The DOI matches its Crossref record.
STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCES FROM USING AI IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION
Open accessAbstract
Over the past year AI has become highly available for everyone, including students in higher education. Initially, the universities did not want the students to use AI in their examinational projects due to the fear of reducing the amount of independent work. It is also difficult for examiners to evaluate the difference between self-produced work and AI-produced work. However, AI is a resourceful tool that could be useful for the students learning and the products they produce. Hence, we want to find out the positives and negatives of AI in engineering education. A mandatory course, ING101 Technology, Environment and Sustainability, is taught the first year in the Civil and Structural Engineering programme, Computer Engineering programme, Electronics and Electrical engineering programme, Renewable Energy programme and Mechatronics programme at the University of Agder. The students must write a scientific article concerning environment and technology to pass the course. The library and the academic staff collaborated on a new way of solving the task; the students had the opportunity to use AI to produce the scientific article and then write a report on how it worked. The students must evaluate how this affected the working process, their learning outcome and the final product, the scientific report. This study uses survey data from the students in ING101 to investigate the positive and negative perceptions of using AI in engineering education. By looking at the results from the survey and the reported experiences from the students we can evaluate how AI can assist in higher education. This information can be used to influence the way we let our students work on projects, reports, and exams, and if AI should be(come) a learning tool in engineering education.
Overview
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
Verification
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Uncritical acceptance of AI outputs may inhibit self-regulation and weaken higher-order reasoning [17,18,34].”
From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [17]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Without thoughtful integration and guided use, GenAI tools can inadvertently undermine the very skills they are intended to support, such as self-regulation, deep reasoning, and independent judgment [17,18].”
From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [17]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Additionally, structured assessment types and clearly articulated task requirements significantly shaped students' cognitive engagement with GenAI tools [17].”
From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [17]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- [4]4. Rowe N. C. Cheating in online student assessment: Beyond plagiarism. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1-10, 2004.
- [5]5. Alshater M. M. Exploring the role of artificial intelligence in enhancing academic performance: A case study of ChatGPT. Available at SSRN, 2022.
- [6]6. Neumann M., Rauschenberger M. and Schön E.-M. We Need To Talk About ChatGPT: The Future of AI and Higher Education. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 5th International Workshop on Software Engineering Education for the Next Generation (SEENG), 2023: IEEE, pp. 29-32.
- [8]8. J. G. Meyer et al. ChatGPT and large language models in academia: opportunities and challenges. BioData Mining, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 20, 2023.
- [9]9. Kasneci E. et al. ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and individual differences, vol. 103, p. 102274, 2023.
- [10]10. Adeshola I. and Adepoju A. P. The opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in education. Interactive Learning Environments, pp. 1-14, 2023.
- [11]11. Shidiq M. The use of artificial intelligence-based chat-gpt and its challenges for the world of education; from the viewpoint of the development of creative writing skills. In Proceeding of international conference on education, society and humanity, 2023, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 353-357.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Balart, T., Díaz, B., & Shryock, K. (2026) · Algorithms · doi:10.3390/a19030179 · Cited by 29
“Additionally, structured assessment types and clearly articulated task requirements significantly shaped students’ cognitive engagement with GenAI tools [17].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Heimdal, A., Lande, I., Almlie, G. S., & Roaldsøy, E. Ø.
- Affiliations
- University of Agder (NO)
- ORCID
- Lande, Ingrid
- Venue
- Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, EPDE 2024
- Publisher
- The Design Society
- Published
- 2024
- Pages
- 497-502
- OpenAlex
- W4401952447
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2
- FWCI
- 0.76
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- dx.doi.org
- Locations
- International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (EPDE) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence in education, engineering education, student perceptions, academic integrity, plagiarism detection, learning outcomes, first-year engineering students, library cooperation, AI as learning tool
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
