## 3 Results
### RQ2 Distinct Subgroups of Students' Preferences Towards i-AIDA  
In order to explore RQ2 whether there might be distinctive subgroups of students in terms of preferences for an i-AIDA, such as being new to the institution or being a continuing student, prior education levels, sex, age, and/or having previous GenAI experience in general and using GenAI for education, we ran K-means cluster analyses with two, three, and four cluster solutions, in line with [18]. A three-cluster solution had the best fit, and as indicated in Table 5, four individual characteristics distinguished the three clusters, namely, age, prior use of GenAI in general, use of GenAI in education in particular, and finally highest level of education. Cluster 1 learners (\(n=41\)) were _highly critical of i-AIDA_, and saw limited use for their studies. Relative to the other clusters, Cluster 1 learners hardly used GenAI in general (5%) and in education (2%), and had higher prior education levels relative to Cluster 3 learners (all significant using ANOVAs). These learners indicated the highest AI challenges and the least usefulness of AI for quizzes. While Cluster 1 learners were the smallest cluster, they were most critical towards AIDAs, and used words like \"disgraceful\" or \"please do not do this\":  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l} \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Study 1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Study 2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Study 3**} & \\  & **M** & **SD** & **M** & **SD** & **M** & **SD** & **F-Value** & **Eta** \\ \hline _Accuracy and Specificity_: I value the accuracy in responses as it is based upon institutional curated content. It not only provides relevant answers but also directs students to specific resources for further learning. & 4.13 & 0.99 & 3.72 & 1.27 & 4.01 & 1.17 &  
We are not paying for a computer to replace tutors. This is a joke and will end badly. Stop pushing this agenda on us. It's a disgrace that my university, which I pay real money for, is lazily making itself worthless. (S3_057, Female, level 3, unknown discipline) I thought university was about studying, researching, discovering things that matter to me and my way of learning. Not about asking a bot for answers or even a path to them. (S3_066, Male, level 1, Computing) I think this is the future, but until AI improves and proves it can provide accurate results while considering different viewpoints--especially in humanities, where there isn't just one correct answer--it is dumbing down degrees. (S3_110, Female, level 3, Arts and Humanities)  
The second largest group of Cluster 2 learners (\(n=109\)) are labelled as _supporters of i-AIDA_, who mostly agreed that an (i-)AIDA would be useful for their studies. These learners were mostly older learners and were in between the two other clusters in terms of use of GenAI. While these learners identified several positive affordances, such as help with revisions and the ability to ask questions, they also shared some concerns about AIDAs, such as the impact of AIDAs on human interaction and the carbon footprint of using AIDAs. It could allow me to see what I understand or not in the course, so I can revise/investigate the subject more in depth. It could be a good way to revise--but to do that, the questions need to be written clearly. (S2_80, Female, PG, Health and Social Care)  
1. Where tutor-led tutorials don't take place due to low attendance, an AI-generated email at the start of each study week could provide prompts, questions, or ideas to help students engage with the module materials. 2. It could refine plagiarism checks by disregarding references and essay questions to avoid skewing scores. It's crucial to maintain real interactions with tutors to enhance learning through discussions and debates, rather than becoming overly reliant on AI. (S3_037, Female, level 1, Psychology)