Student perceptions of AI use in academic work are neutral and range from viewing AI as valid learning assistance to viewing it as cheating, depending on task type, transparency, and assessment design¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Student perceptions of AI use span viewing it as a valid learning resource and viewing it as a cheating method, varying with task type, transparency, and assessment design. → Padhy 2026

Evidence¶

Padhy 2026¶

Padhy, A. (2026). Is using artificial intelligence tools for academic work cheating? Student perceptions, ethics, and the impact on academic performance and critical thinking. International Journal of Applied Resilience and Sustainability, 2(2), 919-942. https://doi.org/10.70593/deepsci.0202038

q2 · i? · review · r?

Systematic literature review (PRISMA framework) synthesizing recent studies of AI ethics in education. The review reports that "student perceptions of AI use are neutral", spanning learning assistance to cheating, conditioned on task type, transparency, and assessment design. No effect sizes are printed.

"The results indicate that student perceptions of AI use are neutral, including the view as a valid resource of learning assistance to the view as a cheating method, depending on the type of the task, transparency, and design of the assessment."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• The review reports some evidence that over-dependence on AI contributes to cognitive offloading and decreased independent reasoning, while guided AI use can be helpful — related
• AI integration in academic settings has outpaced regulatory frameworks, leaving ethical practices, assessment, and institutional responses inconsistent — related
• Faculty attitudes toward AI fall into four profiles—optimistic, critical, critically reflective, and neutral—and optimistic faculty with high AI self-efficacy are more likely to adopt AI — related
• In CLIL, teachers perceive conceptual hollowing, a bilingual bluff, translation dependency, and a synthesis illusion — related
• Ethical acceptability of GenAI use varied with disciplinary norms: assistance was more acceptable for supporting or procedural tasks than for core intellectual tasks — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• The article interprets the ethics gap as students viewing ethics through coursework practices and instructors treating it as an integrity question shaped by lack of institutional clarity — a broader claim this one bears on
• The study examined student perceptions of the genAI agent and its integration into team processes — related
• Case-based learning benefits were reported particularly when GenAI was embedded in faculty-guided teaching, while complex cases and team workflows showed null or unfavorable effects — related
• Students express profound confusion about whether GenAI-assisted coursework is original work and whether they can claim authorship — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Undergraduate students hold mixed views on whether using GenAI for coursework constitutes plagiarism, ranging from not misconduct to serious misconduct — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Guided reflection embedded in self-assessment supports commencing students to engage responsibly and confidently with GenAI while maintaining academic integrity — related
• AI humanizer websites recontextualize detection evasion by deleting misconduct terms and substituting euphemisms like 'humanize' and 'improve flow' — related
• Social norms, peer behaviors, family attitudes, insufficient sanctions, teacher attitude, high expectations, and adverse conditions positively predict AI-assisted dishonesty, while ethical and moral education negatively predicts it — related
• Whether student GenAI use constitutes academic misconduct depends fundamentally on the prior question of the university's purpose — related
• University administrations endorse contradictory positions on GenAI, encouraging faculty integration while treating AI-generated work as misconduct — related
• Students perceived eight GenAI roles but lacked engagement and a sense of achievement — related
• Metacognitive awareness shapes whether learners use ChatGPT reflectively or copy shallowly, and metacognitive support sustains self-regulated learning — related
• Control-group students framed sustainability as an external obligation and held techno-optimistic views of AI centered on efficiency with little ethical reflection — related
• The study examined the genAI agent's influence on team discussion and outcomes and the influence of faculty facilitators on acceptance of the agent — related
• Students recognised both the benefits and limitations of GenAI, demonstrating ethical awareness and critical evaluation of its role in academic work — related
• RLHF rapidly shapes model outputs toward rater-endorsed norms, improving surface compliance while leaving principle-level generalization unresolved — related