The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Student Perspectives on the Benefits and Risks of AI in Education
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.18260/1-2--57693
Abstract
The use of chatbots equipped with artificial intelligence (AI) in educational settings has increased in recent years, showing potential to support teaching and learning. However, their adoption has raised concerns about academic integrity, students' ability to problem-solve independently, and potential underlying biases. To better understand students' perspectives on these benefits and risks, a survey was conducted at a large public university in the United States, collecting 262 responses from undergraduate students. Through thematic analysis, students' perceived benefits and risks of AI chatbots in education were identified and categorized into themes. The results identified perceived benefits related to feedback and study support, instructional capabilities, and access to information. Students also expressed concerns about academic integrity, information accuracy, loss of critical thinking skills, and overreliance on AI, alongside ethical issues involving data privacy, system bias, environmental impact, and the preservation of human interaction. While student perceptions align with previously discussed benefits of AI in education, they also highlight concerns about distinguishing between human- and AI-generated work and the broader ethical implications of these technologies. To address students' concerns regarding academic integrity and information reliability, institutions can establish clear policies regarding AI use and develop curricula around AI literacy. With these in place, practitioners can effectively develop and implement educational systems that leverage AI's potential in areas such as immediate feedback and personalized learning support. This approach can enhance the quality of students' educational experiences while preserving the integrity of the learning process with AI.
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
“Pitts et al. (2025) report that students frequently accept AI outputs without question, reflecting gaps in critical appraisal skills that are essential for academic integrity.”
From Understanding AI Literacy Among College Students: Voices from a Historically Black College and University (2026) · cites this paper as Pitts et al., 2025
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
“Recent work in higher education similarly documents that students rely on AI to streamline academic writing and routine tasks yet often do so without questioning its accuracy (Chan & Hu, 2023;Pitts et al., 2025).”
From Understanding AI Literacy Among College Students: Voices from a Historically Black College and University (2026) · cites this paper as Pitts et al., 2025
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
“Past studies highlight the same ambiguity among university students, who often conflate AI-assisted writing with plagiarism but receive little clarity from faculty or policy (Chan & Hu, 2023;Pitts et al., 2025).”
From Understanding AI Literacy Among College Students: Voices from a Historically Black College and University (2026) · cites this paper as Pitts et al., 2025
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Pitts et al. (2025) reinforce this duality, demonstrating that students often value AI for its efficiency but remain wary of its long-term effects on creativity and independence.”
From Understanding AI Literacy Among College Students: Voices from a Historically Black College and University (2026) · cites this paper as Pitts et al. (2025)
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: 30
- Viktoria Marcus, Alaa Masrahi, and Sanaz Motamedi. Generation z and e- learning: Covid-19, personality, and technology acceptance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, volume 66, pages 2103-2107. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2022.
- Sanaz Motamedi and Viktoria Marcus. Impact of students' backgrounds on online learning behavior: Generation z technology acceptance of e-learning technology during covid-19. In 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2024.
- Sanaz Motamedi, Kierra Marquis, and Hannah Levine. Understanding e-learning acceptance of gen z students: An extension of the technology acceptance model (tam). In 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, 2021.
- Griffin Pitts, Viktoria Marcus, and Sanaz Motamedi. A proposed model of learners' acceptance and trust of pedagogical conversational ai. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale, pages 427-432, 2024.
- Ashok K Goel and Lalith Polepeddi. Jill watson: A virtual teaching assistant for online education. In Learning engineering for online education, pages 120-143. Routledge, 2018.
- Stephen Crown, Arturo Fuentes, Robert Jones, Rajiv Nambiar, and Deborah Crown. Anne g. neering: Interactive chatbot to engage and motivate engineering students. Computers in Education Journal, 21(2):24-34, 2011.
- Julia M Markel, Steven G Opferman, James A Landay, and Chris Piech. Gpteach: Interactive ta training with gpt-based students. In Proceedings of the tenth acm conference on learning@ scale, pages 226-236, 2023.
- Alexander Campbell. Using ai chatbots to produce engineering spreadsheets in an advanced structural steel design course. In 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2024.
- Anthony Cortez and Paul Daniel Schmelzenbach. Integrating chatgpt in an introductory engineering undergraduate course as a tool for feedback. In 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2024.
- Anna Řechtáčková, Alexandra Maximova, and Griffin Pitts. Finding misleading identifiers in novice code using llms. In Proceedings of the 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2, pages 1595-1596, 2025.
- Luis A. Gonzalez. Investigating the benefits of applying artificial intelligence techniques to enhance learning experiences in capstone courses. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, pages 398-400, 2021.
- Mieczysław L Owoc, Agnieszka Sawicka, and Paweł Weichbroth. Artificial intelligence technologies in education: benefits, challenges and strategies of implementation. In IFIP International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Knowledge Management, pages 37-58. Springer, 2019.
- Brett A Becker, Paul Denny, James Finnie-Ansley, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, James Prather, and Eddie Antonio Santos. Programming is hard-or at least it used to be: Educational opportunities and challenges of ai code generation. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1, pages 500-506, 2023.
- Chinedu Wilfred Okonkwo and Abejide Ade-Ibijola. Chatbots applications in education: A systematic review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2:100033, 2021.
- Kehui Tan, Tianqi Pang, Chenyou Fan, and Song Yu. Towards applying powerful large ai models in classroom teaching: Opportunities, challenges and prospects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03433, 2023. · arXiv
- Pongsakorn Limna, Tanpat Kraiwanit, Kris Jangjarat, Prapasiri Klayklung, and Piyawatjana Chocksathaporn. The use of chatgpt in the digital era: Perspectives on chatbot implementation. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1):64-74, 2023.
- Rendani Wilson Maladzhi, Mohohlo Tsoeu, Nomcebo Mthombeni, Katleho Moloi, et al. How important are chatbots within engineering education? a literature- based review from 2011 to 2023. In 2023 World Engineering Education Forum- Global Engineering Deans Council (WEEF-GEDC), pages 1-5. IEEE, 2023.
- Ahmed Fadhil and Adolfo Villafiorita. An adaptive learning with gamification & conversational uis: The rise of cibopolibot. In Adjunct publication of the 25th conference on user modeling, adaptation and personalization, pages 408-412, 2017.
- Regina Kaplan-Rakowski, Kimberly Grotewold, Peggy Hartwick, and Kevin Papin. Generative ai and teachers' perspectives on its implementation in education. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 34(2):313-338, 2023.
- Shameel Abdulla, Yasser M Al Hamidi, and Marwan Khraisheh. Creating and implementing a custom chatbot in engineering education. In 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2023.
- Kenneth Holstein, Bruce M McLaren, and Vincent Aleven. Student learning benefits of a mixed-reality teacher awareness tool in ai-enhanced classrooms. In Artificial Intelligence in Education: 19th International Conference, AIED 2018, London, UK, June 27-30, 2018, Proceedings, Part I 19, pages 154-168. Springer, 2018.
- Yu-Chang Hsu and Yu-Hui Ching. Generative artificial intelligence in education, part one: The dynamic frontier. TechTrends, 67(4):603-607, 2023.
- Kersten T Schroeder, Martha Hubertz, Rachel Van Campenhout, and Benny G Johnson. Teaching and learning with ai-generated courseware: Lessons from the classroom. Online Learning, 26(3):73-87, 2022.
- Gwo-Jen Hwang and Nian-Shing Chen. Exploring the potential of generative artificial intelligence in education: applications, challenges, and future research directions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 26(2), 2023.
- Chunpeng Zhai, Santoso Wibowo, and Lily D Li. The effects of over-reliance on ai dialogue systems on students' cognitive abilities: a systematic review. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1):28, 2024.
- Xiaodong Wu, Ran Duan, and Jianbing Ni. Unveiling security, privacy, and ethical concerns of chatgpt. Journal of Information and Intelligence, 2(2):102-115, 2024.
- Chokri Kooli. Chatbots in education and research: A critical examination of ethical implications and solutions. Sustainability, 15(7):5614, 2023.
- Warren J Von Eschenbach. Transparency and the black box problem: Why we do not trust ai. Philosophy & Technology, 34(4):1607-1622, 2021.
- Marta Perez Garcia and Sarita Saffon Lopez. Building trust between users and telecommunications data driven virtual assistants. In IFIP International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations, pages 628-637. Springer, 2018.
- Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2):77-101, 2006.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Threadgill, B., Paudel, S., Bista, K., Gaulee, U., Prime, G., Momoh, V., Anderson, P. C., Gole, R., Sharma, S., Mandal, U., et al. (2026) · Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education · doi:10.32674/w76bnk04 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Pitts, G., Marcus, V., & Motamedi, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Florida (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- arXiv
- 2505.02198
- OpenAlex
- W4413387958
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 9
- FWCI
- 31.20
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- AI chatbots in education, student perceptions, academic integrity, AI-generated content detection, critical thinking, overreliance on AI, data privacy, algorithmic bias, AI literacy, AI use policies, undergraduate students, personalized learning
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
