Collaborative Uses of GenAI Tools in Project-Based Learning

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is forcing a dramatic transformation of the methods by which we acquire knowledge and engage in collaborative learning. Although there are several studies on how AI can support collaborative learning, there are no published studies examining how students can actually collaborate among themselves while interacting with AI tools. For this study, thirty postgraduate students were organized into teams of three, and each team developed a project mainly exploiting responses from ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and MS Copilot, as well as the internet and class resources. Each team selected a specific internet of things (IoT) application area and described the technologies and real-world cases in this area. Then, each team delivered a report with the full description of their project and their interactions with these generative AI (GenAI) tools and presented their work in class. Additionally, students answered an online questionnaire with closed- and open-ended questions and participated in focus group discussions. Members of each team collaborated to design prompts using five suggested modes of collaboration. Eventually, half of the students exploited all five collaborative modes, but they mostly liked and preferred three of these collaborative modes. On average, teammates initially disagreed 24% of the time but eventually reached an agreement. Students appreciated GenAI tools for their quick and well-structured responses, natural communication style, broad subject coverage, as well as their ability to simplify complex topics and support personalized learning. However, they expressed concerns about GenAI tools’ inaccurate and inconsistent responses and identified key risks, such as passive learning, over-dependence, outdated information, and privacy issues. Finally, students recommended that GenAI tools should provide a shared and well-organized discussion space for collaborative prompt asking, allowing all team members to simultaneously view each other’s prompts and the tool’s responses. They also advised source verification and proper training to ensure these tools remain supplementary rather than primary learning resources.