Most participants reported learning something new about GenAI and about two-thirds acknowledged engagement with perspectives beyond their own after the co-design activity¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · qualitativer3·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? About two-thirds of participants acknowledged that the activity encouraged engagement with perspectives beyond their own, including peers, instructors, institutions, and potential employers. → Hingle 2025
q2 i? Approximately half of the participants reported a shift in their personal perspective on GenAI's role in education. → Hingle 2025 (2)
Evidence¶
Hingle 2025¶
Hingle, A., & Johri, A. (2025). A Guided Inquiry Approach to Students Co-Designing Generative AI Course Policies. https://www.google.com/search?q=A+Guided+Inquiry+Approach+to+Students+Co-Designing+Generative+AI+Course+Policies doi:10.1108/aiie-05-2025-0123
q2 · i? · qualitative · r3
Analysis of post-discussion reflection assignments and debriefs (RQ2), coded into three topics. The study reports "About two-thirds of the participants acknowledged that the activity encouraged engagement with perspectives beyond their own."
"About two-thirds of the participants acknowledged that the activity encouraged engagement with perspectives beyond their own, including those of their peers, instructors, institutions, and potential employers."
Hingle 2025 (2)¶
Hingle, A., & Johri, A. (2025). A Guided Inquiry Approach to Students Co-Designing Generative AI Course Policies. https://www.google.com/search?q=A+Guided+Inquiry+Approach+to+Students+Co-Designing+Generative+AI+Course+Policies. doi:10.1108/aiie-05-2025-0123
q2 · i? · qualitative · r3
The same reflection analysis found that "Approximately half of the participants reported a shift in their perspective," commonly describing growing awareness of tradeoffs of using GenAI and better understanding of instructors' decision-making.
"In addition, participants' personal views on GenAI's role in education changed after participating in the activity . Approximately half of the participants reported a shift in their perspective."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Co-design tools for standards analysis, student-interest data, and launch rehearsal support balancing standards alignment with student interests — related
- Students co-designing a GenAI course policy prioritized training for students and instructors, standardized disclosure procedures, and stronger institutional support — related
- Academic integrity, professional development, and equity concerns about AI span all surveyed units, though interpreted differently — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
reflection-stakeholder-perspectives-two-thirds |
title |
Most participants reported learning something new about GenAI and about two-thirds acknowledged engagement with perspectives beyond their own after the co-design activity |
description |
Most participants reported learning something new about GenAI and about two-thirds acknowledged engagement with perspectives beyond their own after the co-design activity |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-10 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — hingle-2025, hingle-2025-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.