Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional survey reveals frequent generative AI use alongside low verification rates among high school students, highlighting the urgent need for structured classroom guidance.
Generative artificial intelligence tools have entered the everyday learning of high school students faster than schools have produced guidance on their use. This study describes the current state of that use at one public high school in Quang Ninh province, Vietnam. A cross-sectional survey was administered to 124 students in grades 10, 11 and 12 during the 2025-2026 school year. The instrument contained a demographic section and sixteen four-point Likert items organised into three groups covering the frequency of AI use in learning activities, students’ views on the effects of AI on their learning, and the difficulties they encountered. Data were processed in JASP. Internal consistency was .863, .831 and .846 (Cronbach’s alpha) for the three groups. All students reported owning a smartphone and 51.6% had been using AI tools for more than twelve months, yet only 24.2% had received subject-specific guidance from teachers. Item means ranged from 2.52 to 2.73 on the four-point scale, and every item showed a dispersed response pattern in which between 19.4% and 31.5% of students selected the lowest level while between 27.4% and 37.9% selected the highest. The item on checking AI-generated content against textbooks was among the least frequently endorsed practices, while the item on inaccurate or curriculum-misaligned content received the highest difficulty rating. The findings indicate a gap between the availability of AI tools and the presence of school-level guidance on their use, and point to verification practice as an area for instructional attention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ha Thi Thu Ha (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: