{"resourceId":"arxiv-2610-39571-chinese-university-students-genai-prompting-strategies-234-20261029","versions":[{"version":"external-cc49cff7e69d21e8625615a60431ddf66c8c339608d49b341958b3bf8ea9ab68","resource":{"id":"arxiv-2610-39571-chinese-university-students-genai-prompting-strategies-234-20261029","title":"Survey of 234 Chinese university students finds confidence in GenAI prompting but strategies that barely adjust to task type; prompt-intent alignment is a common challenge","organization":"Lei Fan and Fangxue Liu (arXiv preprint)","sector":"Higher education student AI literacy","geography":"China","publishedAt":"arXiv 2610.39571, submitted 29 October 2026","publicationDate":"2026-10-29","eventDate":null,"sourceName":"arXiv","sourceLabel":"Preprint survey study","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.39571","evidenceClass":"academic-research","outcomeClass":"mixed","topics":["knowledge-work","accessibility-workforce"],"finding":"A preprint submitted 29 October 2026 analysed questionnaire data from 234 Chinese university students on perceived GenAI prompting capability and reported strategies. Students used GenAI across many academic activities and were generally confident, especially in giving context and refining prompts after first outputs. But strategies showed limited sensitivity to task type: specifying output format was endorsed more for a creative workshop scenario than a research assignment, and other matched strategies showed no adjusted differences. Fixed prompt templates were endorsed less than other strategies. Perceived cognition had the clearest unique association with perceived prompting capability, and open-ended comments highlighted aligning prompts with intent as a common challenge.","sledRelevance":"AI literacy programmes often teach generic prompt templates; this study suggests students already distrust templates and struggle most with fitting prompts to task intent.","evidence":"Cross-sectional self-report survey with measurement modelling and qualitative coding; no performance measures.","architectureImplications":"Interpretation: none specific; relevant to how AI literacy training is designed rather than platforms.","governanceImplications":"Interpretation: AI literacy requirements should assess task-specific judgement, not template use.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Not addressed.","caveats":"Self-report confidence may overstate capability; single-country sample; preprint not peer reviewed; transferability to US students uncertain.","streamIds":["student-success"],"roles":{"sales":"Sales framing: this study helps libraries, teaching centres and career services leaders who run AI literacy programmes. Students report confidence but do not adapt prompting to the task and find prompt-intent alignment hard, while they rate fixed templates low. A bounded engagement could redesign one AI literacy module around discipline tasks and assessment of judgement. Do not claim the study shows students are skilled or unskilled at prompting; it measures self-reported perceptions in one Chinese sample.","engineering":"Engineering framing: technical fit is minimal; the finding concerns training design. Where institutions provide AI platforms, shared custom assistants or prompt libraries may help less than expected if students resist fixed templates. Prerequisites for a local check are an approved AI platform and a short task-based assessment. Proof of value should compare observed prompt quality on matched research and creative tasks, rather than self-ratings, before and after a module, because the study relied only on perceptions.","delivery":"Delivery framing: delivery means revising AI literacy training so students practise matching prompts to task intent across assignment types. Libraries or teaching centres should own the module, with faculty supplying discipline tasks. Track observed performance on task-based exercises, not just confidence. Risks include assuming confident students need no training and over-investing in generic template libraries. Treat transfer from this Chinese sample to local students as a question for local measurement."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"Students feel confident with GenAI but do not tailor prompts to different academic tasks, and generic template training may not help.","stakeholders":["Library","Teaching and learning center","Career services","First-year experience office"],"discoveryQuestions":["How is AI literacy taught and assessed today?","Do we rely on prompt templates in training?","Can we measure prompting on real course tasks?"],"valueHypothesis":"Interpretation: task-based AI literacy training may close the gap between student confidence and task-adapted skill.","potentialEngagement":"Redesign and pilot of one task-based AI literacy module with before-and-after observed performance checks.","unsupportedClaims":["Students lack prompting skill","Training improves grades","Findings transfer directly to US students","Templates are ineffective"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Training design rather than technology; relevant to how prompt libraries and custom assistants are offered.","architectureIntegration":"Short task-based exercises delivered through the LMS using the institution-approved AI platform.","prerequisites":["Approved AI platform","Task-based assessment rubric","LMS module space"],"constraints":["Self-report evidence only","Chinese sample","Preprint status"],"security":"Exercises should use the approved platform so student prompts stay under institutional data terms.","proofOfValue":["Observed prompt quality on matched research and creative tasks","Comparison of self-rating with observed performance","Before-and-after module results"]},"delivery":{"work":"Revise AI literacy training around task-specific prompting and measure observed performance.","dependencies":["Faculty-supplied discipline tasks","Library or teaching center staff time","Approved AI platform"],"ownership":"Library or teaching and learning center.","skillsAdoption":"Instructors and librarians need examples of prompt-intent alignment across assignment types.","governanceCheckpoints":["Module design review","Rubric validation","End-of-term results review"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Proposed: module covers at least two contrasting task types","Proposed: observed prompt-quality scores improve on pre-module baseline","Proposed: student confidence and observed scores both reported"],"risks":["Confidence mistaken for skill","Overreliance on generic templates","Weak transfer across contexts"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-11-01T03:20:37Z","enrichedAt":"2026-11-01T03:24:15Z","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Points to a gap between student confidence and task-adapted skill that orientation and workforce-readiness programmes could address.","procurementImplications":"Not addressed.","operatingModelImplications":"Interpretation: libraries and teaching centres could teach task-specific prompting through discipline examples.","peerReview":"preprint","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.39571","referenceExcerpt":"fixed prompt templates received lower endorsement than other prompting strategies","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}