Daniel Dunlap

Andrew Jelson, Daniel Manesh, Alice Jang et al.

As large language models (LLMs) advance and become widespread, students increasingly turn to systems like ChatGPT for assistance with writing tasks. Educators are concerned with students' usage of ChatGPT beyond cheating; using ChatGPT may reduce their critical engagement with writing, hindering students' learning processes. The negative or positive impact of using LLM-powered tools for writing will depend on how students use them; however, how students use ChatGPT remains largely unknown, resulting in a limited understanding of its impact on learning. To better understand how students use these tools, we conducted an online study $(n=70)$ where students were given an essay-writing task using a custom platform we developed to capture the queries they made to ChatGPT. To characterize their ChatGPT usage, we categorized each of the queries students made to ChatGPT. We then analyzed the relationship between ChatGPT usage and a variety of other metrics, including students' self-perception, attitudes towards AI, and the resulting essay itself. We found that factors such as gender, race, and perceived self-efficacy can help predict different AI usage patterns. Additionally, we found that different usage patterns were associated with varying levels of enjoyment and perceived ownership over the essay. The results of this study contribute to discussions about how writing education should incorporate generative AI-powered tools in the classroom.

Andrew Jelson, Daniel Manesh, Sangwook Lee et al.

With the rapid adoption of AI writing assistants in education, educators and researchers need empirical evidence to understand the impact on student writing and inform effective pedagogical design. Despite widespread use, we lack systematic understanding of how students engage with these tools during authentic writing tasks: when they seek assistance, what they ask, and how they incorporate AI-generated content into their essays. This gap limits evidence-based policy development and rigorous evaluation of generative AI's learning effects. To address this gap, we introduce NIRVANA, a dataset capturing how university students use generative AI while writing an analytical essay. The dataset includes 77 students who completed an essay task with access to ChatGPT, recording keystroke-level writing behavior, full ChatGPT conversation histories, and all text copied from ChatGPT, enabling a complete reconstruction of the writing process and revealing how AI assistance shapes student work. Our analysis identifies key behavioral patterns, including variation in ChatGPT query frequency and its relationship to essay characteristics such as length and readability. We identify four writing profiles based on students' contribution and revision patterns: Lead Authors, Collaborators, Drafters, and Vibe Writers. To support deeper investigation, we developed a replay interface that reconstructs the writing process; qualitative analysis of sampled replays demonstrates how this tool enables systematic examination of student-AI interactions.

James Weichert, Daniel Dunlap, Mohammed Farghally et al.

As artificial intelligence (AI) further embeds itself into many settings across personal and professional contexts, increasing attention must be paid not only to AI ethics, but also to the governance and regulation of AI technologies through AI policy. However, the prevailing post-secondary computing curriculum is currently ill-equipped to prepare future AI practitioners to confront increasing demands to implement abstract ethical principles and normative policy preferences into the design and development of AI systems. We believe that familiarity with the 'AI policy landscape' and the ability to translate ethical principles to practices will in the future constitute an important responsibility for even the most technically-focused AI engineers. Toward preparing current computer science (CS) students for these new expectations, we developed an AI Policy Module to introduce discussions of AI policy into the CS curriculum. Building on a successful pilot in fall 2024, in this innovative practice full paper we present an updated and expanded version of the module, including a technical assignment on "AI regulation". We present the findings from our pilot of the AI Policy Module 2.0, evaluating student attitudes towards AI ethics and policy through pre- and post-module surveys. Following the module, students reported increased concern about the ethical impacts of AI technologies while also expressing greater confidence in their abilities to engage in discussions about AI regulation. Finally, we highlight the AI Regulation Assignment as an effective and engaging tool for exploring the limits of AI alignment and emphasizing the role of 'policy' in addressing ethical challenges.