Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39610850›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2024

The impact of AI on education and careers: What do students think?

Sarah R Thomson, Beverley Ann Pickard-Jones, Stephanie Baines, Pauldy C J Otermans

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sarah R ThomsonSchool of Human and Behavioural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom.
Beverley Ann Pickard-JonesSchool of Human and Behavioural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom.
Stephanie BainesCollege of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Department of Life Sciences, Division of Psychology, Brunel University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Pauldy C J OtermansCollege of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Department of Life Sciences, Division of Psychology, Brunel University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Providing one-on-one support to large cohorts is challenging, yet emerging AI technologies show promise in bridging the gap between the support students want and what educators can provide. They offer students a way to engage with their course material in a way that feels fluent and instinctive. Whilst educators may have views on the appropriates for AI, the tools themselves, as well as the novel ways in which they can be used, are continually changing. Methods: The aim of this study was to probe students' familiarity with AI tools, their views on its current uses, their understanding of universities' AI policies, and finally their impressions of its importance, both to their degree and their future careers. We surveyed 453 psychology and sport science students across two institutions in the UK, predominantly those in the first and second year of undergraduate study, and conducted a series of five focus groups to explore the emerging themes of the survey in more detail. Results: Our results showed a wide range of responses in terms of students' familiarity with the tools and what they believe AI tools could and should not be used for. Most students emphasized the importance of understanding how AI tools function and their potential applications in both their academic studies and future careers. The results indicated a strong desire among students to learn more about AI technologies. Furthermore, there was a significant interest in receiving dedicated support for integrating these tools into their coursework, driven by the belief that such skills will be sought after by future employers. However, most students were not familiar with their university's published AI policies. Discussion: This research on pedagogical methods supports a broader long-term ambition to better understand and improve our teaching, learning, and student engagement through the adoption of AI and the effective use of technology and suggests a need for a more comprehensive approach to communicating these important guidelines on an on-going basis, especially as the tools and guidelines evolve.

Indexed as

AI toolsgenerative artificial intelligence (gen AI)higher educationstudents' perspectivesteaching and learning

Identifiers

PMID39610850
PMCPMC11602497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.