Cited by 10Artificial Intelligence in EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIEducational Innovations and Challenges

Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Examining the AI Policy Landscape at U.S. Institutions

Kim, Daniel, Wu, Jue·2024·The 25th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education

Abstract

Addressing a critical need for comprehensive policy development in the area of Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED), this exploratory study investigates the prevalence and characteristics of emerging AI policies across U.S. higher education institutions. Through a close review of AI policies from a stratified random sample of four-year institutions across the country, variations in policy adoption were examined across different institution types. Official online policy-related resources provided for campus-wide use were observable in less than half of U.S. institutions, and large discrepancies in the quality and quantity of policy guidance provided were found among existing policy resources. Significant disparities were most associated with institution type. Research-intensive universities were more likely to have provided significant AI policy resources compared to smaller institutions. The study identifies a range of policy providers and highlights diverse approaches to AI use, ethical guidelines, and target audiences, which reflect different combinations and degrees of leadership, institutional cultures, resources, and individual initiatives. Considering the social impacts of technologies, these varied results underscore the necessity for a standardized and well-structured policy framework to ensure effective and ethical AI integration in higher education. The lack of consistency in existing policy practices, especially in light of emerging ethical considerations, c…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3686852.3687076

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Within that percentage, certain types of institutions were more likely to have policies: those that offered doctoral degrees and reported high rates of research activity, as well as baccalaureate colleges with Arts and Sciences programs (40% within that subgroup).

    “Within that percentage, certain types of institutions were more likely to have policies: those that offered doctoral degrees and reported high rates of research activity, as well as baccalaureate colleges with Arts and Sciences programs (40% within that subgroup).”
  • Kim and Wu 2024 reported that 44.5% of higher education institutions they reviewed (n = 101) had AI-specific policies.

    “Looking at the United States, Kim and Wu 2024 reported that 44.5% of HE institutions they reviewed (n = 101) had AI-specific policies.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, D., & Wu, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University of Florida (US)
Venue
The 25th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education
Publisher
ACM
Published
2024-10-10
Pages
68-73
OpenAlex
W4405153187
Cited by
10
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6
FWCI
3.80
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Conference on Information Technology Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Innovations and Challenges
Keywords
artificial intelligence in education, AI policy, higher education institutions, policy adoption, institutional type, research universities, AI ethics, moral norms, AI governance, policy framework, American universities

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