Date
Publisher
arXiv
As artificial intelligence-generated content (AIGC) reshapes knowledge
acquisition, higher education faces growing inequities that demand systematic
mapping and intervention. We map the AI divide in undergraduate education by
combining network science with survey evidence from 301 students at Nanjing
University, one of China's leading institutions in AI education. Drawing on
course enrolment patterns to construct a disciplinary network, we identify four
distinct student communities: science dominant, science peripheral, social
sciences & science, and humanities and social sciences. Survey results reveal
significant disparities in AIGC literacy and motivational efficacy, with
science dominant students outperforming humanities and social sciences peers.
Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression shows that motivational
efficacy--particularly skill efficacy--partially mediates this gap, whereas
usage efficacy does not mediate at the evaluation level, indicating a
dissociation between perceived utility and critical engagement. Our findings
demonstrate that curriculum structure and cross-disciplinary integration are
key determinants of technological fluency. This work provides a scalable
framework for diagnosing and addressing the AI divide through institutional
design.
Study at a glance
- Question: How do academic communities formed by course enrollment patterns affect college students' generative AI literacy and motivation?
- Setting and data: Nanjing University in China, 301 undergraduate students across 29 to 30 departments, surveyed March to May 2025.
- Method: Network community detection analysis paired with student survey, ANOVA, and bootstrap mediation regression analysis.
Why it matters
As artificial intelligence reshapes knowledge acquisition, higher education faces growing inequities. Existing research has not clarified how educational environments and motivational efficacy shape generative AI literacy across different academic disciplines.
Key findings
- Students in science-dominated communities showed significantly higher generative AI literacy and motivation than peers in humanities and social sciences communities.
- Motivational efficacy, particularly skill efficacy, partially mediated the relationship between a student's disciplinary community and their ability to use and evaluate generative AI.
- Earlier undergraduate cohorts with more cumulative course exposure demonstrated significantly higher AI usage and evaluation literacy than newer cohorts.
Summary drafted with AI from the full paper and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who is the user?
Who age?
Why use AI?
Study design
