Students and educators disagree on the acceptability of unacknowledged generative AI use across academic writing subtasks¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Educators found unacknowledged AI use in the brainstorming phase far more unacceptable than students did. → Skulmowski 2024 q2 i? For outlining, students found AI use more acceptable than educators; for writing and revision, assessments were similar but educators disagreed more strongly with AI use with or without acknowledgment. → Skulmowski 2024 (2)

Evidence¶

Skulmowski 2024¶

Skulmowski, A. (2024). Placebo or Assistant? Generative AI Between Externalization and Anthropomorphization. Educational Psychology Review, 36, 58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09894-x

q2 · i? · review · r2

The essay reports, citing Barrett and Pack (2023), a direct comparison of university students' and educators' assessments across six subtasks of academic writing, in which "educators found it far more unacceptable to use generative AI in the brainstorming phase without acknowledgment". No effect size is printed.

"The educators found it far more unacceptable to use generative AI in the brainstorming phase without acknowledgment than the students did."

Skulmowski 2024 (2)¶

Skulmowski, A. (2024). Placebo or Assistant? Generative AI Between Externalization and Anthropomorphization. Educational Psychology Review, 36, 58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09894-x

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

The essay reports, citing Barrett and Pack (2023), that for outlining "students found it more acceptable to use an AI to come up with initial ideas" than educators, while for essay writing and revision assessments were similar but educators disagreed more strongly. No effect size is printed.

"For outlining a paper, students found it more acceptable to use an AI to come up with initial ideas and to use an AI tool with or without acknowledgment compared with the educators."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students view GenAI use on a spectrum from unethical to ethical, with a vast middle grey area of uses such as paraphrasing AI-generated text or generating ideas — 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 broader claim this one bears on
• Students express profound confusion about whether GenAI-assisted coursework is original work and whether they can claim authorship — related
• PGR students rejected GenAI generation of research ideas, original arguments, or whole papers as violating authorship norms, while accepting surface-level support — related