The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Perceptions About Generative AI and ChatGPT Use by Faculty and Students
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Approaches to ChatGPT by colleges and universities have varied, including updating academic integrity policies or even outright banning its use (Clercq, 2023; Mearian, 2023; Schwartz, 2023). As this new technology continues to evolve and expand, colleges and universities are grappling with the opportunities and challenges of using such tools. Little literature exists on student and faculty perceptions of AI use in higher education, particularly related to generative AI tools. The present study aims to fill this gap and offer perceptions from both students and faculty from a large research university in the mid-Atlantic. Survey participants consisted of 286 faculty and 380 students. Participants completed a questionnaire that included open-ended responses, scaled items, and finite questions. Overall, the reported use of ChatGPT technology is infrequent, though most respondents feel its use is inevitable in higher education. Faculty and students are uncertain but familiar with generative AI tools and ChatGPT. Institutions interested in developing policies around using ChatGPT on campus may benefit from building trust in generative AI, for both faculty and students. Concerns with academic integrity are prevalent and while both faculty and students agree that using ChatGPT violates institutional policy, they also agree generative AI has value in education.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
The vast majority of surveyed faculty and students expressed a desire for training and education on AI tools.
“The vast majority expressed a desire for training and education on AI tools (Petricini et al., 2024).”
From AI Literacy in the Communication Basic Course: Insights on Embedding, Motivation, and Reducing Uncertainty (2026) · cites this paper as Petricini et al., 2024
Faculty and students widely agreed that using ChatGPT in coursework would violate current institutional policies, even as they also agreed that GenAI holds educational value.
“A substantial concern was academic integrity: Faculty and students widely agreed that using ChatGPT in coursework would violate current institutional policies, even as they also agreed that GenAI holds educational value.”
From AI Literacy in the Communication Basic Course: Insights on Embedding, Motivation, and Reducing Uncertainty (2026) · cites this paper as Petricini et al., 2024
In the surveyed group, only a minority had actually used ChatGPT, although the majority reported high familiarity.
“In the group of faculty and students surveyed, at the time only a minority had actually used ChatGPT, although the majority reported high familiarity.”
From AI Literacy in the Communication Basic Course: Insights on Embedding, Motivation, and Reducing Uncertainty (2026) · cites this paper as Petricini et al., 2024
Both faculty and students were generally familiar with the technology but remained uncertain about it.
“Both groups were generally familiar with the technology but remained uncertain about it.”
From AI Literacy in the Communication Basic Course: Insights on Embedding, Motivation, and Reducing Uncertainty (2026) · cites this paper as Petricini et al., 2024
Higher education stakeholders acknowledge AI's importance and inevitability but need support to overcome uncertainties.
“Overall, the research suggests that higher education stakeholders acknowledge AI's importance and inevitability but need support to overcome uncertainties.”
From AI Literacy in the Communication Basic Course: Insights on Embedding, Motivation, and Reducing Uncertainty (2026) · cites this paper as Petricini et al., 2024
In a recent survey of 286 faculty and 380 students, overall use of ChatGPT was infrequent, though most respondents acknowledged its use is inevitable in higher education.
“In a recent survey of 286 faculty and 380 students, we found overall use of ChatGPT was infrequent, though most respondents acknowledged its use is inevitable in higher education (Petricini et al., 2024).”
From AI Literacy in the Communication Basic Course: Insights on Embedding, Motivation, and Reducing Uncertainty (2026) · cites this paper as Petricini et al., 2024
Although faculty and students acknowledge AI's inevitability, significant apprehension persists, and uncertainty can be amplified by exaggerated public narratives oscillating between dystopian fear and utopian optimism.
“Zipf et al. (2024) further demonstrated that although faculty and students acknowledge AI's inevitability, significant apprehension persists, reinforcing that uncertainty can be amplified by exaggerated public narratives oscillating between dystopian fear and utopian optimism Petricini, 2024a; Petricini et al., 2024).”
From AI Literacy in the Communication Basic Course: Insights on Embedding, Motivation, and Reducing Uncertainty (2026) · cites this paper as Petricini et al., 2024
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Petricini, T. A., & Cruz, L. (2026) · Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology · doi:10.14434/jotlt.v14i1.41702 · Cited by 3
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Petricini, T., Zipf, S., & Wu, C.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Venue
- Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and Learning Journal
- Publisher
- Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and Learning Journal
- Published
- 2024-11-30
- OpenAlex
- W6889812093
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 3.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Pennsylvania Libraries: Research & Practice (University of Pittsburgh)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Keywords
- generative AI, ChatGPT, teacher perceptions, student perceptions, academic integrity, AI policy in higher education, trust in AI, artificial intelligence in education, research 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