Organizations: Florida State University, Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems, Tallahassee, FL, USA · University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Science, Charlotte, NC, USA · University of Southern Denmark, The Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller Institute, Odense, Denmark
GenAI has a potential to enhance the learning and teaching processes in engineering education. For instance, GenAI feedback on students' task performance can be effective depending on when such feedback is provided. However, little is known about how engineering faculty and instructors discover such potential within the scope of their instruction when they try out the technology for the first time. To this end, this study purported to describe an engineering instructor's and seven teaching assistants' initial experiences of integrating GenAI into their undergraduate engineering course and the corresponding changes in students' formative exercise performance. An embedded descriptive single case study design was employed. The corresponding research data included four interviews conducted at the beginning, middle and end of an academic semester, and students' formative exercise performance. Overall, after GenAI integration, students' formative exercise performance increased, and a critical and reflective practice of learning about how to integrate GenAI into instruction provided informative insights. Still, technology integration stayed at the level of replacing other instructional methods or increasing the efficiency of solving coding problems. It turned out to be exciting and surprising for students to be able to use GenAI in course work even though their use of the technology weakened over time. Our findings suggest that engineering teaching staff's initial experimental experiences with GenAI integration can be informative and provide context-specific practical insights. Therefore, it is reasonable for higher education institutions to encourage such experiences especially when there is a lot of unknown regarding an emerging technology.
Timely and specific feedback is one of the strongest influences on student learning, yet it is difficult to sustain in large electrical engineering classes where the ratio of students to demonstrators is high and a learner who is stuck may wait days to find out why an approach was wrong. Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) offers a way to scale conversational feedback, but using it to grade assessed work raises trust and accountability concerns, and keeping a human in the loop to assure its judgements reintroduces the very delay that erodes the value of feedback. The result is a tension between the immediacy that makes feedback so impactful and the human oversight that makes it trustworthy. In this work, we set out to resolve that tension in practice by designing and piloting a GenAI practice platform that delivers immediate, scaffolded feedback during self-directed practice. This relocates human oversight from real-time grading to the upfront verification of solutions. Our goal was to understand how students engaged with the tool, how they perceived the value and reliability of its feedback, and what lessons transfer to other engineering subjects.
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools are increasingly present in higher education, yet their adoption has been largely student-driven, requiring instructors to respond to technologies already embedded in classroom practices. While some faculty have embraced GenAI for pedagogical purposes such as content generation, assessment support, and curriculum design, others approach these tools with caution, citing concerns about student learning, assessment validity, and academic integrity. Understanding faculty perspectives is therefore essential for informing effective pedagogical strategies and institutional policies. In this paper, we present findings from a focus group study with 29 STEM faculty members at a large public university in the United States. We examine how faculty integrate GenAI into their courses, the benefits and challenges they perceive for student learning, and the institutional support they identify as necessary for effective and responsible adoption. Our findings highlight key patterns in how STEM faculty engage with GenAI, reflecting both active adoption and cautious use. Faculty described a range of pedagogical applications alongside concerns about student learning, assessment, and academic integrity. Overall, the results suggest that effective integration of GenAI in higher education requires rethinking assessment, pedagogy, and institutional governance in addition to technical adoption.
Akila de Silva, Isabel Hyo Jung Song, Hui Yang +1
Department of Computer Science, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Ave, San Francisco, CA 94132 USA
Despite universal GenAI adoption, students cannot distinguish task performance from actual learning and lack skills to leverage AI for learning, leading to worse exam performance when AI use remains unreflective. Yet few interventions teaching students to prompt AI as a tutor rather than solution provider have been validated at scale through randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To bridge this gap, we conducted a semester-long RCT (N=979) with four ICAP framework-based instructional conditions varying in engagement intensity with a pre-test, immediate and delayed post-test and surveys. Mixed methods analysis results showed: (1) All conditions significantly improved prompting skills, with gains increasing progressively from Condition 1 to Condition 4, validating ICAP's cognitive engagement hierarchy; (2) for students with similar pre-test scores, higher learning gain in immediate post-test predict higher final exam score, though no direct between-group differences emerged; (3) Our interventions are suitable and scalable solutions for diverse educational contexts, resources and learners. Together, this study makes empirical and theoretical contributions: (1) theoretically, we provided one of the first large-scale RCTs examining how cognitive engagement shapes learning in prompting literacy and clarifying the relationship between learning-oriented prompting skills and broader academic performance; (2) empirically, we offered timely design guidance for transforming GenAI classroom policies into scalable, actionable prompting literacy instruction to advance learning in the era of Generative AI.
Ruiwei Xiao, Runlong Ye, Xinying Hou +4
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, United States · University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada · University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States +1