Graduate students reported maintaining or gaining a sense of agency when working with a GenAI research assistant¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitativer2·q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Participants described feeling more empowered and in control of their research when using COREI, attributing gains in critical thinking and writing quality to the AI collaboration. → Soroush Sabbaghan 2025
Evidence¶
Soroush Sabbaghan 2025¶
Soroush Sabbaghan, & Sarah Elaine Eaton. (2025). Navigating the Ethical Frontier: Graduate Students' Experiences with Generative AI-Mediated Scholarship. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-024-00454-6
q2 · i? · qualitative · r2
Interview findings from the qualitative study. One participant reported, "I feel like I've gained a sense of control over my research process," noting the AI helped navigate literature while final decisions remained the participant's own.
"The students described feeling more empowered and skilled thanks to GenAI, rather than subservient or irrelevant. They attributed an increase in their critical thinking and writing quality to the AI collaboration."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Graduate students experienced GenAI-assisted research as supporting originality through new ideas and perspectives — related
- Graduate students viewed personalization and critical modification of AI-generated content as necessary for maintaining authorship — related
- GenAI's effects on higher-order thinking are mixed: support for reflection and idea expansion alongside cognitive offloading and no overall innovativeness gain — related
- In interviews with 25 engineering students at one Swedish university, students described GenAI as acceptable when it stimulates reflection and directly copying its outputs as cheating, and one used its fallibility as a prompt to double-check — related
- Students exercise ethical agency in GenAI use through human-AI collaboration strategies, personal ethical frameworks, strategic calibration of use, and resistance to over-reliance — related
- The educational value of GAI is contingent on pedagogical integration, not on the technology itself — related
- A student maintained critical distance from GenAI outputs through a paradoxical trust in their untrustworthiness, deriving practical value while staying sceptical — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
genai-use-preserves-or-strengthens-student-agency |
title |
Graduate students reported maintaining or gaining a sense of agency when working with a GenAI research assistant |
description |
Graduate students reported maintaining or gaining a sense of agency when working with a GenAI research assistant |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-28 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — soroush-sabbaghan-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.