Aug 2026· Communications of the ACM· Vol 69, pp. 48 - 56· 0 citations· 7 references
TL;DR
A three-week midterm project embedded in an undergraduate “AI-for-all” course investigated whether AI literacy can be taught to undergrads, and shows any user how to test an AI system rather than trust it blindly.
Abstract
There is ongoing academic debate on whether one can teach AI literacy to undergraduate students across majors, and if yes, how. This article reports a case study: a three-week midterm project embedded in an undergraduate “AI-for-all” course. Students designed reasoning tasks, ran controlled comparisons across widely used chatbots, and evaluated both answer correctness and explanation validity. Through field experience, students with no STEM background learned what consumer chatbots can and cannot do, documenting systematic brittleness across models that “sounded right but reasoned wrong.” More critically, students built understanding of how to evaluate AI outputs. The midterm gave them agency as investigators rather than passive users. Eager to share their discoveries, they are co-authors of this article. Together, we offer here to educators and the broader scientific community a concrete example of the operationalization of AI literacy as experimental practice. The method, however, is not specific to the classroom. It shows any user how to test an AI system rather than trust it blindly. In three-week midterm project, students investigated whether AI literacy can be taught to undergrads.
In a preregistered randomized field experiment in a graduate corporate-finance course of an online MBA, 86 students were randomized between a structured tutor grounded in the course materials and a holdout in which consumer AI remained freely available.
Shi-Hao Yang, Marshall W. van Alstyne, Chrysanthos N. Dellarocas· 0 citations
This paper presents the design, classroom deployment, and evaluation of AI-powered chatbots developed as learning assistants for undergraduate computer science and engineering education. To address growing concerns that large language model (LLM)–based tools encourage student over-reliance and hinder critical thinking,...
Tajay Jackson, Nickmoon Mware, Hong Jiang· CoED· 0 citations
The idea of AI-resilient assignments maintaining academic integrity with product- and process-based evaluation approach is proposed, similar to the open-book system, where they require human intelligence, independent thinking, and personal understanding to solve them correctly.
A. Sahu, Chandrakant Kumar Singh, A. K. Malik· International Journal of Sci...· 0 citations
The Pedagogical Prompting Feedback Cycle is offered as a teacher-oriented way of translating existing instructional expertise into AI-supported practice and presented as a tentative conceptual model rather than a validated framework: it is meant to provoke inquiry and design, and it requires empirical validation across...
Ali Khodi, Samantha M. Curle, Víctor Parra-Guinaldo· Frontiers in Education· 1 citation
Student engagement in developing open educational resources (OER; openly licensed materials without fees to access) may be critically important for sustainable higher education and for developing important skills. There has been substantial debate about the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) for the sust...
Virginia Clinton-Lisell· Sustainability· 0 citations
This study investigated university students’ use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools, focusing on prompt literacy, user behaviour, and satisfaction with AI‑generated outputs. 90 students completed a range of tasks using a generative AI tool of their choice, with half completing a tutorial on effective prom...
Bryony N. Parsons, Kate Murray, Gina Gundersen et al.· Journal of Learning Developm...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.