More scientists are now using AI, but prior studies have examined only how they use it ‘at the desk’ for computer-based work. However, given that scientific work often happens ‘beyond the desk’ at lab and field sites, we conducted the first study of how scientific practitioners use AI for embodied physical tasks. We interviewed 12 scientific practitioners doing hands-on lab and fieldwork in domains like nuclear fusion, primate cognition, and biochemistry, and found three barriers to AI adoption in these settings: 1) experimental setups are too high-stakes to risk AI errors, 2) constrained environments make it hard to use AI, and 3) AI cannot match the tacit knowledge of humans. Participants then developed speculative designs for future AI assistants to 1) monitor task status, 2) organize lab-wide knowledge, 3) monitor scientists’ health, 4) do field scouting, 5) do hands-on chores. Our findings point toward AI as background infrastructure to support physical work rather than replacing human expertise.

Instructors are increasingly experimenting with AI chatbots for classroom support. To investigate how instructors adapt chatbots to their own contexts, we first analyzed existing resources that provide prompts for educational purposes. We identified ten common categories of customization, such as persona, guardrails, and personalization. We then conducted interviews with ten university STEM instructors and asked them to card-sort the categories into priorities. We found that instructors consistently prioritized the ability to customize chatbot behavior to align with course materials and pedagogical strategies and de-prioritized customizing persona/tone. However, their prioritization of other categories varied significantly by course size, discipline, and teaching style, even across courses taught by the same individual, highlighting that no single design can meet all contexts. These findings suggest that modular AI chatbots may provide a promising path forward. We offer design implications for educational developers building the next generation of customizable classroom AI systems.

The widespread adoption of generative AI is already impacting learning and help-seeking. While the benefits of generative AI are well-understood, recent studies have also raised concerns about increased potential for cheating and negative impacts on students' metacognition and critical thinking. However, the potential impacts on social interactions, peer learning, and classroom dynamics are not yet well understood. To investigate these aspects, we conducted 17 semi-structured interviews with undergraduate computing students across seven R1 universities in North America. Our findings suggest that help-seeking requests are now often mediated by generative AI. For example, students often redirected questions from their peers to generative AI instead of providing assistance themselves, undermining peer interaction. Students also reported feeling increasingly isolated and demotivated as the social support systems they rely on begin to break down. These findings are concerning given the important role that social interactions play in students' learning and sense of belonging.

Help-seeking is a critical aspect of learning and problem-solving for computing students. Recent research has shown that many students are aware of generative AI (GenAI) tools; however, there are gaps in the extent and effectiveness of how students use them. With over two years of widespread GenAI usage, it is crucial to understand whether students' help-seeking behaviors with these tools have evolved and how. This paper presents findings from a repeated cross-sectional survey conducted among computing students across North American universities ( n=95 ). Our results indicate shifts in GenAI usage patterns. In 2023, 34.1% of students ( n=47 ) reported never using ChatGPT for help, ranking it fourth after online searches, peer support, and class forums. By 2024, this figure dropped sharply to 6.3% ( n=48 ), with ChatGPT nearly matching online search as the most commonly used help resource. Despite this growing prevalence, there has been a decline in students' hourly and daily usage of GenAI tools, which may be attributed to a common tendency to underestimate usage frequency. These findings offer new insights into the evolving role of GenAI in computing education, highlighting its increasing acceptance and solidifying its position as a key help resource.