Cited by 21Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Findings from a survey looking at attitudes towards AI and its use in teaching, learning and research

Open access
Palmer, Edward, Lee, Daniel, Arnold, Matthew, Lekkas, Dimitra, Plastow, Katrina, Ploeckl, Florian, Srivastav, Amit, Strelan, Peter·2023·ASCILITE Publications

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is having an advancing dramatic impact on Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) in Higher Education. (Popenici & Kerr, 2017) observed an emergence of the use of AI in HE (Higher Education) and pinpointed challenges for institutions and students including issues of academic integrity, privacy and “the possibility of a dystopian future” (p. 11). Potential benefits of AI in HE includes creating learning communities through chatbots (Studente & Ellis, 2020), automated grading, individualized learning strategies and improved plagiarism detection (Owoc et al., 2019). It is unclear how often, and in what manner, students are engaging with AI during their learning and in creating submissions for assessments tasks and if this engagement is creating unrealistic outcomes. It is also unclear how educators are engaging with AI during their teaching and curriculum/assessment design and how this may be impacting the learning outcomes of their cohorts. This research study was conducted to investigate the perceived immediate and long-term implications of engaging with AI of both staff and students on learning and teaching within the University of Adelaide. The design of the research study is underpinned by a blended approach combining Situational Ethics and Planned Behavior Theory to understand the ethical considerations and behavioral activities and future intentions of staff and students regarding the use of AI. Situational Ethics provides a framework for examining the contextual nature of ethical decision-making regarding AI (Boddington, 2017; Memarian & Doleck, 2023). Planned Behavior Theory provides understanding of individuals' motivation and rationalization to engage with AI (Wang et al., 2022). By employing a mixed qualitative and quantitative design, collecting data via online surveys, the study's findings shed light on the ethical challenges and attitudes associated with AI implementation in higher education and provided insights into the factors that influence staff and students’ individual intentions to engage with AI technologies in Learning and Teaching. Participants from all faculties across a wide diversity of student cohorts and staff responded to the surveys. Initial findings reveal educators are suspecting a greater student use of AI than the data demonstrates. The most frequent use of AI by students is for checking grammar and this is more prominent in the international student cohort. Students trust their human educators more than AI for course content and feedback on assessments. Educators are comfortable using AI but feel also they need greater support and training. The majority of students (70%, n=126) are not concerned about the implications of using Generative AI in higher education, regarding issues related to privacy, bias, ethics, or discrimination. However, demonstrating an active concern in this field, the most common use of AI by university staff is to test its capabilities to complete assignments. These and other findings from the study can provide guidance to staff and students by describing current practices and making recommendations regarding assessment, curriculum design, and Learning and Teaching (L&T) activities.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14742/apubs.2023.537

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Student reactions to GenAI in assessments are mixed.

    “Student reactions to GenAI in assessments are mixed.”

    From Generative AI in Higher Education: Balancing Innovation and Integrity (2025) · cites this paper as [63]

    The findings (p. 1) report that students trust human educators more than AI for feedback on assessments, while 70% are unconcerned about broader implications of generative AI in higher education. These findings show differing attitudes, but the paper does not establish that student reactions specifically to GenAI in assessments are mixed. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Students generally trust GenAI for certain tasks like grammar checking.

    “While students generally trust GenAI for certain tasks like grammar checking, they prefer human educators for feedback on assessments [63].”

    From Generative AI in Higher Education: Balancing Innovation and Integrity (2025) · cites this paper as [63]

    The findings summary (p. 1) says grammar checking is students’ most frequent use of AI and that students trust human educators more than AI for feedback on assessments. It does not say that students generally trust AI for grammar checking; use alone does not establish trust. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Students prefer human educators for feedback on assessments.

    “While students generally trust GenAI for certain tasks like grammar checking, they prefer human educators for feedback on assessments [63].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Palmer, E., Lee, D., Arnold, M., Lekkas, D., Plastow, K., Ploeckl, F., Srivastav, A. & Strelan, P. (2023, December 3-6). Findings from a survey looking at attitudes towards AI and its use in teaching, learning and research. [Pecha Kucha Presentation]. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand. https://doi.org/10.14742/apubs.2023.537

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Palmer, E., Lee, D., Arnold, M., Lekkas, D., Plastow, K., Ploeckl, F., Srivastav, A., & Strelan, P.
Affiliations
The University of Adelaide (AU)
Venue
ASCILITE Publications
Published
2023-11-28
ISSN
2653-665X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4389096776
Cited by
21
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 1
FWCI
4.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
ASCILITE Publications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
artificial intelligence in higher education, attitudes toward AI, generative AI, technology-enhanced learning, student use of AI, educator attitudes, AI ethics, situational ethics, theory of planned behavior, trust in AI, academic integrity, privacy concerns, AI-assisted assessment, AI in teaching, international students, University of Adelaide

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