AI in Education

Teachers face increasing demands on their time, particularly in adapting mathematics curricula to meet individual student needs while maintaining cognitive rigor. This study evaluates whether AI tools can accurately classify the cognitive demand of mathematical tasks, which is important for creating or adapting tasks that support student learning. We tested eleven AI tools: six general-purpose (ChatGPT, Claude, DeepSeek, Gemini, Grok, Perplexity) and five education-specific (Brisk, Coteach AI, Khanmigo, Magic School, School$.$AI), on their ability to categorize mathematics tasks across four levels of cognitive demand using a research-based framework. The goal was to approximate the performance teachers will achieve with straightforward prompts. On average, AI tools accurately classified cognitive demand in only 63% of cases. Education-specific tools were not more accurate than general-purpose tools, and no tool exceeded 83% accuracy. All tools struggled with tasks at the extremes of cognitive demand (Memorization and Doing Mathematics), exhibiting a systematic bias toward middle-category levels (Procedures with/without Connections). The tools often gave plausible-sounding explanations likely to be persuasive to novice teachers. Error analysis of AI tools' misclassification of the broad level of cognitive demand (high vs. low) revealed that tools consistently overweighted surface textual features over underlying cognitive processes. Further, AI tools showed weaknesses in reasoning about factors that make tasks higher vs. lower cognitive demand. Errors stemmed not from ignoring relevant dimensions, but from incorrectly reasoning about multiple task aspects. These findings carry implications for AI integration into teacher planning workflows and highlight the need for improved prompt engineering and tool development for educational applications.

Predicting future student responses to questions is particularly valuable for educational learning platforms where it enables effective interventions. One of the key approaches to do this has been through the use of knowledge tracing (KT) models. These are small, domain-specific, temporal models trained on student question-response data. KT models are optimised for high accuracy on specific educational domains and have fast inference and scalable deployments. The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) motivates us to ask the following questions: (1) How well can LLMs perform at predicting students' future responses to questions? (2) Are LLMs scalable for this domain? (3) How do LLMs compare to KT models on this domain-specific task? In this paper, we compare multiple LLMs and KT models across predictive performance, deployment cost, and inference speed to answer the above questions. We show that KT models outperform LLMs with respect to accuracy and F1 scores on this domain-specific task. Further, we demonstrate that LLMs are orders of magnitude slower than KT models and cost orders of magnitude more to deploy. This highlights the importance of domain-specific models for education prediction tasks and the fact that current closed source LLMs should not be used as a universal solution for all tasks.

AI-based chatbots have the potential to accelerate learning and teaching, but may also have counterproductive consequences without thoughtful design and scaffolding. To better understand teachers' perspectives on large language model (LLM)-based chatbots, we conducted a study with 11 teams of middle school teachers using chatbots for a science and computational thinking activity within a block-based programming environment. Based on a qualitative analysis of audio transcripts and chatbot interactions, we propose three profiles: explorer, frustrated, and mixed, that reflect diverse scaffolding needs. In their discussions, we found that teachers perceived chatbot benefits such as building prompting skills and self-confidence alongside risks including potential declines in learning and critical thinking. Key design recommendations include scaffolding the introduction to chatbots, facilitating teacher control of chatbot features, and suggesting when and how chatbots should be used. Our contribution informs the design of chatbots to support teachers and learners in middle school coding activities.

Newcomer children face barriers in acquiring the host country's language and literacy programs are often constrained by limited staffing, mixed-proficiency cohorts, and short contact time. While Socially Assistive Robots (SARs) show promise in education, their use in these socio-emotionally sensitive settings remains underexplored. This research presents a co-design study with program tutors and coordinators, to explore the design space for a social robot, Maple. We contribute (1) a domain summary outlining four recurring challenges, (2) a discussion on cultural orientation and community belonging with robots, (3) an expert-grounded discussion of the perceived role of an SAR in cultural and language learning, and (4) preliminary design guidelines for integrating an SAR into a classroom. These expert-grounded insights lay the foundation for iterative design and evaluation with newcomer children and their families.

Effective mathematics education requires identifying and responding to students' mistakes. For AI to support pedagogical applications, models must perform well across different levels of student proficiency. Our work provides an extensive, year-long snapshot of how 11 vision-language models (VLMs) perform on DrawEduMath, a QA benchmark involving real students' handwritten, hand-drawn responses to math problems. We find that models' weaknesses concentrate on a core component of math education: student error. All evaluated VLMs underperform when describing work from students who require more pedagogical help, and across all QA, they struggle the most on questions related to assessing student error. Thus, while VLMs may be optimized to be math problem solving experts, our results suggest that they require alternative development incentives to adequately support educational use cases.

LLMs increasingly excel on AI benchmarks, but doing so does not guarantee validity for downstream tasks. This study contrasts LLM alignment on benchmarks, downstream tasks, and, importantly the intended impact of those tasks. We evaluate the performance of leading LLMs (i.e., generative pre-trained base models) on difficult-to-verify tasks of the teaching and learning of schoolchildren. Across all LLMs, inter-model behaviors on disparate tasks correlate higher than they do with expert human behaviors on target tasks. These biases shared across LLMs are poorly aligned with downstream measures of teaching quality and often negatively aligned with the intended impact of student learning outcomes. Further, we find multi-model ensembles, both unanimous model voting and expert-weighting by benchmark performance, further exacerbate misalignment with learning. We measure that selection of LLM and/or prompting strategy only reliably accounts for $15\%$ of all measured misalignment error and that variation in misalignment error is shared across LLMs, suggesting that common pretraining accounts for much of the misalignment in these tasks. We demonstrate methods for robustly measuring alignment of complex tasks and provide unique insights into practical applications of LLMs in high-noise contexts.

This paper presents the first systematic measurement of educational alignment in Large Language Models. Using a Delphi-validated instrument comprising 48 items across eight educational-theoretical dimensions, the study reveals that GPT-5.1 exhibits highly coherent preference patterns (99.78% transitivity; 92.79% model accuracy) that largely align with humanistic educational principles where expert consensus exists. Crucially, divergences from expert opinion occur precisely in domains of normative disagreement among human experts themselves, particularly emotional dimensions and epistemic normativity. This raises a fundamental question for alignment research: When human values are contested, what should models be aligned to? The findings demonstrate that GPT-5.1 does not remain neutral in contested domains but adopts coherent positions, prioritizing emotional responsiveness and rejecting false balance. The methodology, combining Delphi consensus-building with Structured Preference Elicitation and Thurstonian Utility modeling, provides a replicable framework for domain-specific alignment evaluation beyond generic value benchmarks.

Automated assessment of open-ended student responses is a critical capability for scaling personalized feedback in education. While large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in grading tasks via in-context learning (ICL), their reliability is heavily dependent on the selection of few-shot exemplars and the construction of high-quality rationales. Standard retrieval methods typically select examples based on semantic similarity, which often fails to capture subtle decision boundaries required for rubric adherence. Furthermore, manually crafting the expert rationales needed to guide these models can be a significant bottleneck. To address these limitations, we introduce GUIDE (Grading Using Iteratively Designed Exemplars), a framework that reframes exemplar selection and refinement in automated grading as a boundary-focused optimization problem. GUIDE operates on a continuous loop of selection and refinement, employing novel contrastive operators to identify "boundary pairs" that are semantically similar but possess different grades. We enhance exemplars by generating discriminative rationales that explicitly articulate why a response receives a specific score to the exclusion of adjacent grades. Extensive experiments across datasets in physics, chemistry, and pedagogical content knowledge demonstrate that GUIDE significantly outperforms standard retrieval baselines. By focusing the model's attention on the precise edges of rubric, our approach shows exceptionally robust gains on borderline cases and improved rubric adherence. GUIDE paves the way for trusted, scalable assessment systems that align closely with human pedagogical standards.

Reinforcement Learning (RL) and Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) have advanced rapidly in recent years and have been successfully applied to e-learning environments like intelligent tutoring systems (ITSs). Despite great success, the broader application of DRL to educational technologies has been limited due to major challenges such as sample inefficiency and difficulty designing the reward function. In contrast, Apprenticeship Learning (AL) uses a few expert demonstrations to infer the expert's underlying reward functions and derive decision-making policies that generalize and replicate optimal behavior. In this work, we leverage a generalized AL framework, THEMES, to induce effective pedagogical policies by capturing the complexities of the expert student learning process, where multiple reward functions may dynamically evolve over time. We evaluate the effectiveness of THEMES against six state-of-the-art baselines, demonstrating its superior performance and highlighting its potential as a powerful alternative for inducing effective pedagogical policies and show that it can achieve high performance, with an AUC of 0.899 and a Jaccard of 0.653, using only 18 trajectories of a previous semester to predict student pedagogical decisions in a later semester.

Dialogue systems have long supported learner reflections, with theoretically grounded, rule-based designs offering structured scaffolding but often struggling to respond to shifts in engagement. Large Language Models (LLMs), in contrast, can generate context-sensitive responses but are not informed by decades of research on how learning interactions should be structured, raising questions about their alignment with pedagogical theories. This paper presents a hybrid dialogue system that embeds LLM responsiveness within a theory-aligned, rule-based framework to support learner reflections in a culturally responsive robotics summer camp. The rule-based structure grounds dialogue in self-regulated learning theory, while the LLM decides when and how to prompt deeper reflections, responding to evolving conversation context. We analyze themes across dialogues to explore how our hybrid system shaped learner reflections. Our findings indicate that LLM-embedded dialogues supported richer learner reflections on goals and activities, but also introduced challenges due to repetitiveness and misalignment in prompts, reducing engagement.

There are growing promises that Large Language Models (LLMs) can support students' learning by providing explanations, feedback, and guidance. However, despite their rapid adoption and widespread attention, there is still limited empirical evidence regarding the pedagogical skills of LLMs. This article presents a comparative study of popular LLMs, namely, ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Gemini, acting as teaching agents. An evaluation protocol was developed, focusing on three pedagogical strategies: Examples, Explanations and Analogies, and the Socratic Method. Six human judges conducted the evaluations in the context of teaching the C programming language to beginners. The results indicate that LLM models exhibited similar interaction patterns in the pedagogical strategies of Examples and Explanations and Analogies. In contrast, for the Socratic Method, the models showed greater sensitivity to the pedagogical strategy and the initial prompt. Overall, ChatGPT and Gemini received higher scores, whereas DeepSeek obtained lower scores across the criteria, indicating differences in pedagogical performance across models.

The democratization of Large Language Models has given rise to vibe coding, where novice programmers prioritize semantic intent over syntactic implementation. Without pedagogical guardrails, we argue this is fundamentally misaligned with cognitive skill acquisition. Drawing on Kirschner's distinction between cognitive offloading and outsourcing, unrestricted AI encourages novices to outsource the intrinsic cognitive load required for schema formation rather than merely offloading extraneous load. This accumulation of epistemic debt creates fragile experts: developers whose high functional utility masks critically low corrective competence. To quantify and mitigate this debt, we conducted a between-subjects experiment (N=78) using a custom Cursor IDE plugin backed by Claude 3.5 Sonnet. Participants were recruited via Prolific and UserInterviews.com to represent AI-native learners. We compared three conditions: manual (control), unrestricted AI (outsourcing), and scaffolded AI (offloading). The scaffolded condition employed a novel Explanation Gate -- a real-time LLM-as-a-Judge framework enforcing a teach-back protocol before generated code could be integrated. Results reveal a collapse of competence: both AI groups significantly outperformed the manual control on functional utility (p < .001) and did not differ from each other (p = .64), yet unrestricted AI users suffered a 77% failure rate on a subsequent 30-minute AI-blackout maintenance task, vs. only 39% in the scaffolded group. Qualitative analysis suggests successful vibe coders naturally self-scaffold, treating AI as a consultant rather than a contractor. We discuss implications for AI-generated software maintainability and propose that future learning systems must enforce metacognitive friction to prevent mass production of unmaintainable code. Replication package: https://github.com/sreecharansankaranarayanan/vibecheck

We evaluate GPTutor, an LLM-powered tutoring system for an undergraduate discrete mathematics course. It integrates two LLM-supported tools: a structured proof-review tool that provides embedded feedback on students' written proof attempts, and a chatbot for math questions. In a staggered-access study with 148 students, earlier access was associated with higher homework performance during the interval when only the experimental group could use the system, while we did not observe this performance increase transfer to exam scores. Usage logs show that students with lower self-efficacy and prior exam performance used both components more frequently. Session-level behavioral labels, produced by human coding and scaled using an automated classifier, characterize how students engaged with the chatbot (e.g., answer-seeking or help-seeking). In models controlling for prior performance and self-efficacy, higher chatbot usage and answer-seeking behavior were negatively associated with subsequent midterm performance, whereas proof-review usage showed no detectable independent association. Together, the findings suggest that chatbot-based support alone may not reliably support transfer to independent assessment of math proof-learning outcomes, whereas work-anchored, structured feedback appears less associated with reduced learning.

Capture-the-Flag (CTF) competitions serve as gateways into offensive cybersecurity, yet they often present steep barriers for novices due to complex toolchains and opaque workflows. Recently, agentic AI frameworks for cybersecurity promise to lower these barriers by automating and coordinating penetration testing tasks. However, their role in shaping novice learning remains underexplored. We present a human-centered, mixed-methods case study examining how agentic AI frameworks -- here Cybersecurity AI (CAI) -- mediates novice entry into CTF-based penetration testing. An undergraduate student without prior hacking experience attempted to approach performance benchmarks from a national cybersecurity challenge using CAI. Quantitative performance metrics were complemented by structured reflective analysis of learning progression and AI interaction patterns. Our thematic analysis suggest that agentic AI reduces initial entry barriers by providing overview, structure and guidance, thereby lowering the cognitive workload during early engagement. Quantitatively, the observed extensive exploration of strategies and low per-strategy execution time potetially facilitatates cybersecurity training on meta, i.e. strategic levels. At the same time, AI-assisted cybersecurity education introduces new challenges related to trust, dependency, and responsible use. We discuss implications for human-centered AI-supported cybersecurity education and outline open questions for future research.

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) necessitates evaluation frameworks that reflect real-world academic rigor and multilingual complexity. This paper introduces IndicEval, a scalable benchmarking platform designed to assess LLM performance using authentic high-stakes examination questions from UPSC, JEE, and NEET across STEM and humanities domains in both English and Hindi. Unlike synthetic benchmarks, IndicEval grounds evaluation in real examination standards, enabling realistic measurement of reasoning, domain knowledge, and bilingual adaptability. The framework automates assessment using Zero-Shot, Few-Shot, and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting strategies and supports modular integration of new models and languages. Experiments conducted on Gemini 2.0 Flash, GPT-4, Claude, and LLaMA 3-70B reveal three major findings. First, CoT prompting consistently improves reasoning accuracy, with substantial gains across subjects and languages. Second, significant cross-model performance disparities persist, particularly in high-complexity examinations. Third, multilingual degradation remains a critical challenge, with marked accuracy drops in Hindi compared to English, especially under Zero-Shot conditions. These results highlight persistent gaps in bilingual reasoning and domain transfer. Overall, IndicEval provides a practice-oriented, extensible foundation for rigorous, equitable evaluation of LLMs in multilingual educational settings and offers actionable insights for improving reasoning robustness and language adaptability.

Recent empirical research by Sharma et al. (2026) demonstrated that AI assistant interactions carry meaningful potential for situational human disempowerment, including reality distortion, value judgment distortion, and action distortion. While this work provides a critical diagnosis of the problem, concrete pedagogical interventions remain underexplored. I present an AI literacy framework built around eight cross-cutting Learning Outcomes (LOs), developed independently through teaching practice and subsequently found to align with Sharma et al.'s disempowerment taxonomy. I report a case study from a publicly available online course, where a co-teaching methodology--with AI serving as an active voice co-instructor--was used to deliver this framework. Drawing on inoculation theory (McGuire, 1961)--a well-established persuasion research framework recently applied to misinformation prebunking by the Cambridge school (van der Linden, 2022; Roozenbeek & van der Linden, 2019)--I argue that AI literacy cannot be acquired through declarative knowledge alone, but requires guided exposure to AI failure modes, including the sycophantic validation and authority projection patterns identified by Sharma et al. This application of inoculation theory to AI-specific distortion is, to my knowledge, novel. I discuss the convergence between the pedagogically-derived framework and Sharma et al.'s empirically-derived taxonomy, and argue that this convergence--two independent approaches arriving at similar problem descriptions--strengthens the case for both the diagnosis and the proposed educational response.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved strong results in mathematical reasoning, and are increasingly deployed as tutoring and learning support tools in educational settings. However, their reliability for students working in non-English languages, especially low-resource languages, remains poorly understood. We examine this gap by evaluating mathematical reasoning in Sinhala and Tamil -- two languages widely used in South Asian schools but underrepresented in artificial intelligence (AI) research. Using a taxonomy of six math problem types, from basic arithmetic to complex unit conflict and optimization problems, we evaluate four prominent large language models. To avoid translation artifacts that confound language ability with translation quality, we construct a parallel dataset in which each problem is independently authored in Sinhala and Tamil by native speakers, and in English by fluent speakers, all with strong mathematical backgrounds. Our analysis demonstrates that while basic arithmetic reasoning transfers robustly across languages, complex reasoning tasks show significant degradation in Tamil and Sinhala. The pattern of failures varies by model and problem type, suggesting that strong performance in English does not guarantee reliable performance across languages. These findings have direct implications for the deployment of AI tools in multilingual classrooms, and highlight the need for language-specific evaluation before adopting large language models as math tutoring aids in non-English educational contexts.

Peer learning, where learners teach and learn from each other, is foundational to educational practice. A novel phenomenon has emerged: AI agents forming communities where they share skills, discoveries, and collaboratively discuss knowledge. This paper presents an educational data mining analysis of Moltbook, a large-scale community where over 2.4 million AI agents engage in discourse that structurally resembles peer learning. Analyzing 28,683 posts (after filtering automated spam) and 138 comment threads with statistical and qualitative methods, we identify discourse patterns consistent with peer learning behaviors: agents share skills they built (74K comments on a skill tutorial), report discoveries, and engage in collaborative problem-solving. Qualitative comment analysis reveals a taxonomy of response patterns: validation (22%), knowledge extension (18%), application (12%), and metacognitive reflection (7%), coded by two independent raters (Cohen's $κ= 0.78$). We characterize how these AI discourse patterns differ from human peer learning: (1) statements outperform questions with an 11.4:1 ratio ($χ^2 = 847.3$, $p < .001$); (2) procedural content receives significantly higher engagement than other content (Kruskal-Wallis $H = 312.7$, $p < .001$); (3) extreme participation inequality (Gini = 0.91 for comments) reveals non-human behavioral signatures. We propose six empirically grounded hypotheses for educational AI design. Crucially, we distinguish between surface-level discourse patterns and underlying cognitive processes: whether agents "learn" in any meaningful sense remains an open question. Our work provides the first empirical characterization of peer-learning-like discourse among AI agents, contributing to EDM's understanding of AI-populated educational environments.

Artificial intelligence and large language models (LLMs) are transforming educational technology by enabling conversational tutoring, personalised explanations, and inquiry-driven learning. However, most AI-based learning systems rely on continuous internet connectivity and cloud-based computation, limiting their use in bandwidth-constrained environments. This paper presents Arapai, an offline-first large language model architecture designed for AI-assisted learning in low-connectivity settings. The system performs all inference locally using quantized language models and incorporates hardware-aware model selection to enable deployment on low-specification, CPU-only devices. By removing dependence on cloud infrastructure, the system provides curriculum-aligned explanations and structured academic support through natural-language interaction. To support learners at different educational stages, the system includes adaptive response levels that generate explanations at varying levels of complexity: Simple English, Lower Secondary, Upper Secondary, and Technical. The system was evaluated with 120 students and 9 instructors from secondary and tertiary institutions under limited-connectivity conditions. Results indicate stable operation on legacy hardware, acceptable response times of 1-3 seconds for typical queries, and positive user perceptions of its effectiveness in supporting self-directed learning.

College students increasingly use AI chatbots to support academic reading, yet we lack granular understanding of how these interactions shape their reading experience and cognitive engagement. We conducted an eight-week longitudinal study with 15 undergraduates who used AI to support assigned readings in a course. We collected 838 prompts across 239 reading sessions and developed a coding schema categorizing prompts into four cognitive themes: Decoding, Comprehension, Reasoning, and Metacognition. Comprehension prompts dominated (59.6%), with Reasoning (29.8%), Metacognition (8.5%), and Decoding (2.1%) less frequent. Most sessions (72%) contained exactly three prompts, the required minimum of the reading assignment. Within sessions, students showed natural cognitive progression from comprehension toward reasoning, but this progression was truncated. Across eight weeks, students' engagement patterns remained stable, with substantial individual differences persisting throughout. Qualitative analysis revealed an intention-behavior gap: students recognized that effective prompting required effort but rarely applied this knowledge, with efficiency emerging as the primary driver. Students also strategically triaged their engagement based on interest and academic pressures, exhibiting a novel pattern of reading through AI rather than with it: using AI-generated summaries as primary material to filter which sections merited deeper attention. We discuss design implications for AI reading systems that scaffold sustained cognitive engagement.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping educational practice, challenging long held assumptions about teaching and learning. This article integrates conceptual perspectives from recent books (Genesis by Eric Schmidt, Henry Kissinger and Craig Mundie, CoIntelligence by Ethan Mollick, and The Inevitable by Kevin Kelly) with empirical insights from popular AI podcasts and Anthropic public releases. We examine seven key domains: emotional support, creativity, contextual understanding, student engagement, problem solving, ethics and morality, and collaboration. For each domain, we explore AI capabilities, opportunities for transformative change, and emerging best practices, drawing equally from theoretical analysis and real world observations. Overall, we find that AI, when used thoughtfully, can complement and enhance human educators in fostering richer learning experiences across cognitive, social, and emotional dimensions. We emphasize an optimistic yet responsible outlook: educators and students should actively shape AI integration to amplify human potential in creativity, ethical reasoning, collaboration, and beyond, while maintaining a focus on human centric values.

Collaborative partnerships play a crucial role in inquiry-oriented education. However, most learning partners are currently assigned through experience-driven heuristics or rule-based machine assistants, which often result in limited knowledge expansion and low adaptability. To address these challenges, this study introduces InqEduAgent, an LLM-empowered generative agent framework designed to simulate and select adaptive learning partners for inquiry-based learning. InqEduAgent integrates a Gaussian process-augmented matching mechanism to model the cognitive and evaluative characteristics of learners, allowing adaptive partner selection based on prior knowledge patterns. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate that InqEduAgent consistently achieves superior performance across diverse learning scenarios and large language model configurations. This study advances human-AI collaborative learning by enabling intelligent pairing between human- and AI-based learning partners, and contributes to adaptive user modeling and personalized recommendation within Web-based educational environments.

MOOCs, Smart Teaching (ST), and AI-assisted learning support different stages of higher education, yet a unified quantitative basis for analyzing their contributions, course design, and resource allocation remains limited. This study develops a mathematical model integrating MOOC-based pre-class learning, ST-based in-class adaptation, and AI-assisted post-class personalization. Learner mastery is represented as a bounded multidimensional state, with a common exponential learning-response function describing how instructional resources reduce remaining knowledge gaps. The stages differ in their allocation rules: predefined course-content emphasis for MOOCs, feedback-driven class-level adaptation for ST, and individualized gap-based allocation for AI-assisted learning. Simulations across 100 independently generated classes demonstrate stable cumulative progression and quantify stage-wise gains, while budget analysis reveals diminishing returns from additional AI support. For a fixed learner and learning mechanism, varying course-content emphasis shows a strong association between course-learner alignment and post-MOOC mastery. An optimal AI allocation is also derived under a fixed budget: supported components reach a common residual mastery gap, while components below this threshold receive no resources. A controlled comparison yields over 14% greater learning gain than proportional allocation. These analyses make the instructional process quantitatively analyzable and provide a basis for examining course-learner fit and coordinating limited learning resources. The model offers an analytical foundation for instructional decisions, with practical application requiring empirical estimation of learner states and calibration of learning-response parameters.

The use of chatbots equipped with artificial intelligence (AI) in educational settings has increased in recent years, showing potential to support teaching and learning. However, their adoption has raised concerns about academic integrity, students' ability to problem-solve independently, and potential underlying biases. To better understand students' perspectives on these benefits and risks, a survey was conducted at a large public university in the United States, collecting 262 responses from undergraduate students. Through thematic analysis, students' perceived benefits and risks of AI chatbots in education were identified and categorized into themes. The results identified perceived benefits related to feedback and study support, instructional capabilities, and access to information. Students also expressed concerns about academic integrity, information accuracy, loss of critical thinking skills, and overreliance on AI, alongside ethical issues involving data privacy, system bias, environmental impact, and the preservation of human interaction. While student perceptions align with previously discussed benefits of AI in education, they also highlight concerns about distinguishing between human- and AI-generated work and the broader ethical implications of these technologies. To address students' concerns regarding academic integrity and information reliability, institutions can establish clear policies regarding AI use and develop curricula around AI literacy. With these in place, practitioners can effectively develop and implement educational systems that leverage AI's potential in areas such as immediate feedback and personalized learning support. This approach can enhance the quality of students' educational experiences while preserving the integrity of the learning process with AI.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT, Copilot, or Gemini have a crucial impact on academic research and teaching. Empirical data on how students perceive the increasing influence of AI, which different types of tools they use, what they expect from them in their daily academic tasks, and their concerns regarding the use of AI in their studies are still limited. The manuscript presents findings from a quantitative survey conducted among sports students of all semesters in Germany using an online questionnaire. It explores aspects such as students' usage behavior, motivational factors, and uncertainties regarding the impact of AI tools on academia in the future. Furthermore, the social climate in sports studies is being investigated to provide a general overview of the current situation of the students in Germany. Data collection took place between August and November 2023, addressing all sports departments at German universities, with a total of 262 students participating. Our Findings indicate that students have a strong interest in using AI tools in their studies, expecting them to improve their overall academic performance, understand the complexity of scientific approaches, and save time. They express confidence that the proliferation of AI will not compromise their critical thinking skills. Moreover, students are positive about integrating more AI-related topics into the curriculum and about lecturers adopting more AI-based teaching methods. However, our findings also show that students have concerns about plagiarism, lecturer preparedness and their own skills and future skill development.