The rapid development of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), including large language models (LLM), has merged to support students in their academic writing process. Keeping pace with the technical and educational landscape requires careful consideration of the opportunities and challenges that GenAI-assisted systems create within education. This serves as a useful and necessary starting point for fully leveraging its potential for learning and teaching. Hence, it is crucial to gather insights from diverse perspectives and use cases from actual users, particularly the unique voices and needs of student-users. Therefore, this study explored and examined students' perceptions and experiences about GenAI-assisted academic writing by conducting in-depth interviews with 20 Chinese students in higher education after completing academic writing tasks using a ChatGPT4-embedded writing system developed by the research team. The study found that students expected AI to serve multiple roles, including multi-tasking writing assistant, virtual tutor, and digital peer to support multifaceted writing processes and performance. Students perceived that GenAI-assisted writing could benefit them in three areas including the writing process, performance, and their affective domain. Meanwhile, they also identified AI-related, student-related, and task-related challenges that were experienced during the GenAI-assisted writing activity. These findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of GenAI's impact on academic writing that is inclusive of student perspectives, offering implications for educational AI design and instructional design.

The advancing power and capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) have expanded the roles of AI in education and have created the possibility for teachers to collaborate with AI in classroom instruction. However, the potential types of teacher-AI collaboration (TAC) in classroom instruction and the benefits and challenges of implementing TAC are still elusive. This study, therefore, aimed to explore different types of TAC and the potential benefits and obstacles of TAC through Focus Group Interviews with 30 Chinese teachers. The study found that teachers anticipated six types of TAC, which are thematized as One Teach, One Observe; One Teach, One Assist; Co-teaching in Stations; Parallel Teaching in Online and Offline Classes; Differentiated Teaching; and Team Teaching. While teachers highlighted that TAC could support them in instructional design, teaching delivery, teacher professional development, and lowering grading load, they perceived a lack of explicit and consistent curriculum guidance, the dominance of commercial AI in schools, the absence of clear ethical guidelines, and teachers' negative attitude toward AI as obstacles to TAC. These findings enhance our understanding of how TAC could be structured at school levels and direct the implications for future development and practice to support TAC.

Considering both the transformative opportunities and challenges presented by generative AI (GenAI) in academic writing, effectively integrating GenAI into the academic setting becomes a significant need requiring prioritization. Yet, there is limited understanding regarding the nature of interactions between different types of students, what behavioral patterns students exhibit during a student-GenAI interaction (SAI) on a given task, and how these different SAI patterns relate to the actual writing task performance. This study, therefore, aimed to identify SAI patterns of academic writing tasks depending on students’ level of AI literacy and examine the differences in academic writing performance between the identified SAI patterns. Drawing from the combination of three data sources, including think-aloud protocols, screen-recordings, and chat histories between 36 Chinese graduate students and a GenAI writing system, epistemic network analysis (ENA) was used to reveal the distinctive SAI patterns of students with different levels of AI literacy. The study found that students with a high level of AI literacy exhibited a collaborative approach to SAI, actively accepting GenAI’s suggestions and engaging GenAI in meta-cognitive-related activities such as planning, whereas students with a low level of AI literacy demonstrated much less interaction with GenAI in completing their writing tasks, instead choosing to ideate and evaluate independently. In addition, the Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney U) test was conducted to assess the writing task performance of the two AI literacy groups. Findings revealed statistical differences in all evaluation rubrics (content, structure/organization, expression). This study offers implications for the design and implementation of GenAI agents in writing tasks and the pedagogy of GenAI-assisted instruction.