The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Generative AI in higher education: Seeing ChatGPT through universities' policies, resources, and guidelines
Open accessAbstract
The advancements in Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) can provide opportunities for enriching educational experiences, but at the same time raise concerns regarding academic integrity. Many educators have expressed anxiety and hesitation when it comes to integrating GenAI in their teaching practices. Thus, recommendations and guidance from institutions are needed to support instructors in this new and emerging GenAI era. In response to this need, this study explores different U.S. universities' academic policies and guidelines regarding the use of GenAI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) for teaching and learning, and from there, gains understanding of how these universities respond and adapt to the development of GenAI in their academic contexts. Data sources include academic policies, statements, guidelines, and relevant resources provided by the top 100 universities in the U.S. Results show that the majority of these universities adopt an open but cautious approach towards GenAI. Primary concerns lie in ethical usage, accuracy, and data privacy. Most universities actively respond and provide diverse types of resources, such as syllabus templates, workshops, shared articles, and one-on-one consultations; focusing on a range of topics, namely general technical introduction, ethical concerns, pedagogical applications, preventive strategies, data privacy, limitations, and detective tools. The findings provide four practical pedagogical implications for educators when considering GenAI in teaching practices: 1) accepting GenAI presence, 2) aligning GenAI use with learning objectives, 3) evolving curriculum to prevent misuse of GenAI, and 4) adopting multifaceted evaluation strategies. For recommendations toward policy making, the article suggests two possible directions for the use of GenAI tools: 1) establishing discipline-specific policies and guidelines, and 2) managing students' sensitive information in a transparent and careful manner.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“technology departments exhibit heightened caution due to programming vulnerability”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2024
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“while humanities struggle when AI replicates traditional essay genres (Gonsalves, 2025; Wang et al., 2024).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2024
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Faculty report feeling underprepared to evaluate AI-assisted work and design valid assessments, particularly those unfamiliar with modern paraphrasing capabilities (Karkoulian et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2024).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2024
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Institutions are shifting from restrictive bans toward flexible policy frameworks balancing AI affordances with academic rigor (Wang et al., 2024).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2024
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Most U.S. universities adopted “open but cautious” stances with faculty-led discretion for discipline-specific relevance (Wang et al., 2024).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2024
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Current AI integration frameworks reveal significant gaps characterized by resource disparities, training deficits, and persistent “policy voids” (Hanh and Duyen, 2025; Wang et al., 2024).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2024
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The most critical gap is the shortage of student-facing resources: while 67% of institutional guidance targets faculty, only 17.8% provides direct student frameworks on ethical boundaries and appropriate use (Wang et al., 2024).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2024
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This divergence is not simply a matter of competing preferences but reflects fundamentally incompatible assumptions about what constitutes legitimate intellectual work—assumptions that existing policy frameworks have yet to adequately reconcile (Karkoulian et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2024).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2024
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In such contexts, even highly motivated educators may hesitate to integrate GenAI, fearing reputational or procedural risks (Wang et al., 2024).”
From Educators’ perceptions of generative AI: Investigating attitudes, barriers and learning needs in higher education (2025) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2024
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, out of these 57 universities, 27 adopted a 'stance of Prohibition by Default', where the use of GenAI tools is allowed only if the instructor explicitly permits it, otherwise their use is considered a form of academic dishonesty.”
From Navigating the Ethical and Societal Impacts of Generative AI in Higher Computing Education (2025) · cites this paper as [353]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Yet institutional guidance on how detection outputs should be interpreted, weighted, or contested remains largely absent [47, 76].”
From The Due Process Deficit: Auditing AI Governance in U.S. Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as [76]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Prior research - shown in Table 4 - has documented significant technical limitations and bias in AI detection systems, as well as their potential to produce false positives with serious consequences for students [43, 76].”
From The Due Process Deficit: Auditing AI Governance in U.S. Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as [76]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Wang et al. [76], who found that while 57% of universities in their dataset mentioned common tools, none explicitly recommended their use.”
From The Due Process Deficit: Auditing AI Governance in U.S. Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as [76]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Institutional administrators have converged on an “open but cautious” approach, rejecting total bans while emphasizing faculty-led discretion (Wang et al., 2024).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2024
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A critical gap exists in resource distribution: 67% of guidance targets faculty education while only 17.8% provides direct student frameworks (Wang et al., 2024).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2024
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Wang et al. [353] found that none of the top-100 universities in the US banned the use of GenAI tools and that 57 of these universities defer the decision to the instructor.”
From Navigating the Ethical and Societal Impacts of Generative AI in Higher Computing Education (2025) · cites this paper as [353]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“On the other hand, only a single institution adopted a 'stance of Permissibility by Default'.”
From Navigating the Ethical and Societal Impacts of Generative AI in Higher Computing Education (2025) · cites this paper as [353]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Prior empirical audits of university AI governance have focused on policy presence among elite or researchintensive samples [47, 50, 76, 80] (Table 2, Appendix B), examining primarily the pedagogical dimension: how universities communicate expectations about AI use in coursework.”
From The Due Process Deficit: Auditing AI Governance in U.S. Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as [76]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Prior work has shown heterogeneity in how universities define and communicate AI-related expectations, with many institutions relying on vague or decentralized guidance [47, 76].”
From The Due Process Deficit: Auditing AI Governance in U.S. Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as [76]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“The evidence base may reflect “time-lag bias” where early success stories receive publication priority while longer-term outcomes remain undocumented (Wang et al., 2024).”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2024
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Additional concerns such as bias in AI outputs (Lee et al., 2024) and lack of transparency in model decisions (Wang et al., 2024) further compound this hesitancy.”
From Educators’ perceptions of generative AI: Investigating attitudes, barriers and learning needs in higher education (2025) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2024
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414
ChatGPT for Good? On Opportunities and Challenges of Large Language Models for Education
Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/5er8f · Cited by 7,552
ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 · Cited by 7,326
Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models
Touvron, H., Martin, L., Stone, K., Albert, P., Almahairi, A., Babaei, Y., Bashlykov, N., Batra, S., Bhargava, P., Bhosale, S., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.09288 · Cited by 2,604
Ray, P. P. (2023) · Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems · doi:10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.003 · Cited by 2,463 · cited 2×
“• How do the school ranking tiers and academic specializations influence the trends in perceptions and resource provision regarding the use of GenAI in higher education and what pedagogical implications can we learn from them?”
BackgroundArtificial intelligence in higher education: the state of the field
Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8 · Cited by 2,010 · cited 1×
“Another frequent pedagogical application of GenAI is as a writing assistant in teaching and learning academic writing (Crompton and Burke, 2023; Dempere et al., 2023; Imran and Almusharraf, 2023).”
BackgroundChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 · Cited by 1,806 · cited 2×
“Then we performed a systematic search using”
BackgroundExamining Science Education in ChatGPT: An Exploratory Study of Generative Artificial Intelligence
Cooper, G. (2023) · Journal of Science Education and Technology · doi:10.1007/s10956-023-10039-y · Cited by 1,263 · cited 1×
“It encourages students to ask questions, clarify their needs, and delve into various topics as a self-regulated learning approach (Chiu, 2023; Cooper, 2023; Rasul et al., 2023; Wu et al., 2024).”
BackgroundGao, C. A., Howard, F. M., Markov, N. S., Dyer, E. C., Ramesh, S., Luo, Y., & Pearson, A. T. (2023) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00819-6 · Cited by 1,099
Grassini, S. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13070692 · Cited by 1,048 · cited 1×
“GenAI has been increasingly affecting higher education, as it has the potential to enhance learning experiences while also posing challenges to the current educational contexts (Dempere et al., 2023; Grassini, 2023; Onal and Kulavuz-Onal, 2023).”
Background
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Jin, Y., Yan, L., Echeverria, V., Gašević, D., & Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2025) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100348 · Cited by 452
Pham, T. D., Karunaratne, N., Exintaris, B., Liu, D., Lay, T., Yuriev, E., & Lim, A. (2025) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.15746 · Cited by 100
Understanding LLMs: A comprehensive overview from training to inference
Liu, Y., He, H., Han, T., Zhang, X., Liu, M., Tian, J., Zhang, Y., Wang, J., Gao, X., Zhong, T., et al. (2024) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2024.129190 · Cited by 81
Self-citationGenerative AI tools and empowerment in L2 academic writing
Moorhouse, B. L., Wan, Y., Wu, C., Wu, M., & Ho, T. Y. (2025) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2025.103779 · Cited by 85
Rodger, D., Mann, S. P., Earp, B. D., Savulescu, J., Bobier, C. A., & Blackshaw, B. P. (2025) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2025.104461 · Cited by 64
Lund, B., Mannuru, N. R., Teel, Z. A., Lee, T. H., Ortega, N. J., Simmons, S., & Ward, E. (2025) · AI in Education · doi:10.3390/aieduc1010002 · Cited by 64
“…emphasizes, the path forward is not resistance, but regulation—anchored by institutional policies, ethical guidelines, and shared expectations (Batista et al., 2024; Cordero et al., 2025; Kurtz et al., 2024; D. Lee et al., 2024; Perera & Lankathilaka, 2023; H. Wang et al., 2024; Zhang & Xu, 2025).”
Effects of GenAI Interventions on Student Academic Performance: A Meta-Analysis
Gu, J., & Yan, Z. (2025) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331251349620 · Cited by 30
Dang, A., & Wang, H. (2024) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2024.101157 · Cited by 32
Self-citationTortella, F., Palese, A., Turolla, A., Castellini, G., Pillastrini, P., Landuzzi, M. G., Cook, C., Galeoto, G., Giovannico, G., Rodeghiero, L., et al. (2025) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-025-07176-w · Cited by 38
“In contrast, the United States and certain Asian nations have already established regulations and incorporated AI-based tools into their university programs [72, 73].”
Qualitatively different teacher experiences of teaching with generative artificial intelligence
Ellis, R. A., Han, F., & Cook, H. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-025-00532-2 · Cited by 29
AI adoption in Chinese universities: Insights, challenges, and opportunities from academic leaders
Wang, X., Zhao, S., Xu, X., Zhang, H., & Lei, V. N.-L. (2025) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105160 · Cited by 44
Morell‐Mengual, V., Fernández‐García, O., Berenguer, C., Ortega-Barón, J., Gil‐Llario, M. D., & Estruch‐García, V. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13650-1 · Cited by 27
Alwakid, W. N., Dahri, N. A., Humayun, M., & Alwakid, G. N. (2025) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems13070517 · Cited by 62
Seran, C. E., Tan, M. J. T., Karim, H. B. A., & AlDahoul, N. (2025) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2025.1573368 · Cited by 39
Selem, K. M., Saghier, E. G., Khreis, S. H. A., & Tan, C. C. (2025) · Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education · doi:10.1080/10963758.2025.2456638 · Cited by 24
Wan, Y., Li, R., Li, W., & Du, H. (2025) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su17178059 · Cited by 27
McPhee, S., & Jerowsky, M. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1593278 · Cited by 40
Garib, A., & Coffelt, T. A. (2024) · Computers and Composition · doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102869 · Cited by 14
Jayasinghe, S., Gamage, K. A. A., Yang, D., Cheng, C., Disanayake, C., & Apeji, U. D. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16010137 · Cited by 23
The impact of large language models on computer science student writing
Zdravkova, K., & Ilijoski, B. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-025-00525-1 · Cited by 23
Akbar, M. N. (2025) · Journal of Further and Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0309877x.2025.2515135 · Cited by 18
Reconsidering teacher assessment literacy in GenAI-enhanced environments: A scoping review
Cui, Y. H., Meng, Y., & Tang, L. (2025) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2025.105163 · Cited by 24
Governing generative AI in higher education: a global Delphi study on policy and practice
Crompton, H., Burke, D., Nickel, C. E., Bozkurt, A., Miao, F., Sharples, M., Greene, J. A., Parsons, D., Gill-Simmen, L., Edmett, A., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-026-00602-z · Cited by 43
Hershkovitz, A., Tabach, M., Reich, Y., Lurie, L., & Cholcman, T. (2025) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems13070518 · Cited by 26
Peters, M., & Angelov, D. (2025) · International Journal for Educational Integrity · doi:10.1007/s40979-025-00201-x · Cited by 27
Generative AI in Universities: Practices at UCL and Other Institutions, and the Path Forward
Gupta, V., & Nyamapfene, A. (2025) · Internet Reference Services Quarterly · doi:10.1080/10875301.2025.2453461 · Cited by 17
Bollaert, L. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15060774 · Cited by 29
Xie, Q., Li, M., & Cheng, F. (2025) · Globalisation Societies and Education · doi:10.1080/14767724.2025.2598275 · Cited by 16
Evaluating the Potential of Generative Artificial Intelligence to Innovate Feedback Processes
Huesca, G., Elizondo-García, M. E., Aguayo-González, R., Aguayo-Hernández, C. H., González-Buenrostro, T., & Verdugo-Jasso, Y. A. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15040505 · Cited by 13
University Students’ Privacy Concerns Towards Generative Artificial Intelligence
Wang, N., Li, Y., & Cong, F. (2025) · Journal of Academic Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10805-025-09658-4 · Cited by 18
Basch, C. H., Hillyer, G. C., Gold, B., & Yousaf, H. (2025) · Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.37497/rev.artif.intell.educ.v6ii.37 · Cited by 16
The use of ChatGPT in academia: perspectives of higher education students
Klímová, B., Bachmann, P., & Frutos-Bencze, D. (2025) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2025.2508216 · Cited by 25
Promoting student engagement with GPTutor: An intelligent tutoring system powered by generative AI
Haoran, B., Wing, C.-L., & Khiatani, P. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-025-00571-9 · Cited by 21
Madsen, D. Ø., & Toston, D. M. (2025) · Digital · doi:10.3390/digital5030024 · Cited by 16
Al-Hajaya, K. (2026) · Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning · doi:10.1108/heswbl-02-2025-0060 · Cited by 12
AI-based Tools in Higher Education: A Comparative Analysis of University Guidelines
Hofmann, P., Brand, A., Späthe, E., Lins, S., & Sunyaev, A. (2024) · Mensch und Computer (MuC) · doi:10.1145/3670653.3677513 · Cited by 9
Canal, M. N., Ardavin, A. F., Díaz-Marcos, L., & AGUADO-TEVAR, O. (2024) · European Public & Social Innovation Review · doi:10.31637/epsir-2024-1685 · Cited by 22
“Can (A)I do this task?” The role of AI as a socializer of students' self-beliefs of their abilities
Jansen, T., Meyer, J., Fleckenstein, J., Wigfield, A., & Møller, J. (2025) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102731 · Cited by 13
Orfanidis, C. (2025) · Higher Education Quarterly · doi:10.1111/hequ.70051 · Cited by 9
Rughinis, R. V., Vulpe, S., & Țurcanu, D. (2025) · International Conference on Control Systems and Computer Science · doi:10.1109/cscs66924.2025.00091 · Cited by 9
Eddine, R. J., Gide, E., & Sabbagh, A. A. (2026) · Discover Computing · doi:10.1007/s10791-026-10044-w · Cited by 16
Soleimani, S., Farrokhnia, M., van Dijk, A., & Noroozi, O. (2025) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2025.2530767 · Cited by 26
A learning agreement for generative AI use in university courses: A pilot study
Beardsley, M., Santos, P., Amarasinghe, I., Theophilou, E., Vujović, M., & Hernández‐Leo, D. (2025) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2025.2535444 · Cited by 9
Artificial Intelligence in Educational Technology: A Systematic Review of Datasets and Applications
Topham, L., Atherton, P., Reynolds, T., Hussain, Y., Hussain, A. J., Kolivand, H., & Khan, W. (2025) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3768312 · Cited by 9
Sharif, H., Atif, A., & Nagra, A. A. (2025) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su17219793 · Cited by 14
Barus, O. P., Hidayanto, A. N., Eitiveni, I., Phusavat, K., & Sudibjo, N. (2025) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2025.2596058 · Cited by 13
Who wrote this? Evaluating the reliability of AI detection tools in higher education
Van Vlasselaer, M., Van Droogenbroeck, F., & Spruyt, B. (2026) · International Journal for Educational Integrity · doi:10.1007/s40979-026-00226-w · Cited by 14
Habiba, U., & Partho, P. P. B. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4329543/v1 · Cited by 8
Zeng, D., Xu, X., Zhu, T., Li, Y., & Li, Q. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1743722 · Cited by 7
A qualitative assessment of the accuracy of AI-LLM in academic research
Bareh, C. K. (2025) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-025-00730-8 · Cited by 7
Rush, E., Byram, J. N., Garnett, C. N., DeVaul, N., Smith, L., Checchi, M., Martin, D., Hoffman, L. A., Brown, K., Mumbower, D. J., et al. (2025) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2025.2564869 · Cited by 8
Tao, Y., & Shen, Q. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0334331 · Cited by 8
Investigating the Existence of AI Policy in Higher Education Institutions in Sub‐Saharan Africa
Cudjoe, E. K., & Adebayo, J. O. (2025) · Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/pra2.1421 · Cited by 9
Basch, C., Hillyer, G., Gold, B., & Yousaf, H. (2025) · SDGs Studies Review. · doi:10.37497/sdgs.v6istudies.34 · Cited by 10
Borzanović, A., Simić, A., Papić-Blagojević, N., Klašnja-Milićević, A., Sanín, C., Levula, A. V., Islam, M. R., & Ivanović, M. D. (2026) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-026-13964-8 · Cited by 10
Pulari, S. R., & Jacob, S. G. (2025) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2025.02.122 · Cited by 8
Enoch, S. K., Mejira, A., Bayor, N., Nyemewero, I., & Godfred, A. A. (2024) · American Journal of Technology · doi:10.58425/ajt.v3i1.301 · Cited by 10
GenAI in Academic Writing- Empowering Learners or Redefining Traditional Pedagogical Practices?
Zaheer, S., Ma, C., Zhu, Y., & Vasinda, S. (2025) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.4018/ijaitl.373582 · Cited by 12
Labrague, L. J. (2025) · Teaching and learning in nursing · doi:10.1016/j.teln.2025.09.012 · Cited by 7
AI Policies in U.S. Universities: A Critical Analysis of Policy Gaps and Library Involvement
McCusker, E., & Michalak, R. (2025) · Journal of Library Administration · doi:10.1080/01930826.2025.2560268 · Cited by 6
Sporrong, E., McGrath, C., Viberg, O., & Pargman, T. C. (2025) · Learning Media and Technology · doi:10.1080/17439884.2025.2607687 · Cited by 10
Techno-solutionism a Fact or Farce? A Critical Assessment of GenAI in Open and Distance Education
Olojede, H. T. (2024) · Journal of Ethics in Higher Education · doi:10.26034/fr.jehe.2024.5963 · Cited by 13
Tong, S. T., DeTone, A., Frederick, A., & Odebiyi, S. (2025) · Communication Education · doi:10.1080/03634523.2025.2477479 · Cited by 4
Navigating the Ethical and Societal Impacts of Generative AI in Higher Computing Education
Mak, J., Nakatumba-Nabende, J., Clear, T., Clear, A., Abluwi, I., Andrei, O., Angeli, L., MacNeil, S., Oyelere, S. S., Hale Rattigan, M., et al. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education · doi:10.1145/3760545.3783975 · Cited by 12
Responsible AI in academia: policies and guidelines in US universities
Oh, S., & Sanfilippo, M. R. (2025) · Information and Learning Sciences · doi:10.1108/ils-03-2025-0042 · Cited by 14
Guiding the uncharted: the emerging (and missing) policies on Generative AI in higher education
Aristombayeva, M., Satybaldiyeva, R., Maung, B. M., & Lee, D. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1644081 · Cited by 5
Akyıldız, S. T. (2025) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2025.102105 · Cited by 8
Владимировна, К. О., Викторович, П. П., & Ivantsov, A. A. (2025) · Russian Journal of Education and Psychology · doi:10.12731/2658-4034-2025-16-3-862 · Cited by 5
The transparency trap: Generative AI and the rise of interpretive load
Gonsalves, C. (2026) · Review of Education · doi:10.1002/rev3.70139 · Cited by 5
Zhang, J., Wang, C., & Liu, M. (2026) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2026.2668610 · Cited by 6
Zhang, Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1841607 · Cited by 8
Butarbutar, R., & Vallejo, R. G. (2025) · Data & Metadata · doi:10.56294/dm2025203 · Cited by 12
Rughiniş, C., Matei, Ș., & Corcaci, A. (2025) · International Conference on Control Systems and Computer Science · doi:10.1109/cscs66924.2025.00094 · Cited by 5
Ni, W., & Li, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1856854 · Cited by 6
Medical education in the age of artificial intelligence
Chow, M., Ng, O., & Sadasiv, M. S. (2025) · Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1002/hkj2.70059 · Cited by 6
Urías, M. D. V., Obispo-Díaz, C., & Ruíz-Rosillo, M. A. (2026) · Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research · doi:10.1007/s44322-026-00060-5 · Cited by 7
Jacobs-Basadien, M., & Pather, S. (2026) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-026-01340-9 · Cited by 11
Assessment validity in the age of generative artificial intelligence: a critical review
Ali, R., & Maroulis, J. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2026.2683046 · Cited by 9
AI-Driven Transformation of Higher Education a Systematic Review
Erlangga, A. P. D., & Magdalena, Y. (2025) · International Conference on Creative Communication and Innovative Technology (ICCIT) · doi:10.1109/iccit65724.2025.11167254 · Cited by 8
Николаев, А. А., Kuznetsov, M. Y., & Nikolaev, V. A. (2024) · Management of Education · doi:10.25726/j3748-9233-4547-c · Cited by 4
Tudy, R. A., Chin, C. K., Gabales, B., & Tudy, I. (2025) · The Palawan Scientist · doi:10.69721/tps.j.2025.17.2.02 · Cited by 4
Bianchi, J., & Zheng, M.-X. (2025) · Orthodontics & craniofacial research · doi:10.1111/ocr.12949 · Cited by 5
Chea, P., & Deng, F. (2026) · Innovative Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10755-026-09886-5 · Cited by 4
Generative AI in higher education: a meta-analysis of intellectual and social–emotional outcomes
Liu, C., Xie, L., & Xu, G. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1848745 · Cited by 6
Zhang, Y., Ma, W., & Xiao, M. (2024) · International Conference on Educational Technology (ICET) · doi:10.1109/icet62460.2024.10868002 · Cited by 5
Williams, A. (2026) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2026.2698137 · Cited by 2
Leveraging GenAI Tools in UAE Higher Education
Husain, S. H., & Shomotova, A. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-7332-3.ch031 · Cited by 2
Martínez, M. (2025) · Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar · doi:10.37811/cl_rcm.v9i2.17370 · Cited by 16
Generative AI in Education: Exploring EAP Faculty Perspectives at a Multicultural UAE University
Bashir, A., Nomaan, S., & Hysaj, A. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-93539-8_9 · Cited by 3
Tulang, A. B. (2025) · European Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.12973/eu-jer.14.3.829 · Cited by 3
Promoting Generative AI Literacy among Students and Teachers
Soltani, M., Zarzour, H., & Ladjailia, A. (2025) · Signals and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-96855-6_12 · Cited by 2
Mekheimer, M. A. A. G. (2025) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-025-00992-8 · Cited by 2
Iwasawa, M., Kobayashi, M., & Otori, K. (2025) · Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning · doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2025.102555 · Cited by 2
The ethical frontier: ChatGPT’s cultural impact on academic practices
Tsakalerou, M., & Lukhmanov, Y. (2026) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2026.2614477 · Cited by 2
Sbhatu, D. B., Abdullah, N., & Olohunfunmi, I. A. (2026) · Canadian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education · doi:10.1007/s42330-026-00427-y · Cited by 2
Chisale, P. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1694819 · Cited by 2
Mallitasig, N. M. H., López, L. A. Z., Pincha, N. V. C., & Ayala, M. M. P. (2026) · Revista Ciencia Innovadora · doi:10.64422/rci.v4n2.2026.170 · Cited by 2
From Awareness to Action? The Impact of CO2 Emission Feedback on Student LLM Usage
Andersen, L. B., Herklotz, M., Liu, A., Goeke, M., Jülich, M., Kern, C. A., & Kreuter, F. (2026) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3772363.3798840 · Cited by 2
Kushnir, I., & Mbah, M. F. (2026) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su18083885 · Cited by 2
Uçan, S., & Uçan, A. D. (2026) · Journal of Academic Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10805-026-09739-y · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, H., Dang, A., Wu, Z., & Mac, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Arizona (US)
- University of Georgia (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wu, Zihao
- Venue
- Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-12
- Volume
- 7
- Pages
- 100326
- ISSN
- 2666-920X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4403935384
- Semantic Scholar
- 68dc625a7a15107381639f56d33397d0f2c562ce
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 160 · 2025: 100 · 2024: 12
- FWCI
- 101.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- generative AI in higher education, ChatGPT, AI guidelines, academic integrity, AI ethics, data privacy, AI in teaching, AI misuse prevention, curriculum adaptation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
