ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Exploring Middle School Students' Interactions and Perceptions of Using Generative AI in STEAM Learning Environments.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is rapidly reshaping educational practice, yet its role in supporting K-12 STEAM learning remains underexplored. Using an exploratory design, this study aims to implement two GenAI-based STEAM learning environments, exploring middle school students' interaction behaviors and perceptions of using GenAI across two 120 min modules: Mathematics-Engineering and Mathematics-Arts. Data were collected from 12 eighth-grade students in China through student-GenAI interaction logs and follow-up interviews. The results revealed that the students working in groups mainly used GenAI to acquire STEAM knowledge/information, relied on exact copying of instructions, favored direct retrieval/review prompts, and used GenAI mainly to request information. Comparatively few interactions involved review, verification, evaluation, or reflection. The participants perceived various roles of GenAI and expressed high satisfaction and trust; however, they demonstrated limited critical evaluation of GenAI outputs, lacked a sense of engagement, and achieved minimal feelings of accomplishment. Although the interaction counts were relatively comparable across the two modules, satisfaction was slightly higher in the Mathematics-Engineering module. Most students perceived no module difference in trust and GenAI utility. Given the small sample and short-term two-module design, the findings are exploratory and context-specific, limiting their generalizability and precluding conclusions about the comparative effectiveness of GenAI-supported STEAM learning. This study provides preliminary evidence on how students interact with and perceive GenAI in STEAM contexts and highlights the need for context-sensitive integration, explicit support for critical evaluation, faded prompt scaffolding, and deeper human-AI collaboration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.