TRV-2026-1012Version 1 · Certified
Reason for this version
Certified into the record
Canonical text (the exact bytes fingerprinted)
TRUVACE RECORD VERSION record: TRV-2026-1012 version: 1 kind: certified reason: Certified into the record timestamp: 2026-09-07T14:15:46.621131Z status: published lens: trace sector: education headline: Not quite eye to A.I.: student and teacher perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence in the writing process dek: Abstract Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) can be used to author academic texts at a similar level to what humans are capable of, causing concern about its misuse in education. Addressing the role of GenAI in teaching and learning has become an urgent task. This study reports the results of a survey comparing educators’ (n = 68) and university students’ (n = 158) perceptions on the appropriate use of GenAI in the writing process. The survey included representations of user prompts and output from ChatGP… gain_title: GenAI chatbots like ChatGPT can assist university writing across six tasks from brainstorming to evaluating at a level similar to humans. problem_title: Educators and students report concern about misuse of GenAI in education and a lack of classroom and institutional preparedness to manage it in the writing process. trace_subject: appropriate use of generative AI like ChatGPT in the university writing process across six tasks gain_reading: GenAI chatbots like ChatGPT can assist university writing across six tasks from brainstorming to evaluating at a level similar to humans. gain_evidence: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) can be used to author academic texts at a similar level to what humans are capable of | for each of six tasks of the writing process (brainstorming, outlining, writing, revising, feedback, and evaluating) problem_reading: Educators and students report concern about misuse of GenAI in education and a lack of classroom and institutional preparedness to manage it in the writing process. problem_evidence: causing concern about its misuse in education | classroom and institutional-level lack of preparedness for GenAI quick_read: In a November 2023 peer-reviewed study, researchers surveyed 68 educators and 158 university students about when generative AI should be used in academic writing. Participants reviewed ChatGPT prompts and outputs for brainstorming, outlining, writing, revising, feedback, and evaluating, and rated acceptability for student versus teacher use. The work matters because it documents early post-ChatGPT attitudes in higher education, showing only minor student-teacher disagreement but a shared sense of unpreparedness at classroom and institutional levels. It remains uncertain how perceptions translate into actual writing outcomes, policy compliance, or learning, since the study measured reported attitudes rather than measured writing quality or misuse rates. limitation: tag: Dual reading key_points: Peer-reviewed survey compared perceptions of 68 educators and 158 university students on appropriate GenAI use in writing. | Survey presented user prompts and ChatGPT output for six tasks: brainstorming, outlining, writing, revising, feedback, and evaluating, split by student and teacher use. | Results showed minor disagreement between groups on acceptable use and identified classroom and institutional-level lack of preparedness for GenAI. rundown: The study surveyed 68 educators and 158 university students, showing them representations of user prompts and output from ChatGPT for each writing task and asking them to differentiate between student and teacher use. Authors concluded the findings imply the need for explicit guidelines and teacher professional development on the use of GenAI in educational contexts to support evidence-based integration. sources: - peer_reviewed | International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education | https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00427-0 | 2023-11-09 prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
- sha256
- ca18dbe81de84bef5915b9c9ce20aa1d7aeeb6b92428e658e221956a88cb6b5a
- previous
- 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Verify this record
How to verify without trusting this page
Fetch the canonical text of any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-1012 and hash it yourself — for example shasum -a 256 on the saved canonical field. The result must equal content_hash, and each version’s text ends with prev:followed by the prior version’s hash (version 1 chains to 64 zeros). If a single character of any version had been altered since certification, the chain would not reproduce.
ace