Constructing Epistemic AI Literacy: Detecting Epistemic Aims and Processes in Student-AI Co-Programming

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.00211v1
• Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2026 21:43:35 GMT
• Title: Constructing Epistemic AI Literacy: Detecting Epistemic Aims and Processes in Student-AI Co-Programming
• Abstract summary: Epistemic thinking plays a central role in students' learning processes when applying generative artificial intelligence (GenAI)<n>This study introduces the conceptual framework of Epistemic AI Literacy (EAIL)<n>The results reveal a prevalent lack of EAIL, with 78.8% of student-GenAI interactions relying on non-mastery-oriented aims.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Epistemic thinking plays a central role in students' learning processes when applying generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), particularly in programming contexts where learners must construct queries, evaluate and validate AI-generated outputs, and regulate problem-solving strategies. This study introduces the conceptual framework of Epistemic AI Literacy (EAIL), reframing AI literacy as a process-oriented epistemic phenomenon that emerges through dynamic human-AI interactions across different domains. Drawing on the AIR (epistemic aims, ideals and reliable epistemic processes) framework, this study examines how epistemic aims and epistemic processes are enacted in GenAI-supported co-programming activities and explores scalable approaches for operationalizing these constructs in interaction data. Using a large dialogue dataset of human-AI co-programming, this study identifies observable dimensions of epistemic aims (i.e., mastery-oriented aims) and epistemic processes (i.e., outsourcing, explanation seeking, verification seeking, prompt monitoring, and epistemic justification). The results reveal a prevalent lack of EAIL, with 78.8% of student-GenAI interactions relying on non-mastery-oriented aims and less reliable epistemic strategies like outsourcing and verification-seeking. Conversely, only 11.1% of interactions showed high epistemic engagement, where mastery-oriented aims were coupled with advanced epistemic strategies like epistemic justification in a more reliable epistemic process.

Related papers

• Industrialized Deception: The Collateral Effects of LLM-Generated Misinformation on Digital Ecosystems [47.03825808787752]
  This paper transitions from literature review to practical countermeasures.<n>We report on improved AI-generated content through Large Language Models (LLMs) and multimodal systems.<n>We discuss mitigation strategies including LLM-based detection, inoculation approaches, and the dual-use nature of generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T16:42:22Z)
• Uncovering Students' Inquiry Patterns in GenAI-Supported Clinical Practice: An Integration of Epistemic Network Analysis and Sequential Pattern Mining [9.4751316250728]
  This study applies learning analytics to understand how students develop clinical communication competencies with GenAI-powered virtual patients.<n>We analyzed 323 students' interaction logs across Australian and Malaysian institutions, comprising 50,871 coded utterances from 1,487 student-GenAI dialogues.<n>High performers centered inquiry on recognizing clinically relevant information, integrating rapport-building and structural organization, while low performers remained in routine question-verification loops.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-04T02:08:21Z)
• AI Deception: Risks, Dynamics, and Controls [153.71048309527225]
  This project provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the AI deception field.<n>We identify a formal definition of AI deception, grounded in signaling theory from studies of animal deception.<n>We organize the landscape of AI deception research as a deception cycle, consisting of two key components: deception emergence and deception treatment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T16:56:04Z)
• Agentic AI as Undercover Teammates: Argumentative Knowledge Construction in Hybrid Human-AI Collaborative Learning [6.109253207492508]
  Generative artificial intelligence (AI) agents are increasingly embedded in collaborative learning environments.<n>This study investigates how agentic AI, designed as undercover teammates with either supportive or contrarian personas, shapes the dynamics of collaborative reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-19T14:26:15Z)
• Classifying Epistemic Relationships in Human-AI Interaction: An Exploratory Approach [0.6906005491572401]
  This study examines how users form relationships with AI-how they assess, trust, and collaborate with it in research and teaching contexts.<n>Based on 31 interviews with academics across disciplines, we developed a five-part codebook and identified five relationship types.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-02T23:41:28Z)
• Medical Reasoning in the Era of LLMs: A Systematic Review of Enhancement Techniques and Applications [59.721265428780946]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) in medicine have enabled impressive capabilities, yet a critical gap remains in their ability to perform systematic, transparent, and verifiable reasoning.<n>This paper provides the first systematic review of this emerging field.<n>We propose a taxonomy of reasoning enhancement techniques, categorized into training-time strategies and test-time mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-01T14:41:31Z)
• When Models Know More Than They Can Explain: Quantifying Knowledge Transfer in Human-AI Collaboration [79.69935257008467]
  We introduce Knowledge Integration and Transfer Evaluation (KITE), a conceptual and experimental framework for Human-AI knowledge transfer capabilities.<n>We conduct the first large-scale human study (N=118) explicitly designed to measure it.<n>In our two-phase setup, humans first ideate with an AI on problem-solving strategies, then independently implement solutions, isolating model explanations' influence on human understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T20:48:16Z)
• A Survey of Frontiers in LLM Reasoning: Inference Scaling, Learning to Reason, and Agentic Systems [93.8285345915925]
  Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process that enables logical inference, problem-solving, and decision-making.<n>With the rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs), reasoning has emerged as a key capability that distinguishes advanced AI systems.<n>We categorize existing methods along two dimensions: (1) Regimes, which define the stage at which reasoning is achieved; and (2) Architectures, which determine the components involved in the reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-12T01:27:49Z)
• Beyond Tools: Generative AI as Epistemic Infrastructure in Education [0.0]
  generative AI rapidly integrates into educational infrastructures worldwide.<n>This paper investigates how AI systems function as epistemic infrastructures in education.<n>It analyzes their impact on teacher practice across three dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T14:35:30Z)
• Towards Next-Generation Medical Agent: How o1 is Reshaping Decision-Making in Medical Scenarios [46.729092855387165]
  We study the choice of the backbone LLM for medical AI agents, which is the foundation for the agent's overall reasoning and action generation.<n>Our findings demonstrate o1's ability to enhance diagnostic accuracy and consistency, paving the way for smarter, more responsive AI tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-16T18:19:53Z)
• Augmenting the Author: Exploring the Potential of AI Collaboration in Academic Writing [25.572926673827165]
  This case study highlights the importance of prompt design, output analysis, and recognizing the AI's limitations to ensure responsible and effective AI integration in scholarly work. The paper contributes to the field of Human-Computer Interaction by exploring effective prompt strategies and providing a comparative analysis of Gen AI models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-23T19:06:39Z)
• Adversarial Interaction Attack: Fooling AI to Misinterpret Human Intentions [46.87576410532481]
  We show that, despite their current huge success, deep learning based AI systems can be easily fooled by subtle adversarial noise. Based on a case study of skeleton-based human interactions, we propose a novel adversarial attack on interactions. Our study highlights potential risks in the interaction loop with AI and humans, which need to be carefully addressed when deploying AI systems in safety-critical applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-17T16:23:20Z)

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.