{"resourceId":"arxiv-genai-skill-development-trajectories-academic-adaptation-university-students-20261022","versions":[{"version":"external-8cba347fef78224875f090718374e7c29e1374043f0c5722d5a0677da7bc5866","resource":{"id":"arxiv-genai-skill-development-trajectories-academic-adaptation-university-students-20261022","title":"Preprint: university students report uneven generative AI skill growth, with academic gains reported more for assignments than exams (313 survey responses, 18 interviews)","organization":"Lei Fan and Fangxue Liu (preprint authors)","sector":"Higher education student generative AI skills and learning outcomes","geography":"Not stated on the abstract page","publishedAt":"arXiv preprint 2610.30599, submitted 22 October 2026","publicationDate":"2026-10-22","eventDate":null,"sourceName":"arXiv","sourceLabel":"Preprint (not peer reviewed), abstract page","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30599","evidenceClass":"academic-research","outcomeClass":"mixed","topics":["knowledge-work","accessibility-workforce"],"finding":"A preprint submitted 22 October examined how university students perceive their generative AI skill development, using a retrospective questionnaire (313 analysed responses) and interviews with 18 students across subject areas. Trajectories varied: 34.2 percent reported rapid early improvement then a plateau, 28.4 percent steady improvement and 21.1 percent delayed acceleration. Evaluating AI outputs was perceived as the hardest skill to improve, and assignments were the most frequently selected driver of growth. Interviews described more specific prompting, tailored verification and selective delegation, but some students reported stable routines, dependence, skipped reasoning or gains partly due to better tools. Academic gains were reported more often for assignments than examinations. Structural equation modelling showed a positive indirect association between perceived skill growth and academic gains through adapted assignment processes; gains did not clearly differ across trajectory groups after multiplicity correction.","sledRelevance":"Points AI literacy programmes at output evaluation, the skill students find hardest, and warns that assignment gains may not carry over to exams.","evidence":"Mixed-methods preprint with retrospective self-report and exploratory SEM; not peer reviewed.","architectureImplications":"Not applicable; no specific tool studied.","governanceImplications":"Interpretation: assessment design that relies on assignments may overstate learning when AI is used; exam and assignment outcomes should be compared.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Not discussed on the abstract page.","caveats":"Preprint; self-reported, retrospective data; setting not stated on the abstract page; associations only.","streamIds":["student-success"],"roles":{"sales":"Sales framing: this preprint suggests students build generative AI skills unevenly and find evaluating outputs hardest. Use it to ask institutions whether AI literacy efforts teach verification and whether they compare assignment and exam performance. A bounded engagement could map AI literacy outcomes onto existing assignments in a few programmes. Do not present it as settled evidence; it is a self-reported, not yet peer-reviewed study with an unstated setting.","engineering":"Engineering framing: there is no system here, but the findings shape what campus AI tools and literacy modules should support, especially verification of outputs. If institutions instrument AI literacy activities, they should capture evidence of checking and source comparison, not just prompt counts. Validation should compare assignment and exam outcomes for the same students, since the preprint found gains reported more often for assignments, and should rely on records rather than retrospective self-report.","delivery":"Delivery framing: delivery teams designing AI literacy should embed it in assignments, which students named as the main driver of skill growth, and give extra weight to output evaluation. Pilot assignment-embedded verification tasks in a few courses, gather student reflections, and compare assignment and exam results. Watch for students who plateau early or report dependence, and route them to learning support. Treat the preprint as a hypothesis source until peer review."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"AI literacy efforts may not teach students to evaluate AI outputs, and assignment gains may mask weak exam learning.","stakeholders":["Provost office AI literacy lead","Center for teaching and learning","Library instruction","Assessment office"],"discoveryQuestions":["Does AI literacy content teach output verification?","Are assignment and exam outcomes compared for AI-heavy courses?","Where is AI literacy embedded in coursework?"],"valueHypothesis":"Interpretation: assignment-embedded verification practice may build the AI skill students find hardest.","potentialEngagement":"A bounded mapping of AI literacy outcomes onto assignments in two or three programmes, with a verification focus.","unsupportedClaims":["That findings are peer reviewed","That AI skill growth causes academic gains","That results apply to a specific country or institution type"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Institutions running AI literacy modules or campus AI tools for coursework.","architectureIntegration":"Literacy activities in the LMS that capture evidence of checking and source comparison.","prerequisites":["Defined verification learning outcomes","Assignment and exam data for comparison"],"constraints":["Preprint status","Self-reported data","Unstated setting"],"security":"Collect reflections and activity data with consent; avoid storing student AI conversations unnecessarily.","proofOfValue":["Compare assignment and exam performance for the same students","Measure verification behaviour in activities","Track students who plateau early"]},"delivery":{"work":"Embed AI output-verification tasks in assignments and evaluate effects on assignment and exam outcomes.","dependencies":["Instructor buy-in","Teaching-centre support","Assessment data"],"ownership":"Center for teaching and learning with programme leads.","skillsAdoption":"Students practise verification and selective delegation; instructors learn to assess verification evidence.","governanceCheckpoints":["Outcome definitions approved by programmes","Mid-term review","End-of-term comparison before scaling"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Proposed: verification tasks embedded in at least one assignment per pilot course","Proposed: assignment and exam results compared","Proposed: student reflections collected on dependence"],"risks":["Relying on preprint findings","Self-report bias in evaluation","Adding workload without clear payoff"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-10-25T03:21:22Z","enrichedAt":"2026-10-25T03:25:36Z","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Uneven skill trajectories suggest some students need more structured support to learn verification, relevant to equitable AI literacy.","procurementImplications":"None directly.","operatingModelImplications":"AI literacy could be built into assignments, which students named as the main driver of skill growth.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30599","referenceExcerpt":"Academic gains were reported more often for assignments than for examinations.","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}