STEM students adopt the GenAI Tutor less and use it differently than non-STEM students, with more shallow and routine-learning engagement¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associationalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · 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? STEM students were 20 percentage points less likely to adopt the tutor (51% vs. 71%) and STEM courses showed higher shallow engagement (15.41% vs. 8.56%). → Youjie Chen 2026
q2 i? Shallow engagement appeared at different learning stages: for STEM students it was tied to routine learning and ended after a single session, while for non-STEM students it occurred more during exam preparation and persisted. → Youjie Chen 2026 (2)
Evidence¶
Youjie Chen 2026¶
Youjie Chen, Xixi Shi, Xinyu Liu, Shuaiguo Wang, Tracy Xiao Liu, Dragan Gašević. (2026). Not All Students Engage Alike: Multi-Institution Patterns in GenAI Tutor Use. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.00447 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.00447
q2 · i? · associational · r2
Descriptive regression analysis of adoption across 200 classes with cluster-robust standard errors. STEM students were "20 percentage points less likely to adopt" (51% vs. 71%, t(199)=-4.04, p<0.01), and adopters in STEM courses averaged 10.76 fewer conversation sessions (t(199)=-3.48, p<0.01).
"Compared to non-STEM students, those in STEM disciplines are 20 percentage points less likely to adopt the GenAI Tutor (51 % vs. 71%; 𝑡( 199)=− 4.04,𝑝< 0.01)."
Youjie Chen 2026 (2)¶
Youjie Chen, Xixi Shi, Xinyu Liu, Shuaiguo Wang, Tracy Xiao Liu, Dragan Gašević. (2026). Not All Students Engage Alike: Multi-Institution Patterns in GenAI Tutor Use. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.00447
q2 · i? · associational · r2
Process mining on STEM and non-STEM subgroups showed STEM students more likely to initiate shallow engagement (TP = 0.18 vs. 0.05) but to end the session (TP = 0.14 vs. 0.04), while non-STEM students transitioned from shallow to exam-driven engagement (TP = 0.17 vs. 0.07).
"for STEM students, they were more likely to initiate shallow engagement (TP = 0.18 for STEM courses vs. 0.05 for non-STEM courses), and among those who did, they tend to end the session (TP = 0.14 vs. 0.04)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Equity disparities in GenAI Tutor use appear in how students engage, not in whether or how much they use the tool — related
- Four distinct session-level engagement types emerge in GenAI Tutor use: Deep, Shallow, Routine-Learning, and Exam-Driven — related
- Students at highly selective institutions show more deep and routine-learning engagement and less exam-driven engagement with a GenAI Tutor — related
- Shallow, copy-pasting engagement occurred but was not the dominant mode of GenAI Tutor use, and was lowest during exam preparation — related
- Shallow engagement with a GenAI Tutor persists over time, while deep engagers transition flexibly across engagement types — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
stem-nonstem-engagement-differences |
title |
STEM students adopt the GenAI Tutor less and use it differently than non-STEM students, with more shallow and routine-learning engagement |
description |
STEM students adopt the GenAI Tutor less and use it differently than non-STEM students, with more shallow and routine-learning engagement |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-10 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — youjie-chen-2026, youjie-chen-2026-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.