Canonical text (the exact bytes fingerprinted)

TRUVACE RECORD VERSION
record: TRV-2026-1012
version: 2
kind: revised
reason: Direction audit: the gain line stated no AI consequence and was removed.
timestamp: 2026-10-26T06:38:47.709173Z
status: published
lens: p_space
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: (none)
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: (none)
gain_reading: (none)
gain_evidence: (none)
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: Evidence-backed problem
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: ca18dbe81de84bef5915b9c9ce20aa1d7aeeb6b92428e658e221956a88cb6b5a

sha256

84dc5dd7f927588fc90128d052db2077fa22405827fdf7ed7d224c1a46b84e33

previous

ca18dbe81de84bef5915b9c9ce20aa1d7aeeb6b92428e658e221956a88cb6b5a