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
Items 201–268 of 268
From gatekeeper to architect: operationalizing AI as a cognitive partner in higher education
Ugrinowitsch, C., & Libardi, C. A. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1880704
AI ethics in academia among higher education students’ perceptions and practices
Ghosh, R., Gardia, A., & Mehta, D. (2026) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-026-01881-4
Dark Side of AI in Higher Education – A Scoping Review
Msweli, N. T., & Mtsweni, E. S. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-32112-1_4
Oliveira, J. D. S., Pinheiro, M. M., Torres, A. I., Conceição, A., & Borges, M. F. R. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-32035-3_7
Kumar, J. A., Salim, Z., Annamalai, N., Dhaliwal, J., & Singh, A. D. (2026) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-026-02982-w · Cited by 1
Zhang, H., Tang, Q., Wang, J., Yang, L., & Deng, W. (2026) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440261462203
Zhang, Y., Zhang, F., & Zhang, Z. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1875025
Alotaibi, A., Aseery, A., Alfayez, A. A., Bashatah, L., & Aseri, S. (2026) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1002/berj.70256 · Cited by 2
Khan, A., Hussain, S., & Khan, F. N. (2026) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-026-03030-3
Generative AI and Educational Inequality
Lei, L., Zhaoying, H., Huang, L., Chen, X., & Sijia, M. (2026) · Education as Change · doi:10.25159/1947-9417/21808
A framework to enhance ethical generative artificial intelligence use in academia
Chingwaro, L., & Ndlovu, L. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-36775-5.00013-8
AI-use preferences among metropolitan tourism students in the Philippines: a choice experiment study
Regaspe, G. G. N., Laxa, A. C., Garcia, F. E. E., Israel, L. M. F., Batiduan, J. P., Mesana, J. C. B., & de Guzman, A. B. (2026) · Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism · doi:10.1080/15313220.2026.2713534
Tricahyo, A., Falaqi, M. R., Shobirin, Inayah, Isnainiyah, Aulia, M., Wahhab, A., & Syarofit, M. K. (2026) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2026.2712408 · Cited by 1
A rubric to assess generative AI-based feedback on student writing assignments
Rankins, D. R., Tran, E. N., La, V. T., Huang, D. M., & Barry, R. M. (2026) · Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education · doi:10.1128/jmbe.00350-25
1017 Navigating Change: Integrating GenAI in Saudi Arabia’s Transforming Educational System
Burukina, O., Elmasry, N., Ozoral, B., & Shamdeen, F. (2026) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783111712963-007
Görlich, M., Moreno, J. M., Herfurth, F. M., & Getto, B. (2026) · Journal of Adult Learning Knowledge and Innovation · doi:10.1556/2059.2026.00149
Chauhan, N., Devi, K. V., Kumar, A., Krishnan, S., Venugopal, N., & Thanuja, K. A. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10482822/v1
Júnior, F. P. D. L. (2026) · Revista Foco · doi:10.54751/revistafoco.v19n8-017
Ethical AI use is contextual: focus group insights on students’ decision-making in academic work
Chong, S. L., Balajee, V., & Lee, E. H. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-03237-w
Generative AI Application Among the Undergraduate Medical Students
Fakri, N. M. R. M., Hamid, I. J. A., Yusof, S., Kori, A. M. M., Othman, A., & Taib, F. (2026) · Malaysian Journal of Medicine and Health Sciences · doi:10.47836/mjmhs.22.s2.1
Acosta, R. R., Almanzor, L. A., Cierto, I., Toledo, A. M., & Cajurao, E. C. (2026) · Journal of Learning Theory and Methodology · doi:10.17309/jltm.2026.7.2.07
Huling, H. M., Anderson, S. S., & Reagan, K. J. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-7902-9.ch005
Enhancing Self-Directed Learning with GenAI: A Freshman-Level Engineering Case Study
Nguyen, T., & Nguyen, L. D. (2026) · ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition · doi:10.18260/1-2--59458
Dosedla, M., Picka, K., & Hanzl, M. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10324329/v1
Shaikh, A. A., Doszhan, R. D., Nurgaliyeva, A., Lei, D., Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J., & Sharma, R. (2026) · Journal of Information & Knowledge Management · doi:10.1142/s0219649226500668
A Systematic Review of Generative AI for Educational Recommender Systems
Ilyasa, D. F., Ahmad, I., & Rahayu, N. W. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Innovation, Ethics & Emerging Tech in Engineering and Computing Education (IE2C) · doi:10.1109/ie2c69620.2026.11663045
Qian, Y. (2026) · International Journal for Educational Integrity · doi:10.1007/s40979-026-00233-x
Fute, A. Z., Amihere, A., & Kangwa, D. (2026) · Open Learning The Journal of Open Distance and e-Learning · doi:10.1080/02680513.2026.2722975
Sinag, J. R. (2026) · International Conference on Education and Training Technologies (ICETT) · doi:10.1109/icett70124.2026.11666118
Wu, E., & Rodriguez, L. (2026) · Policy Design and Practice · doi:10.1080/25741292.2026.2723538
Ursavaş, Ö. F., Durak, H. Y., Reisoğlu, İ., Akbulut, Y., & McIlroy, D. (2026) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-026-09959-w
Dong, X., Tao, Z., & Duan, C. (2026) · International Conference on Distance Education and Learning (ICDEL) · doi:10.1109/icdel70250.2026.11663816
Students’ academic-integrity anxiety in the GenAI ethical grey zone
Zainuddin, Z., Perera, C. J., Churiyah, M., & Wang, X. (2026) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2026.2725997
Dadich, A., & Dhakal, S. P. (2026) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2026.e45383
Governing Generative AI in U.S. Higher Education: An Equity-First, Risk-Calibrated Policy Playbook
Johnson, N. N., & Johnson, T. L. (2026) · Educational Policy · doi:10.1177/08959048261481544
Bi, T., Dalelovna, S. A., Lyu, A., & Xiu, S. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1890508 · Cited by 1
Generative AI Use Patterns and Ethical Dilemmas among Pre-Service Teachers
Andayani, M. S. L., & Damayanthi, L. P. E. (2026) · Jurnal Riset dan Inovasi Pembelajaran · doi:10.51574/jrip.v6i2.5619
Generative AI and education in the information fields: a futures workshop report
Proferes, N., Newell, B. C., Arsenault, M., Archambault, S. G., Dowell, M. L., Egan, K., Kizhakkethil, P., Mann, J., Reynolds, R. B., & Sweeney, M. E. (2026) · Information and Learning Sciences · doi:10.1108/ils-11-2025-0211
Arab, H., Mirdad, G. A., & Abd-Allah, M. A. M. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1951054
Ni, H. (2026) · International Conference on Educational Digitalization and Computer Science in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area · doi:10.1145/3828183.3828470
Whose voices count? Multilingualism, AI policy, and equity at Hispanic-Serving institutions
Tian, Z., & Christiansen, M. S. (2026) · Language Policy · doi:10.1007/s10993-026-09803-8
Masitho, P. R., & Iswati, H. D. (2026) · Current Issues in Language Planning · doi:10.1080/14664208.2026.2734198
Mandić, D., Miščević, G., Radovanović, I., & Kojić, F. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1914446
Entrepreneurship Educators’ Acceptance and Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
Bahaw, P., Sadiq, G., Sookhai, S., Stephens, A., Mack, A. J., & Pittaway, L. (2026) · Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy · doi:10.1177/25151274261484162
珂, 朱., Ma, Y., Zhang, J., & Liu, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1940317
Efficacy and ease of use of AI applications among teachers in Serbian HEIs
Šević, A., Slijepčević, M., Šević, N. P., & Nikolić, T. M. (2026) · Marketing · doi:10.5937/mkng2603191s
Pareja, C. G. G., Pera, L. Y. P., Lizares, A. A., Rojas, L. M. H., Gomez, H., Tavera, Z. R. D., Andrade, C. P. A., Wong, F. M. R., Santana, W. M. R., Salcedo, C. M. D., et al. (2026) · Encyclopedia · doi:10.3390/encyclopedia6100209
Chen, Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1955192
Zammit, J., Grech, V., Francalanza, E., et al. (2026) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-38618-2_16
Green‐Eneix, C. A., & Kohnke, L. (2026) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.70384
Polin, K., Yiğitcanlar, T., Washington, T., & Hossain, S. T. (2026) · Urban Governance · doi:10.1177/26643286261493872
Principles without provisions? Unpacking assessment in higher education AI policies
Egloffstein, M., & Heil, J. (2026) · Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice · doi:10.1080/0969594x.2026.2740061
Villanueva, G. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2026.2740764
From Tool to Tutor: Rethinking Teaching Strategies in the Era of Generative AI
Hosen, M. S., Kabir, M. S., Hasan, M. M., Khatun, M. T., Hossain, M. M., & Kabir, J. M. B. (2026) · International Conference on Advanced Network Technologies and Applications (APAN) · doi:10.1109/apan70967.2026.11709719
Aljarrah, R., Abdo, A., Abuishmais, I., Shahroury, F. R., & Jarrah, M. A. (2026) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2026.3740808
Khasraghi, B. J., Su, Q., & Khasraghi, H. J. (2026) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-10-2025-1539
Generative AI and Information Integrity in Universities
Kenaphoom, S., Pawala, T., Wiwithkhunakorn, S., Supsin, J., Suktam, W., & FANG, Z. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-1488-2.ch014
Nath, S. (2026) · Business and Society Review · doi:10.1111/basr.70071
Cacho, R. M., Cardona, R. S., Amora, J. T., & Dejapa, R. R. (2026) · Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age · doi:10.53850/joltida.1895088
Alkhateeb, N. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2740885
Beyond Algorithmic Neutrality: Decolonial Pedagogy in Technical Communication
Pestova, A. (2026) · IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (ProComm) · doi:10.1109/procomm69759.2026.00009
Mapping generative AI in higher education teaching and learning: a scoping review
Lin, M. P.-C., Chang, D., Winne, P. H., Bowen, G. M., & Ryoo, J. (2026) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-026-00630-9 · Cited by 2
Adillón, M. V., Forgas, R. C., Morey-López, M., & Espiñeira-Bellón, E.-M. (2026) · Education + Training · doi:10.1108/et-03-2026-0285
Suárez, G. G. D. R., & Favotto, S. R. (2026) · Conferência Latino-Americana de Tecnologias de Aprendizagem (LACLO) · doi:10.5753/laclo_estendido.2026.46032
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
