Students' primary concerns about AI videos are inaccurate information, reduced interaction with educators, and diminished educational value¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Thematic analysis of 163 responses using 10 codes abstracted into 3 themes found inaccuracy was the most common concern (n=94, 58%), followed by reduced educator interaction and erosion of educational value. → Esse Ciego 2026

Evidence¶

Esse Ciego 2026¶

Esse Ciego, Shubbhi Taneja, Wilson Wong, and Amanpreet Kapoor. (2026). Student Perceptions and Preferences Regarding AI-Generated Instructional Videos in Computing Education. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.28203 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.28203

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Inductive thematic analysis of open-ended responses. Theme 1 (low content quality) included inaccurate information (n=94, 58%), lack of depth (n=22, 13%), and lack of engagement (n=21, 13%); Theme 2 concerned disconnect between students and educators; Theme 3 concerned eroding educational and societal value. Nine students (6%) reported no concerns.

"We coded 163 non-blank responses to an open-ended question – “What concerns, if any, do you have about using AI-generated videos in education?”using 10 unique codes which were abstracted into 3 themes."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students view AI videos as appropriate for simple, visualizable, and supplemental learning contexts but inappropriate for complex, subjective, or interactive ones — related
• A VLM-based screenplay-to-video fidelity proxy shows scene and element structure are usually preserved while action-level fidelity is the primary failure mode — related
• Qualitative themes: efficiency and peer influence drive AI use, while confidence and rule ambiguity shape students' perceptions of dependence — related
• Open-ended student feedback highlighted relevance and conciseness as benefits of personalized AI videos, alongside concerns about unnaturalness, uncanny-valley discomfort, and trust — related
• Students who preferred human tutor feedback cited face-to-face interaction, engagement, follow-up questions, and speaking practice — related
• Students report negative experiences with ChatGPT including inaccurate outputs, lack of emotional connection, and risk of overreliance, which constrain competence — related
• Students perceived AIvaluate assessments as reducing social pressure and offering flexible pacing and ease of use, but noted technical challenges and lack of dynamic human interaction — related
• Post-interaction reflections reveal four preference themes: AI as formative learning aid, preference for human authority, conditional acceptance, and skepticism about educational impact — related