Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Examining the AI Policy Landscape at U.S. Institutions
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From Policy analysis of higher education institutes in Ontario, Canada: A focus on artificial intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as Kim and Wu 2024
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.”
From Policy analysis of higher education institutes in Ontario, Canada: A focus on artificial intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as Kim and Wu 2024
Cites
The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 · Cited by 6,220 · see citing works
Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 · Cited by 3,087 · see citing works
Chatting and Cheating. Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D., Cotton, P., & Shipway, J. R. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/mrz8h · Cited by 3,079 · see citing works
Artificial 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 · see citing works
Do <scp>AI</scp> chatbots improve students learning outcomes? Evidence from a meta‐analysis
Wu, R., & Yu, Z. (2024) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13334 · Cited by 576 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence applications in Latin American higher education: a systematic review
Salas-Pilco, S. Z., & Yang, Y. (2022) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-022-00326-w · Cited by 330 · see citing works
The Future of Artificial Intelligence in Special Education Technology
Marino, M. T., Vasquez, E., Dieker, L., Basham, J., & Blackorby, J. (2023) · Journal of Special Education Technology · doi:10.1177/01626434231165977 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Miron, J., & Facciolo, L. (2025) · Canadian Perspectives on Academic Integrity · doi:10.55016/ojs/cpai.v8i5.81779 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kim, D., & Wu, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- University of Florida (US)
- ORCID
- 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