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
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 268
Tran, M., & Schuwirth, L. (2026) · The Clinical Teacher · doi:10.1111/tct.70418 · Cited by 2
Ren, X., Luo, T., & Detrick, R. (2026) · Open Learning The Journal of Open Distance and e-Learning · doi:10.1080/02680513.2026.2692919 · Cited by 2
Zhao, Y., Chen, J., Dai, W., & Gu, Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1878514 · Cited by 2
Генеративный искусственный интеллект: интеграция в вузах России и мира
Kobelev, S. V., & Леонидович, О. П. (2025) · Vocational education and labour market · doi:10.52944/port.2025.62.3.009 · Cited by 2
A trend examination of course policy and message framing for student GenAI
Kaufmann, R., Vallade, J. I., Frisby, B. N., & Martin, J. C. (2025) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2025.2588209 · Cited by 2
ChatGPT as an Assessment and Feedback Tool in Higher Education: Opportunities, Challenges and Ethics
Castillo, V. S., & Maldonado, E. (2025) · Lecture notes on data engineering and communications technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-98476-1_18 · Cited by 2
The impact of pedagogical support on improving teaching practice: a systematic review.
Pérez-Ruiz, J. C., Ríos, T. C. D. L., Aquije-Mansilla, M. E., & Trujillo, B. P. S. (2025) · Seminars in Medical Writing and Education · doi:10.56294/mw2025431 · Cited by 7
Juan, Y., Yang, Y.-Q., Lee, Y., & Wu, J. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) · doi:10.1109/icalt64023.2025.00074 · Cited by 1
Spilbergs, A., Dzērve, B., Ozoliņa, S., Innuse-Breidaka, G., Mavrenko, T., Čable, L., Vincēviča, A., Sloka, B., Tora, G., & Liepiņa, K. (2025) · Highlights of Sustainability · doi:10.54175/hsustain4040017 · Cited by 2
Generative AI in Education and its Future Possibilities
Sindhu, M., Sarita, Raghav, Y. Y., & Kundu, K. (2025) · doi:10.1109/cises66934.2025.11265181 · Cited by 1
Assessment in Higher Education in the Era of Generative AI
Eren, S. U. N. A., & Özer, M. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-7579-3.ch008 · Cited by 1
WIP - Developing a Rubric for GenAI Information Literacy in Programming
Yates, M. S., Bloch, K. A., Thomas, E. L., Gatsos, G., Das, U. K., Thompson, A. K., & Bego, C. R. (2025) · IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) · doi:10.1109/fie63693.2025.11328245 · Cited by 1
Singh, B., & Sharma, D. K. (2025) · International Conference on Information Systems and Computer Networks (ISCON) · doi:10.1109/iscon65210.2025.11341462 · Cited by 2
Vela, J. V., & Mursi, J. K. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-1499-0.ch011 · Cited by 2
Natural intelligence, not artificial: a Confucian reframing of generative AI in higher education
Hou, Y. (2026) · Ethics and Education · doi:10.1080/17449642.2026.2629430 · Cited by 2
Arpacı, İ., Karataş, K., & Gibreel, O. (2026) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-026-00979-w · Cited by 4
From adoption to augmentation: a TCCM analysis of generative AI in higher education
Chugh, P., & Jain, V. (2026) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-026-02718-w · Cited by 2
Impact of generative AI tools on students’ productivity and critical thinking
Bhatia, A., Yadav, P., & Sharma, A. (2026) · EDPACS · doi:10.1080/07366981.2026.2664685 · Cited by 1
Jiang, G. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1815271 · Cited by 2
Barari, G., Ortega-Moody, J., Jenab, K., Ward, T., & Siebold, K. (2026) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app16104884 · Cited by 2
Olivera, R., Mustani, R., & Mohsin, M. (2026) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2026.2680078 · Cited by 1
LaFrance, J. A. (2026) · Educational Policy · doi:10.1177/08959048261450995 · Cited by 1
Miara, L., Benomar, M. E. M., Benjelloun, M., Bouhdidi, J. E., & Blilat, A. (2026) · Big Data and Cognitive Computing · doi:10.3390/bdcc10060174 · Cited by 1
Liu, Y., Zuo, X., Rawal, A. P., & Jia, L. (2026) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440261455370 · Cited by 3
Elshaer, I. A., Kooli, C., Azazz, A. M. S., Alyahya, M. A., Fayyad, S., & Mohamed, G. A. (2026) · Societies · doi:10.3390/soc16080270 · Cited by 1
Predictors of the ethical use of generative artificial intelligence in higher education
Cruz, Y. B. T., Sánchez, H. A. C., Pita, I. G. A., Rodríguez-Álava, L. A., Carreño-Mendoza, Á. L., Cedeño-Barreto, M., Castillo, G., Villavicencio, J. C., & Moreira-Chóez, J. S. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1942426 · Cited by 1
Hodges, C. B., & Moore, S. L. (2025) · Journal of Computing in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s12528-025-09441-9 · Cited by 4
Generative AI in Management Education
Sahana, B. S., Poola, K., Elias, S., & Saima, S. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-2150-9.ch004 · Cited by 2
Chukhlomin, V. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4784660 · Cited by 1
Examining Generative AI Policies in Japanese Universities: A Qualitative PerspectivePreprint
Abir, M. G. H., & Zhou, K. Z. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5374222 · Cited by 1
A Systematic Review of Ethical Integration of Generative AI in Higher Education
Yarboi, P. Y., Adu-Manu, K. S., Amponsah, S., Oheneba-Sakyi, Y., & Barimah, A. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16071016 · Cited by 1
Think tasks, not tools: why AI policy in higher education needs constructive alignment
Santschi, S. (2026) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2026.2671391 · Cited by 1
Kuang, W., & Gao, X. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1789506 · Cited by 1
Responsible Use of Generative AI in the Context of a Capstone Electrical Engineering Project
Mohammed, C., & Rocke, S. (2026) · 2026 IEEE Engineering Education World Conference (EDUNINE) · doi:10.1109/edunine62390.2026.11546862
Abdellatif, M. S., Alshehri, M. A., Lamouchi, A., Rahmath, M., & Nemt-allah, M. A. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1809174
“Appropriate usage is motivated by efficiency enhancement, cognitive load reduction, and access to personalized scaffolding (Kumar et al., 2025; Wang, 2024).”
InfluentialBabar, A., Davin, K. J., & Dornburg, A. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.27638
Bramley, D. R. (2025) · EDUCATION SCIENCES AND SOCIETY · doi:10.3280/ess2-2024oa18383
Generative artificial intelligence 4: training companion
Furey, P. (2025) · Journal of Paramedic Practice · doi:10.12968/jpar.2025.17.4.cpd1
AI Policy as Writing Center Praxis
Zaleski, M., & Courtois, M. (2025) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-8059-8.ch002
Bilikozen, N., Sayed, S., & Rahal, H. E. (2026) · Pedagogy Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature Language Composition and Culture · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5265420
Richie, C. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780198945215.003.0009
Grotewold, K. (2025) · University of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas) · doi:10.12794/metadc2443088 · Cited by 1
Ling, M. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6018-8.ch007
Анатольевич, С. А. (2025) · ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE) · doi:10.1145/3696630.3727230
AI-Based Chatbots for Education
Sivathanu, B., Nannaware, S. C., Pillai, R., & Abidi, N. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-2185-1.ch007 · Cited by 1
Mukora, F. N., & Jere, N. R. (2025) · Conference on Information Communications Technology and Society (ICTAS) · doi:10.1109/ictas64866.2025.11155729 · Cited by 2
Generative AI Use at the iSchools : An Analysis of Policies
Poole, A. H., Ahmed, A., & Mentis, H. M. (2025) · Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/pra2.1339 · Cited by 2
An Exploration and Scale Validation on Critical Thinking Engagement in Context of Generative AI
Cornet, A. (2025) · Springer Proceedings in Behavioral & Health Sciences. · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-1936-1_10
Rizki, I. A., & Daoud, R. (2025) · New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.1007/s40841-025-00417-y · Cited by 5
Espinosa, F., Maya, E. O. A., González, M. C., Cevallos, K. P. A., & Reyes, Y. M. (2025) · Salud Ciencia y Tecnología - Serie de Conferencias · doi:10.56294/sctconf20251748
How Generative AI and ChatGPT Are Transforming Industries
Jhanji, H., & Kumar, P. (2025) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-0877-7.ch006
Redefining the Role of Educators in GenAI-Supported Classrooms
MERZİFONLUOĞLU, A. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-1195-1.ch010 · Cited by 1
Drelick, A. M., Sam, C. H., Perry, J. A., Luet, K. M., Wassell, B. A., & Hawkman, A. M. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-3000-6.ch018
Unmasking CAMEO cheating in MOOCs via behavioral and temporal analysis without IP tracking
Valko, M., Munk, M., & Munková, D. (2026) · International Journal for Educational Integrity · doi:10.1007/s40979-026-00212-2
AI in Higher Education: An Exploratory Study of Administrative Perspectives
Wu, C., & Carroll, J. M. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering · doi:10.1109/tale66047.2025.11346765
Das, S., Kim, Y., Della, C. N., et al. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering · doi:10.1109/tale66047.2025.11346785
Jay, A., Koh, Y., & Hoppe, E. J. (2026) · The Journal of Arts Management Law and Society · doi:10.1080/10632921.2026.2621379
Integrating AI Literacy Into Human Service Education
Giamportone, K. E. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-4362-4.ch002
Wen, Q. (2025) · International Conference on Educational Technology (ICET) · doi:10.1109/icet67421.2025.11380565
Guevarra, K. H. V., Tutor, B. O. D., Gara, G. C., Camangeg, J. P., & Jesus, L. L. D. D. (2025) · International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Education (WAIE) · doi:10.1109/waie67422.2025.11381282
The Role of Aritificial Intelligence in Educational Assessment: The Case of Vietnam
Nguyen, V. C. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-01638-6_13
Mahama, I., Edjah, J. O., Kwaw, R., Seibu, M., Danquah, S. A., & Eshun, P. A. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8855662/v1
Local Responses to Global Shifts
Lam, A. W., & Loo, D. B. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-4908-4.ch008
Konstantinidis, K., Apostolakis, I., Malamateniou, C., & Papagiannis, P. (2025) · European Journal of Engineering and Technology Research · doi:10.24018/ejeng.2025.1.cie.70024
From Reluctance to Engagement: Aligning Institutional Policy with “Human-in-the-Loop” Pedagogy
Makarevitch, I., Kostihová, M., Hilk, C. L., & Gumiela, J. (2026) · Trends in Higher Education · doi:10.3390/higheredu5020030
Reyes-Sánchez, J. D. J. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-3638-1.ch015
Giray, L., & Castillo, J. C. D. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8921329/v1
Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in Language Education: Current Trends and Perspectives
Bui, T. T. T., & Hoa, C. T. H. (2026) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-18392-7_1
Mhlongo, T. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9419663/v1
An Attribution Framework for Transparent Use of Generative AI in University Coursework
Kim, W., Lee, C., & Kim, H. (2026) · The Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education · doi:10.32431/kace.2026.29.3.003
Šerić, M. (2026) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2026.2662590
Livia, D. P. R., Mincami, L. D. M., Ricapa, L. F. V., & Dávila, L. V. (2026) · Revista Venezolana de Gerencia · doi:10.52080/rvgluz.31.e15.4 · Cited by 1
Yavorska, G. (2026) · Ukrainian Educational Journal · doi:10.32405/2411-1317-2026-1-108-121
Yusvana, R., & Nawawi, A. (2025) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783112206393-005
Jiogo, L. N., Foutse, S. J. M., Uduezue, P. C., & Uygur, M. R. (2026) · Applied Business Issues & Solutions · doi:10.57005/ab.2025.4.5
Generative AI in Malaysian Pharmacy Education: A Call for Responsible Integration
Chang, C. T., Wong, Y. J., Choong, T. C., Cheong, W. L., & Chan, H. (2025) · Malaysian Journal of Pharmacy · doi:10.52494/maljpharmv11202
Generative AI Framework for Professional Development for K-12 STEM Teachers and Educators
Gulbahar, Y., & Adanır, G. A. (2026) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-16157-4_10
GenAI Tools in Higher Learning: Assessing Student Usage and Awareness in Private Higher Education
Pramjeeth, S. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-8240-2_6
Boundary Work in an AI‐Mediated Classroom
Hou, Y. (2026) · The National Teaching & Learning Forum · doi:10.1002/ntlf.70028
Faculty and Institutional Readiness for Generative AI in Bangladeshi Higher Education
bin Ahsan, W., Gani, M. O., Arifin, M. S., Bari, S. M. S. U., Ahamed, T., Hossain, M. S., & Taohid, M. H. (2026) · Userhub Journal · doi:10.58947/journal.lqmp73
Sampah, S. N. A., Essel, H. B., Agyem, J. A., & Atombo, C. (2026) · Journal of Educational Technology Systems · doi:10.1177/00472395261452533
Zhang, B., & Chen, K. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6182-6.ch007
Llacza, A. D. M. (2026) · Revista Multidisciplinar Epistemología de las Ciencias · doi:10.71112/0axh3867
Hodge, A. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9893056/v1
Students’ Perceptions of Generative AI Use and Academic Integrity in Translation Learning
Syamsuddin, M. R., & As'ary, M. A. (2026) · DEIKTIS Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra · doi:10.53769/deiktis.v6i2.3657
Yan, J., Wu, J., & Wei, X. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6571-8.ch004
From Faculty Stories to Student Voices
Yan, J., Altalouli, M., & King, N. R. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6571-8.ch011
Ogle, T., & Jarrett, P. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2026.2684284
Mao, L., Qi, M., & Zhou, Z. (2026) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3800645.3813017
Acceptance of AI Tools for Clinical Case Writing in Nursing Education: A TAM3-Based Analysis
Manalese, R. P., Alimurong, R. T., Mallari, C. S., Luciano, R. M., David, R. L., & Miranda, J. P. P. (2026) · International Conference on Information and Education Technology (ICIET) · doi:10.1109/iciet69664.2026.11561690
Safeguarding students' academic integrity in the age of generative AI: challenges and solutions
Alyafei, R. A. S. M., Al-kfairy, M., Alfandi, O., & Alrabaee, S. (2026) · Kybernetes · doi:10.1108/k-04-2025-0878 · Cited by 1
Abdi, A. S., & Abdullahi, A. M. (2026) · Discover Computing · doi:10.1007/s10791-026-10276-w
Faculty Response to Generative AI: Attitudes, Change in Practice and Policy Towards Students’ Use
Meishar‐Tal, H., Seifert, T., & Shonfeld, M. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-29770-9_3
Transforming Educational Practices via AI-Driven Tutoring and Assessment Integration
Ferreira, J. M. M. (2026) · IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) · doi:10.1109/educon67543.2026.11574320
The Due Process Deficit: Auditing AI Governance in U.S. Higher Education
Teleki, M., Choi, A. S. G., Duray, A., Liu, H., Zhang, J., Dong, X., Da Silva, D., Koenecke, A., & Caverlee, J. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3805689.3812328
A Data-Driven Roadmap for Generative AI Governance in Australian Higher Education
Singh, P. J., Sandu, N., & Goswami, B. (2026) · International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET) · doi:10.1109/ithet69978.2026.11585127
Hutson, J., Poyer, K., Ogoe, E., & Atologun, K. A. (2026) · Trends in Higher Education · doi:10.3390/higheredu5030059 · Cited by 1
Borge, M., & Shimoda, T. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-30542-8_3
Strategic Artificial Intelligence Learning (SAIL): Designing a Platform for Increasing AI Literacy
Shimoda, T. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-30784-2_39
Sun, X., Liu, D., Li, X., Gu, N., & Tian, Z. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1895365
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
