Trust and Reliance on AI in Education: AI Literacy and Need for Cognition as Moderators

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.01114v1
• Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2026 16:38:47 GMT
• Title: Trust and Reliance on AI in Education: AI Literacy and Need for Cognition as Moderators
• Abstract summary: We investigate how students' trust relates to their appropriate reliance on an AI assistant during programming problem-solving tasks.<n>We operationalize reliance behaviorally as the extent to which students' responses reflected appropriate use of the AI assistant's suggestions.
• Score: 2.0391237204597363
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: As generative AI systems are integrated into educational settings, students often encounter AI-generated output while working through learning tasks, either by requesting help or through integrated tools. Trust in AI can influence how students interpret and use that output, including whether they evaluate it critically or exhibit overreliance. We investigate how students' trust relates to their appropriate reliance on an AI assistant during programming problem-solving tasks, and whether this relationship differs by learner characteristics. With 432 undergraduate participants, students' completed Python output-prediction problems while receiving recommendations and explanations from an AI chatbot, including accurate and intentionally misleading suggestions. We operationalize reliance behaviorally as the extent to which students' responses reflected appropriate use of the AI assistant's suggestions, accepting them when they were correct and rejecting them when they were incorrect. Pre- and post-task surveys assessed trust in the assistant, AI literacy, need for cognition, programming self-efficacy, and programming literacy. Results showed a non-linear relationship in which higher trust was associated with lower appropriate reliance, suggesting weaker discrimination between correct and incorrect recommendations. This relationship was significantly moderated by students' AI literacy and need for cognition. These findings highlight the need for future work on instructional and system supports that encourage more reflective evaluation of AI assistance during problem-solving.

Related papers

• Framing, Judging, Steering: An Assessable Competency Model for Teach-ing Students to Reason With Generative AI [47.027290803102666]
  We propose CoRe-3 (Co-Reasoning), a competency model factoring productive AI use into three assessable skills.<n>We ground the skills in theory, state five testable propositions, and instantiate them in CoReasoningLab.<n>Human-rater agreement and outcomes are next; we release the instrument, data, and protocol.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T10:25:31Z)
• Reimagining Assessment in the Age of Generative AI: Lessons from Open-Book Exams with ChatGPT [1.2183405753834562]
  Generative AI systems such as ChatGPT challenge traditional assumptions about academic assessment by enabling students to generate explanations, code, and solutions in real time.<n>Rather than attempting to restrict AI use, this study investigates how students actually interact with such systems during formal evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-12T16:33:33Z)
• Unpacking Vibe Coding: Help-Seeking Processes in Student-AI Interactions While Programming [1.3802799822705387]
  Generative AI is reshaping higher education programming through vibe coding, where students collaborate with AI via natural language.<n>We analyze 19,418 interaction turns from 110 undergraduate students to compare top- and low-performing students.<n>Results reveal that top performers engaged in instrumental help-seeking, eliciting tutor-like AI responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T19:35:10Z)
• Teaching Students to Question the Machine: An AI Literacy Intervention Improves Students' Regulation of LLM Use in a Science Task [0.0]
  The rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence in schools raises concerns about students' uncritical reliance on its outputs.<n>These skills are still developing in middle school, making students vulnerable to over-trust and premature acceptance of AI outputs.<n>We report a controlled classroom study examining whether a two-hour AI literacy workshop improves students' interaction strategies and quality of final answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-02T12:19:43Z)
• Do Students Rely on AI? Analysis of Student-ChatGPT Conversations from a Field Study [10.71612026319996]
  This study analyzed 315 student-AI conversations during a brief, quiz-based scenario across various STEM courses.<n>Students exhibited overall low reliance on AI and many of them could not effectively use AI for learning.<n>Certain behavioral metrics strongly predicted AI reliance, highlighting potential behavioral mechanisms to explain AI adoption.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-27T20:00:27Z)
• Learning to Use AI for Learning: How Can We Effectively Teach and Measure Prompting Literacy for K-12 Students? [1.413488665073795]
  There is a growing need to equip the next generation with the ability to apply, interact with, evaluate, and collaborate with AI systems responsibly.<n>To address this need, we designed an Large-Language Model (LLM)-based module to teach prompting literacy.<n>We conducted two iterations of classroom deployment in 11 authentic secondary education classrooms, and evaluated 1) AI-based auto-grader's capability; 2) students' prompting performance and confidence changes towards using AI for learning; and 3) the quality of learning and assessment materials.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-19T15:54:51Z)
• AI Literacy as a Key Driver of User Experience in AI-Powered Assessment: Insights from Socratic Mind [2.0272430076690027]
  This study examines how students' AI literacy and prior exposure to AI technologies shape their perceptions of Socratic Mind.<n>Data from 309 undergraduates in Computer Science and Business courses were collected.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-29T10:11:24Z)
• Students' Reliance on AI in Higher Education: Identifying Contributing Factors [2.749898166276854]
  This study investigates potential factors contributing to patterns of AI reliance among undergraduate students.<n>appropriate reliance is significantly related to students' programming self-efficacy, programming literacy, and need for cognition.<n>Overreliance showed significant correlations with post-task trust and satisfaction with the AI assistant.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T17:55:26Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• Evaluating AI-Powered Learning Assistants in Engineering Higher Education: Student Engagement, Ethical Challenges, and Policy Implications [0.2099922236065961]
  This study evaluates the Educational AI Hub, an AI-powered learning framework, implemented in undergraduate civil and environmental engineering courses at a large R1 public university.<n>Students valued the AI assistant for its accessibility and comfort, with nearly half reporting greater ease using it than seeking help from instructors or teaching assistants.<n>Ethical uncertainty, particularly around institutional policy and academic integrity, emerged as a key barrier to full engagement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T03:02:49Z)
• Methodological Foundations for AI-Driven Survey Question Generation [41.94295877935867]
  This paper presents a methodological framework for using generative AI in educational survey research.<n>We explore how Large Language Models can generate adaptive, context-aware survey questions.<n>We examine ethical issues such as bias, privacy, and transparency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T09:50:34Z)
• Bridging the Communication Gap: Evaluating AI Labeling Practices for Trustworthy AI Development [41.64451715899638]
  High-level AI labels, inspired by frameworks like EU energy labels, have been proposed to make the properties of AI models more transparent.<n>This study evaluates AI labeling through qualitative interviews along four key research questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-21T06:00:14Z)
• Do great minds think alike? Investigating Human-AI Complementarity in Question Answering with CAIMIRA [43.116608441891096]
  Humans outperform AI systems in knowledge-grounded abductive and conceptual reasoning. State-of-the-art LLMs like GPT-4 and LLaMA show superior performance on targeted information retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T03:53:26Z)
• On Evaluating Explanation Utility for Human-AI Decision Making in NLP [39.58317527488534]
  We review existing metrics suitable for application-grounded evaluation. We demonstrate the importance of reassessing the state of the art to form and study human-AI teams.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T23:53:27Z)
• Learning to Prompt in the Classroom to Understand AI Limits: A pilot study [35.06607166918901]
  Large Language Models (LLM) and the derived chatbots, like ChatGPT, have highly improved the natural language processing capabilities of AI systems. However, excitement has led to negative sentiments, even as AI methods demonstrate remarkable contributions. A pilot educational intervention was performed in a high school with 21 students.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-04T07:51:37Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.