SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2608.28501

A Guided Inquiry Approach to Students Co-Designing Generative AI Course Policies

Abstract

As generative AI (GenAI) use among students increases, educators face growing questions about how to support learning while addressing ethical and institutional concerns. This exploratory study examines a guided inquiry activity in which students co-designed a GenAI course policy. Students first developed individual policy proposals focused on appropriate and ethical use of GenAI, then collaboratively refined them by incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives. The following research questions guided the study: 1) what practical factors do students prioritize in their GenAI use policies, and how do they justify these choices? and 2) how do participants reflect on the policy design process? Participants first completed readings, then used GenAI to brainstorm initial policy ideas. Next, they articulated their own perspectives through a written assignment and a course policy they designed individually. Finally, they incorporated diverse stakeholder perspectives by collaborating with peers to develop a collective policy. Analysis of student artifacts and group discussions showed that participants prioritized training for students and instructors, standardized procedures for disclosing AI use, and stronger institutional support. Participants also wanted greater involvement in GenAI-related decision-making. They described the policy design process as a way to engage with multiple perspectives and the inherent trade-offs involved in governing AI use. This study offers pedagogical insights into how policy co-design activities can surface student values, concerns, and sensemaking about GenAI in educational contexts.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Ashish Hingle, Aditya Johri. 2026-08-28. A Guided Inquiry Approach to Students Co-Designing Generative AI Course Policies. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28501

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

From Design Principles to Prototype: A Game for Students with ADHD and Learning Disabilities Transitioning to Post-Secondary Education

Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Learning Disabilities (LD) can face significant academic, social, and organizational challenges when transitioning to post-secondary education. This paper presents a literature-informed serious game prototype designed to support this transition. We synthesize prior work into design considerations for students with ADHD and LD and show how these considerations are instantiated in a story-driven game.

cs.MM

BIRDS: Characterizing and Understanding Biodiversity Impact of Large Language Model Serving

Large language model (LLM) serving creates environmental impacts beyond carbon and water, including ecosystem damage through biodiversity-related pathways. We present BIRDS, a framework for Biodiversity Impact of Request-Driven LLM Serving. BIRDS defines request-level functional units, quantifies operational and embodied biodiversity impact, and introduces Quality-Normalized Biodiversity Impact (QNBI) to jointly analyze ecological impact and response quality. Across diverse workloads, models, GPUs, and regions, BIRDS reveals that biodiversity impact accumulates at scale and exposes quality-aware serving tradeoffs. The code is available at https://github.com/TianyaoShi/BIRDS.

q-bio.OT

Experts Disagree on How to Fight AI Disinformation, but Agree That Health and Politics Need Different Solutions

When 54 international experts assessed AI-generated disinformation threats, they revealed a surprising pattern: while video deepfakes received the highest average threat ratings in the political domain (M = 6.31/7), the pattern differed in the health domain, where AI-generated text received the highest average rating (M = 5.80). Experts also diverge on what to do: government regulation drew both the most "most effective" (30%) and the most "least effective" (15%) votes, though rating distributions were contested rather than polarized, indicating disagreement over priorities rather than over efficacy. These findings offer an initial expert map of an AI-disinformation landscape that is still rapidly forming.

cs.CY