Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12323/8365Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Isaeva, Razia | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Caner, H. Nuran | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Caner, Mustafa | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Giray, Louie | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Karadag, Engin | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-09-11T06:08:20Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2026-09-11T06:08:20Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2026-06 | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2666-920X | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12323/8365 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | This qualitative case study examines undergraduate students' engagement with generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in academic learning in an English-medium university setting. This study employs self-determination theory (SDT) as the primary interpretive framework, treating technology acceptance perceptions (e.g., usefulness and ease of use) as descriptive cues rather than explanatory constructs. Data from 23 semi-structured interviews were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis, complemented by epistemic network analysis (ENA) to examine the structural relationships among themes in students' discourse, with automated coding validated against a manually coded subset. Students frequently described GenAI as supporting efficiency and conceptual understanding; however, their accounts revealed persistent tensions concerning creativity, trust, and academic integrity. The ENA results showed that these concerns were systematically interconnected: discussions of learning support consistently co-occurred with verification practices, reflecting a “trust-but-verify” repertoire through which students calibrated their reliance on AI while maintaining epistemic control. Beyond instrumental evaluations, students' narratives highlighted broader value- and norm-related considerations, including algorithmic bias, environmental sustainability, and the positioning of AI within human–teacher learning networks. Overall, the findings suggest that students' engagement with GenAI is best understood as a motivated and socially situated learning practice shaped by the negotiation of competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Pedagogically, the results support a shift from prohibition-oriented responses to transparent institutional guidance, autonomy- supportive scaffolding of verification practices and AI literacy, and process-oriented assessment designs that make students' reasoning visible. Learning analytics approaches, such as ENA, may further assist educators in examining how these practices become integrated into students’ learning processes. | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Elsevier | en_US |
| dc.relation.ispartofseries | Vol. 10;Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence | - |
| dc.subject | Generative AI | en_US |
| dc.subject | Self-determination theory | en_US |
| dc.subject | Epistemic network analysis | en_US |
| dc.subject | AI literacy | en_US |
| dc.subject | Learning analytics | en_US |
| dc.subject | Academic integrity | en_US |
| dc.title | Students’ engagement with generative AI in academic learning: A self-determination theory and epistemic network analysis study | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |
| Appears in Collections: | Publications | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-s2.0-S2666920X26000688-main.pdf | 1.68 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.