Findings from a survey looking at attitudes towards AI and its use in teaching, learning and research
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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 measuredStudents 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 measuredStudents 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].”
From Generative AI in Higher Education: Balancing Innovation and Integrity (2025) · cites this paper as [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
Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on teaching and learning in higher education
Popenici, S. A. D., & Kerr, S. (2017) · Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning · doi:10.1186/s41039-017-0062-8 · Cited by 2,019 · see citing works
Memarian, B., & Doleck, T. (2023) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100152 · Cited by 416 · see citing works
Towards a Code of Ethics for Artificial Intelligence
Boddington, P. (2017) · Artificial Intelligence: Foundations, Theory, and Algorithms · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60648-4 · Cited by 294 · see citing works
Owoc, M. L., Sawicka, A., & Weichbroth, P. (2021) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-85001-2_4 · Cited by 236 · see citing works
Wang, Y.-Y., Wang, Y.-S., & Wang, Y.-M. (2020) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2020.1829053 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Tertiary Online Teaching and Learning
(2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-8928-7 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 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
Generative AI in Higher Education: Balancing Innovation and Integrity
Francis, N. J., Jones, S., & Smith, D. P. (2025) · British Journal of Biomedical Science · doi:10.3389/bjbs.2024.14048 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
“While students generally trust GenAI for certain tasks like grammar checking, they prefer human educators for feedback on assessments [63].”
- 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
- Publisher
- Open Access Publishing Association
- 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
- diamond
- doi.org
- 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