What do you think?
Rate this book
Generative AI for Students: The Essential Guide to Using Artificial Intelligence for Study at University
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
July 8, 2026
Despite being published in 2025, this book has already fallen into the classic trap for books about AI: It is too specific to particular AI tools and their capabilities at the time of writing, so it's already outdated, and therefore much less helpful than a book that covers general principles.
For context: I'm an academic librarian, working at a university, and one of my 'strategic leads' on the library team is Artificial Intelligence.
There's a lot of good in this book. The author constantly encourages the use of GenAI as a tool, rather than something that will do the work for them. He also covers a wide range of applications, not all of which I was familiar with. I also appreciated that some of the same tips and warnings were repeated in each chapter, as students are unlikely to read this cover to cover. They're more likely to turn to the chapter most relevant to the work they're doing at the time.
However, a lot about this book frustrates me. First, there's my usual gripe with books written by academics: the complete inability to write normally. It's not as bad as some I've read but, as a small, silly example, the author refuses to use the words 'use' or 'try' or 'have a go'. He insists on using the word 'utilise' constantly. And he uses 'seek' constantly instead of 'ask for' or 'find'. It's really very silly.
I've edited this review to add this other example, of a full sentence this time:
...notice that the ‘learning’ aspects are presented as input/output and multiplied in a linear fashion, whereas natural learning is far more nuanced, holistic and reflexive in a non-linear fashion. Give me a break.
And this leads me to the next problem. This silly over-writing almost always leads to a neglect of the actual content, spelling, and grammar. This book needed a lot more editing. There are spelling mistakes, missing words, nonsensical sentences, and more. One of my favourites was this one:
It was the public release of ChatGPT version 3.5 in November 2022, that signalled a new error for pre-trained models. Funny on several levels, I think.
But there's also the fact that often the author refers to a picture or table, with a completely different 'number' to the actual label on it in the book. It gets very confusing.
Then, there's my more abstract objection to the book: the philosophy of it. David Meecham states, when talking about GenAI tools in higher education: Ultimately, they are a force for good. He then proceeds, through the rest of the book, to show students how to use GenAI to understand the topics they're working on, find literature, analyse the literature, write their essays (or at least, a 'first draft'), edit their work, and process feedback. It left me wondering what part of the work was left for students to do. I realise this is probably a much bigger question about how assessment needs to change in HE, but it still felt odd. The repeated encouragement for students to use GenAI to summarise articles for them, so they didn't need to read them, really concerned me.
Even more baffling was the bit where the author said the maintaining your own critical thinking skills is essential (which I agree with), but then suggested ASKING A GENAI TOOL TO OFFER CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF SOMETHING. Instead of doing it yourself. I honestly wanted to slam my head into a wall until my eyes fell out of my bum.
Yes, the author does say that students should check their university's guidelines and rules for using AI, and says that AI should always be used ethically and appropriately. But then it's full steam ahead, here's how to use it to do EVERYTHING, with almost no thought as to the impact this has, or the research showing what happens when you are overly reliant on GenAI (spoiler: cognitive decline).
I am not, believe it or not, opposed to GenAI being used in higher education. I think it's inevitable, but I also think it can be used in really helpful, brilliant ways (setting aside any other ethical concerns around its development). But this kind of naively optimistic, everything is great, what could go wrong? approach is not the way forward.
I'll end with one of the author's most hilariously baffling decisions: in one table, he decides to abbreviate 'assessment total' as 'Ass Total'.
'Ass Total'. There isn't even a full stop after 'Ass' to indicate that it's an abbreviation.
It's tempting to make a joke about this book being 'Total Ass', but I won't. Partly because it would be immature, but also because it isn't. There's good stuff in here. But it is tempting.
For context: I'm an academic librarian, working at a university, and one of my 'strategic leads' on the library team is Artificial Intelligence.
There's a lot of good in this book. The author constantly encourages the use of GenAI as a tool, rather than something that will do the work for them. He also covers a wide range of applications, not all of which I was familiar with. I also appreciated that some of the same tips and warnings were repeated in each chapter, as students are unlikely to read this cover to cover. They're more likely to turn to the chapter most relevant to the work they're doing at the time.
However, a lot about this book frustrates me. First, there's my usual gripe with books written by academics: the complete inability to write normally. It's not as bad as some I've read but, as a small, silly example, the author refuses to use the words 'use' or 'try' or 'have a go'. He insists on using the word 'utilise' constantly. And he uses 'seek' constantly instead of 'ask for' or 'find'. It's really very silly.
I've edited this review to add this other example, of a full sentence this time:
...notice that the ‘learning’ aspects are presented as input/output and multiplied in a linear fashion, whereas natural learning is far more nuanced, holistic and reflexive in a non-linear fashion. Give me a break.
And this leads me to the next problem. This silly over-writing almost always leads to a neglect of the actual content, spelling, and grammar. This book needed a lot more editing. There are spelling mistakes, missing words, nonsensical sentences, and more. One of my favourites was this one:
It was the public release of ChatGPT version 3.5 in November 2022, that signalled a new error for pre-trained models. Funny on several levels, I think.
But there's also the fact that often the author refers to a picture or table, with a completely different 'number' to the actual label on it in the book. It gets very confusing.
Then, there's my more abstract objection to the book: the philosophy of it. David Meecham states, when talking about GenAI tools in higher education: Ultimately, they are a force for good. He then proceeds, through the rest of the book, to show students how to use GenAI to understand the topics they're working on, find literature, analyse the literature, write their essays (or at least, a 'first draft'), edit their work, and process feedback. It left me wondering what part of the work was left for students to do. I realise this is probably a much bigger question about how assessment needs to change in HE, but it still felt odd. The repeated encouragement for students to use GenAI to summarise articles for them, so they didn't need to read them, really concerned me.
Even more baffling was the bit where the author said the maintaining your own critical thinking skills is essential (which I agree with), but then suggested ASKING A GENAI TOOL TO OFFER CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF SOMETHING. Instead of doing it yourself. I honestly wanted to slam my head into a wall until my eyes fell out of my bum.
Yes, the author does say that students should check their university's guidelines and rules for using AI, and says that AI should always be used ethically and appropriately. But then it's full steam ahead, here's how to use it to do EVERYTHING, with almost no thought as to the impact this has, or the research showing what happens when you are overly reliant on GenAI (spoiler: cognitive decline).
I am not, believe it or not, opposed to GenAI being used in higher education. I think it's inevitable, but I also think it can be used in really helpful, brilliant ways (setting aside any other ethical concerns around its development). But this kind of naively optimistic, everything is great, what could go wrong? approach is not the way forward.
I'll end with one of the author's most hilariously baffling decisions: in one table, he decides to abbreviate 'assessment total' as 'Ass Total'.
'Ass Total'. There isn't even a full stop after 'Ass' to indicate that it's an abbreviation.
It's tempting to make a joke about this book being 'Total Ass', but I won't. Partly because it would be immature, but also because it isn't. There's good stuff in here. But it is tempting.
Displaying 1 of 1 review