Actionable companion · Assessment & reasoning

From AI evidence to responsible practice: The role of generative AI tools in shaping mechanical engineering education from an undergraduate perspective

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide, separate from the original research. Proposed actions are not findings or recommendations attributed to the source authors. No independent peer review of this guide is asserted.

Read original paper Search paper agent CC BY 4.0

Evidence and context

Title and abstract screening; stage labels describe reported settings, not verified numerical ages. Design labels require full-text appraisal. Reported stage(s): Higher education. Verify the participants, intervention and comparator before applying this study in a new setting.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the linked source license:

Abstract This study evaluates the effectiveness of three leading generative AI tools-ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot-in undergraduate mechanical engineering education using a mixed-methods approach. The performance of these tools was assessed on 800 questions spanning seven core subjects, covering multiple-choice, numerical, and theory-based formats. While all three AI tools demonstrated strong performance in theory-based questions, they struggled with numerical problem-solving, particularly in areas requiring deep conceptual understanding and complex calculations. Among them, Copilot achieved the highest accuracy (60.38%), followed by Gemini (57.13%) and ChatGPT (46.63%). To complement these findings, a survey of 172 students and interviews with 20 participants provided insights into user experiences, challenges, and perceptions of AI in academic settings. Thematic analysis revealed concerns regarding AI’s reliability in numerical tasks and its potential impact on students’ problem-solving abilities. Based on these results, this study offers strategic recommendations for integrating AI into mechanical engineering curricula, ensuring its responsible use to enhance learning without fostering dependency. Additionally, we propose instructional strategies to help educators adapt assessment methods in the era of AI-assisted learning. These findings contribute to the broader discussion on AI’s role in engineering education and its implications for future learning methodologies. Keywords: Generative AI; ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini; Mechanical engineering Subject terms: Mechanical engineering, Computer science

What kind of evidence is this?

Supporting AI learning science · Qualitative / mixed methods

Stage: Higher education. Screening labels describe reported context and study-design language. They are not a risk-of-bias rating or proof of effectiveness for an age band.

Study methods · source passage

Abstract This study evaluates the effectiveness of three leading generative AI tools-ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot-in undergraduate mechanical engineering education using a mixed-methods approach. The performance of these tools was assessed on 800 questions spanning seven core subjects, covering multiple-choice, numerical, and theory-based formats. While all three AI tools demonstrated strong performance in theory-based questions, they struggled with numerical problem-solving, particularly in areas requiring deep conceptual understanding and complex calculations. Among them, Copilot achieved the highest accuracy (60.38%), followed by Gemini (57.13%) and ChatGPT (46.63%). To complement these findings, a survey of 172 students and interviews with 20 participants provided insights into user experiences, challenges, and perceptions of AI in academic settings. Thematic analysis revealed concerns regarding AI’s reliability in numerical tasks and its potential impact on students’ problem-solving abilities. Based on these results, this study offers strategic recommendations for integrating AI into mechanical engineering curricula, ensuring its responsible use to enhance learning without fostering dependency. Additionally, we propose instructional strategies to help educators adapt assessment methods in the era of AI-assisted learning. These findings contribute to the broader discussion on AI’s role in engineering education and its implications for future learning methodologies. Keywords: Generative AI; ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini; Mechanical engineering Subject terms: Mechanical engineering, Computer science

Limitations and uncertainty · source passage

The study primarily involved interviews conducted at two leading Indian engineering universities, but we acknowledge the potential benefit of expanding this to institutions outside India. However, we believe the geographic limitation does not significantly affect the findings, as the questions posed to the generative AI tools were commonly used in engineering curricula worldwide. Due to time constraints and limited resources, participants were recruited via snowball sampling, which could introduce biases related to the academic practices of the included universities, despite the diversity of participants. To encourage open and honest discussions, students were assured that the interviews were strictly for research purposes, with no disciplinary actions regarding their use of generative AI tools. However, it’s possible that some participants may have withheld certain experiences, fearing potential repercussions for misuse of the tool. Given the exploratory nature of the study, the surveys and interview questionnaires were not validated by prior research. Future studies could refine these instruments to gain a deeper understanding of user behaviors. Additionally, only free versions of the generative AI tools were tested, as preferred by students. Testing premium versions may yield further insights, and while this study covered seven subjects, expanding to other subjects could provide more comprehensive data.

Design the system before the pilot

Use this study to inform a learning mechanism or implementation question. It is not direct evidence that autonomous agents improve learning. Keep the proposed agent behavior separate from what the source actually tested.

Use common rubrics, blind scoring where feasible and a fresh unaided reasoning task. Document permissible assistance and avoid treating AI-detector scores as proof of misconduct.

A 90-day district pilot

Days 1–15 · Appraise. Have the curriculum lead and a teacher read the methods and limitations. Record the study design, sample, comparator, outcomes and evidence gaps. Define a local question that the study can help inform.
Days 16–30 · Design. Choose one disciplinary task. Require a first attempt, a documented AI consultation, a critique of the output and an independent explanation. Align the comparison group and scoring rubric with the same objective. Name an accountable owner and set the baseline, success threshold and budget before implementation.
Days 31–60 · Test. Start with a small voluntary cohort, preserve an accessible non-AI route and require teacher review. Use synthetic or de-identified examples; approve data handling and tool terms through district processes.
Days 61–90 · Decide. Blind-score reasoning and accuracy on a new task without AI. Distinguish model examination scores, student perceptions and actual learner gains; only the last directly tests educational benefit. Compare with baseline, document uncertainty and stop or revise if learning worsens, access is unequal or critical errors persist.

The board decision brief

Report the learning problem, evidence quality, participating population, total cost including review time, measured benefit, errors, access differences and remaining uncertainties. Make a dated recommendation to stop, revise or expand. A positive perception survey alone does not establish learning improvement.

Attribution and reuse

Harshal Akolekar; Piyush Jhamnani; Vikash Kumar; Vinay Tailor; Aditya Pote; Ankit Meena; Kamal Kumar; Jagat Sesh Challa; Dhruv Kumar. The role of generative AI tools in shaping mechanical engineering education from an undergraduate perspective. Scientific Reports (2025-03-17). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-93871-z

Companion prepared 2026-11-01. Original authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract is an attributed source extract; the implementation plan is new AI-assisted editorial material, offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license. This guide has not undergone independent peer review.