I agree with this! It would be interesting to see if there were specific disciplines in which AI usage was more beneficial than in others.

This is another important point. I think that this article's emphasis on self-reported information makes it more challenging to trust its conclusion.

While I still have questions about this study and I think there are some fundamental gaps left in this article, I do think the authors are correct in this respect. If educators can help students develop ways to use AI as a tool but not a substitute, I think it can be a strong asset.

I could see this being the case in regard to students potentially being exposed to ideas they had not previously considered, but this does not seem to suggest that it helps the students themselves solve problems creatively--if anything, would it not excuse them from having to go through the creative process to develop a solution?

This, as noted in the abstract, is another key point of the article. I could see how as students develop digital literacy, they may also develop a stronger capacity for innovation. The more access they have to digital tools and information, the more they can do in/with digital spaces.

I would have liked to seen this expanded on. How did the authors determine this?

I would have liked to see more information on how this study was actually conducted. It is a little unclear how exactly they determined these results. What questions did they ask participants for each variable?

I think this is an important point, as it establishes how the authors collected their data (measuring both information on how participants use AI and their attitudes towards it). After looking it up, the Likert scale for questionnaires allows participants to report to what degree they feel a statement applies to them (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, or strongly agree).

This could be problematic for how trustworthy the data is, though, as it seems more subjective. It would be interesting to see teachers also answer the same questions.

Another option for a follow-up article could be to delve into these categories; it would be interesting to see what differences, if any, exist regarding AI application in secondary education contexts.

I found this section the most challenging, just since it uses a lot of terminology specific to research design and required additional research to try to make sense of. Additionally, I would have liked to see examples of the questions they asked participants. It seems as though the authors primarily used a survey/questionnaire to collect their data, but it is unclear how/if they controlled for potential biases--I would imagine if you ask students to report on how they use and feel about a form of technology that makes completing assignments easier (but does not necessarily maintain rigor) and whether it had a positive or negative effect on their education, they would be more likely to report favorably than not.

I think that this, as one of the three points of interest identified in this study, is a key point. It is important for students to be able to use and adapt technology in any field. While AI may have negatives, I would argue it is more important to find effective ways to integrate it into the classroom instead of just hoping students will not use it.

I presume the implication is that in instances where students cannot engage in a face-to-face classroom experience, AI may be able to help with learning and answer questions on-demand. However, I definitely think this presents an equal number of challenges as it does opportunities--as AI is known to have "hallucinations" and cite nonexistent sources or present false information, how would students be able to verify what they read? Will students using AI in these contexts undermine research skills? How can these challenges be combated?

While I agree that this article is timely, I wonder how research into this topic will evolve over time since it is still relatively new. I think this leaves room for follow up once more data can be collected and the long-term implications can be more clearly determined.

I think this would be the author's "best sentence," as it concisely gives the overarching reason this topic is important.

I think this sentence is a key point and introduces why this is a relevant and necessary topic of study for education.

I am curious as to how the authors of this study measured this--a major concern regarding AI usage is that it might prove detrimental to critical thinking skills, in particular.

I think AI has definitely become an important consideration in the classroom regardless of subject area. As with the introduction of more affordable handheld calculators into schools, I think teachers will have to make room for AI so that students can learn to use it appropriately and effectively as a tool, as opposed to a substitute, for learning.

I agree with this! It would be interesting to see if there were specific disciplines in which AI usage was more beneficial than in others.

This is another important point. I think that this article's emphasis on self-reported information makes it more challenging to trust its conclusion.

While I still have questions about this study and I think there are some fundamental gaps left in this article, I do think the authors are correct in this respect. If educators can help students develop ways to use AI as a tool but not a substitute, I think it can be a strong asset.

I could see this being the case in regard to students potentially being exposed to ideas they had not previously considered, but this does not seem to suggest that it helps the students themselves solve problems creatively--if anything, would it not excuse them from having to go through the creative process to develop a solution?

This, as noted in the abstract, is another key point of the article. I could see how as students develop digital literacy, they may also develop a stronger capacity for innovation. The more access they have to digital tools and information, the more they can do in/with digital spaces.

I would have liked to seen this expanded on. How did the authors determine this?

I found this section the most challenging, just since it uses a lot of terminology specific to research design and required additional research to try to make sense of. Additionally, I would have liked to see examples of the questions they asked participants. It seems as though the authors primarily used a survey/questionnaire to collect their data, but it is unclear how/if they controlled for potential biases--I would imagine if you ask students to report on how they use and feel about a form of technology that makes completing assignments easier (but does not necessarily maintain rigor) and whether it had a positive or negative effect on their education, they would be more likely to report favorably than not.

I would have liked to see more information on how this study was actually conducted. It is a little unclear how exactly they determined these results. What questions did they ask participants for each variable?

I think this is an important point, as it establishes how the authors collected their data (measuring both information on how participants use AI and their attitudes towards it). After looking it up, the Likert scale for questionnaires allows participants to report to what degree they feel a statement applies to them (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, or strongly agree).

I think this could be problematic for how trustworthy the data is, though, as it seems more subjective. It would be interesting to see teachers also answer the same questions.

Another option for a follow-up article could be to delve into these categories; it would be interesting to see what differences, if any, exist regarding AI application in secondary education contexts.

I think that this, as one of the three points of interest identified in this study, is a key point. It is important for students to be able to use and adapt technology in any field. While AI may have negatives, I would argue it is more important to find effective ways to integrate it into the classroom instead of just hoping students will not use it.

I presume the implication is that in instances where students cannot engage in a face-to-face classroom experience, AI may be able to help with learning and answer questions on-demand. However, I definitely think this presents an equal number of challenges as it does opportunities--as AI is known to have "hallucinations" and cite nonexistent sources or present false information, how would students be able to verify what they read? Will students using AI in these contexts undermine research skills? How can these challenges be combated?

While I agree that this article is timely, I wonder how research into this topic will evolve over time since it is still relatively new. I think this leaves room for follow up once more data can be collected and the long-term implications can be more clearly determined.

I think this sentence is a key point and introduces why this is a relevant and necessary topic of study for education.

I think AI has definitely become an important consideration in the classroom regardless of subject area. As with the introduction of more affordable handheld calculators into schools, I think teachers will have to make room for AI so that students can learn to use it appropriately and effectively as a tool, as opposed to a substitute, for learning.

I am curious as to how the authors of this study measured this--a major concern regarding AI usage is that it might prove detrimental to critical thinking skills, in particular.