This presentation addresses the 2026 EdTech conference theme by centering the lived experiences of the "who" in our digital learning ecosystems: the students. Supported by generous funding from the national N-TUTORR project, this Masters research is based on a mixed-methods study of 282 survey respondents and 15 interviewees across four Irish Technological Universities. Ultimately, this presentation explores how students interact with Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) and advocates for a human-centric, ethical approach to its integration.

Part 1: Key Findings on Student GenAI Usage The study reveals a pragmatic approach to GenAI among students, with the majority reporting moderate to high familiarity with the technology. The primary motivations for using GenAI are to save time and increase efficiency (63.8%), and to better understand complex coursework (49.6%). Despite narratives of widespread uncritical adoption, students currently use GenAI predominantly for auxiliary tasks like study assistance, grammar refinement, and brainstorming, rather than direct content generation. However, students harbour profound concerns about the technology; 76.6% worry about content accuracy and "hallucinations," while substantial majorities fear that GenAI may perpetuate societal biases and diminish independent critical thinking.

Part 2: Ethical Guidance, Academic Integrity, and GenAI as a Tool. Academic integrity remains a highly emotive issue, with 77% of students agreeing that GenAI increases academic dishonesty and makes it easier to submit unoriginal work. However, students are deeply frustrated by the "grey area" of current institutional responses and the unreliability of AI detection software, which frequently causes false flagging and distrust. To ensure academic integrity, institutions must stop viewing GenAI solely as a threat and instead provide explicit, structured guidance to help students use it ethically as an "assist tool". By moving away from blanket bans and focusing on transparency—such as requiring students to document their GenAI use and prompt engineering—educators can guide learners to harness GenAI to legitimately enhance and support their academic work.

Part 3: The Psychological Perspective: GenAI, Motivation, and Self-Efficacy. From a psychological perspective, GenAI intersects deeply with student motivation and learning approaches. The study found a strong correlation between motivational profiles and GenAI adoption: "strategic" and "surface" learners readily utilise GenAI to manage academic demands and time constraints, whereas intrinsically motivated "deep learners" are significantly more hesitant to use it. Beyond study habits, GenAI has a profound psychological impact by boosting student confidence, reducing academic anxiety, and acting as a scaffold for self-regulated learning. It serves as a powerful accessibility tool—functioning as an "ADHD assistant" for neurodivergent students, helping non-native speakers overcome language barriers, and providing a judgment-free space for shy students to ask questions.

Part 4: Recommendations for the EdTech Community To responsibly integrate GenAI and prepare students for an AI-permeated future, this presentation concludes with four student-informed recommendations:

1. Redesign Assessments for Authentic Learning: Shift away from traditional essays susceptible to AI generation and move towards process-oriented assignments, in-class research, and oral defences (Vivas) that measure genuine understanding.

2. Cultivate AI Literacy and Critical Thinking: Implement mandatory onboarding modules that explicitly teach students how to fact-check AI outputs, craft precise prompts, and evaluate algorithmic bias.

3. Shift from Detection to Trust-Based Verification: Abandon unreliable AI detection tools in favour of transparent assignment portals where students document their human-AI collaboration and demonstrate their critical thinking processes.

4. Co-Create Clear Policies: Develop flexible, module-specific guidelines in partnership with students, transforming the educational culture from one of suspicion to one of collaborative, ethical engagement.