/annurev.psych.093008.100348 Place: US Publisher: Annual Reviews

    2010

  95. [108]

    unspoken rules

    Cynthia Zastudil, Magdalena Rogalska, Christine Kapp, Jennifer Vaughn, and Stephen MacNeil. 2023. Generative AI in Computing Education: Perspectives of Students and Instructors. In 2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) . 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE58773.2023.1...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.