Untangling Critical Interaction with AI in Students’ Written Assessment
Open accessAbstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a ubiquitous part of society, but a key challenge exists in ensuring that humans are equipped with the required critical thinking and AI literacy skills to interact with machines effectively by understanding their capabilities and limitations. These skills are particularly important for learners to develop in the age of generative AI where AI tools can demonstrate complex knowledge and ability previously thought to be uniquely human. To activate effective human-AI partnerships in writing, this paper provides a first step toward conceptualizing the notion of critical learner interaction with AI. Using both theoretical models and empirical data, our preliminary findings suggest a general lack of Deep interaction with AI during the writing process. We believe that the outcomes can lead to better task and tool design in the future for learners to develop deep, critical thinking when interacting with AI.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Shibani et al. (2024) studied students' assignments, including self-reflections, and categorised types of critical interactions with GenAI for writing.
“Shibani et al. (2024) studied students' assignments, including self-reflections, and then categorised types of critical interactions with GenAI for writing (such as planning and ideation, or information seeking and evaluation).”
From How university students work on assessment tasks with generative artificial intelligence: matters of judgement (2026) · cites this paper as Shibani et al. (2024)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
What is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations
Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376727 · Cited by 3,241 · cited 1× · see citing works
“A recent HCI study identified AI literacy as a set of core competencies that enable individuals to communicate and collaborate effectively with AI, coming up with design considerations from an interdisciplinary literature review and noting the need for more empirical research [14].”
BackgroundDell'Acqua, F., McFowland III, E., Mollick, E. R., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., Kellogg, K., Rajendran, S., Krayer, L., Candelon, F., & Lakhani, K. R. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4573321 · Cited by 794 · see citing works
Lee, M., Liang, P., & Yang, Q. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3502030 · Cited by 345 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- Saskia Brand-Gruwel, Iwan Wopereis, and Amber Walraven. 2009. A descrip- tive model of information problem solving while using internet. Computers & Education 53, 4 (2009), 1207-1217.
- Robert Capra and Jaime Arguello. 2023. How does AI chat change search behav- iors? arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03826 (2023). · arXiv
- Vicky Charisi, Laura Malinverni, Elisa Rubegni, and Marie-Monique Schaper. 2020. Empowering Children's Critical Reflections on AI, Robotics and Other Intelligent Technologies. In Proceedings of the 11th nordic conference on human- computer interaction: shaping experiences, shaping society. 1-4.
- Robert A Ellis and Ana-Marie Bliuc. 2019. Exploring new elements of the student approaches to learning framework: The role of online learning technologies in student learning. Active Learning in Higher Education 20, 1 (2019), 11-24.
- Linda Flower and John R Hayes. 1981. A cognitive process theory of writing. College composition and communication 32, 4 (1981), 365-387.
- Aidan Gilson, Conrad W Safranek, Thomas Huang, Vimig Socrates, Ling Chi, Richard Andrew Taylor, David Chartash, et al. 2023. How does ChatGPT perform on the United States medical licensing examination? The implications of large language models for medical education and knowledge assessment. JMIR Medical Education 9, 1 (2023), e45312.
- Richard HR Harper. 2019. The Role of HCI in the Age of AI. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 35, 15 (2019), 1331-1344.
- Otto Kruse, Christian Rapp, Chris Anson, Kalliopi Benetos, Elena Cotos, Ann De- vitt, and Antonette Shibani. 2023. Digital writing technologies in higher education: theory, research, and practice. Springer Nature. 526 pages.
- Paul R Pintrich. 2004. A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational psychology review 16 (2004), 385-407.
- Gavriel Salomon, David N Perkins, and Tamar Globerson. 1991. Partners in cog- nition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational researcher 20, 3 (1991), 2-9.
- Antonette Shibani, Simon Knight, and Simon Buckingham Shum. 2022. Ques- tioning learning analytics? Cultivating critical engagement as student automated feedback literacy. In LAK22: 12th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference. 326-335. https://doi.org/10.1145/3506860.3506912 · DOI
- Antonette Shibani, Ratnavel Rajalakshmi, Faerie Mattins, Srivarshan Selvaraj, and Simon Knight. 2023. Visual Representation of Co-Authorship with GPT- 3: Studying Human-Machine Interaction for Effective Writing.. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Educational Data Mining. International Educational Data Mining Society. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8115695 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AI Literacy in K-12 and Higher Education in the Wake of Generative AI: An Integrative Review
Gu, X., & Ericson, B. J. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.00079 · Cited by 73
Zhang, S., Wang, H., & Yi, X. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3757594 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
“…66, 67, 69, 70, 73, 75, 77, 82, 84–86, 88–90, 94, 96, 98, 102, 105, 106, 108– 110, 112–117, 121, 122, 124, 129, 130, 135, 137, 138, 148, 150, 153, 154, 158, 159, 162– 166, 171, 172, 175–178, 180–185, 187, 189, 191, 196, 197, 199–201, 204–207] Semi-proactive [5, 5, 6, 8–16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 27,…”
InfluentialCo-Writing with AI, on Human Terms: Aligning Research with User Demands Across the Writing Process
Reza, M., Thomas-Mitchell, J., Dushniku, P., Laundry, N., Williams, J. J., & Kuzminykh, A. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3757566 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
“Papers in this context include topics such as assistance with literature review [20, 133], peer review [86, 123], academic writing [13, 115, 121, 125], and essay writing [3, 7, 26, 102, 129].”
Walton, J., Bearman, M., Crawford, N., Tai, J., & Boud, D. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2025.2570328 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
AI assistance in peer feedback provision: Pedagogically sound, but minimally adopted
Pozdniakov, S., Brazil, J., Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., Gašević, D., Sadiq, S., & Khosravi, H. (2026) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2026.105591 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
The DIPS model: GenAI integration in digital information problem solving by experts and novices
Boetje, J., de Graaf, Z., Wopereis, I., van Ginkel, S. O., Smakman, M. H. J., Versendaal, J., & Barendsen, E. (2026) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2026.105677 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Shibani, A., Knight, S., Kitto, K., Karunanayake, A., & Buckingham Shum, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Technology Sydney (AU)
- Connected Intelligence Centre, University of Technology Sydney, Australia
- Venue
- Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2024-05-02
- Pages
- 1-6
- OpenAlex
- W4394736742
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 4
- FWCI
- 13.33
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- OPUS - Open Publications of UTS Scholars (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- University of Technology Sydney
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- human-AI interaction, generative AI, critical thinking, AI literacy, written assessment, student writing, human-AI collaboration, task design, tool design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
