Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
University responses to generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) require evidence about the specific capabilities students perceive themselves to possess. This cross-sectional study examined overall, domain, and item-level self-reports among 616 undergraduates recruited through 18 universities in Shandong, China. A contextually adapted 12-item measure assessed awareness, use, evaluation, and ethics. Descriptive statistics and response distributions were interpreted alongside internal-consistency and confirmatory factor analyses. Overall literacy averaged 3.495 on a five-point scale (SD = 0.650); domain means were 3.688 for ethics, 3.477 for awareness, 3.423 for evaluation, and 3.392 for use. Cronbach’s alpha was .900 overall and .821–.874 across domains. Positive-direction responses accounted for 61.2%–64.9% on ethics items, 45.9%–48.1% on use items, and 45.5%–50.8% on evaluation items. Midpoint responses represented 37.5% for proficient academic use and 38.8% for evaluating capabilities and limitations. Item distributions thus qualified the positive overall mean by locating specific areas of more reserved self-appraisal. The findings support connecting practical application with evaluation and examining how ethical commitments translate into academic decisions. They provide contextual evidence for planning follow-up assessment, while voluntary recruitment and self-report measurement limit population and proficiency claims.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: