Generative AI in English Sixth Form Education: Student Use, Perceptions, and Literacy Gaps
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
This cross-sectional survey study investigates sixth form students’ engagement with generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools in a large, urban, high-attaining, tech-friendly English college. The site was strategically selected to provide early insight into GAI adoption in a Further Education (FE) context where digital maturity, institutional support, and student demographics are conducive to advanced uptake.Survey responses from 543 students explore patterns of use, learning perceptions, and AI literacy needs - addressing a significant gap in empirical research on GAI use among 16–18-year-old learners in FE settings.Findings suggest notable - and often educationally productive - use of GAI, particularly for explaining complex concepts and generating ideas. Many students viewed GAI as a valuable learning partner, with a minority comparing it favourably to teacher support. Positive attitudes were more common among frequent users and male students, raising equity considerations in AI confidence and literacy.The use of GAI for fact-checking and solving maths problems - despite mixed views on accuracy - revealed important gaps in students’ understanding of the technology’s limitations. Applying Ng et al.’s (2021) AI Literacy Framework, the study found strong student interest in developing evaluative and ethical competencies.Grounded in dialogic and sociocultural learning theory, this study conceptualises GAI as both a cognitive tool and a source of epistemic risk. It draws attention to the role of students’ learning goals evidenced in their use - whether using GAI to complete tasks or to support learning - in shaping the cognitive value of their engagement. The study argues for structured, critical AI literacy in Further Education: enabling students to make meaning with , not just from , AI, and guiding institutional responses beyond restriction toward reflective and pedagogical support.