Generative AI Perceptions: A Survey to Measure the Perceptions of Faculty, Staff, and Students on Generative AI Tools in Academia
Open accessAbstract
ChatGPT is a natural language processing tool that can engage in human-like conversations and generate coherent and contextually relevant responses to various prompts. ChatGPT is capable of understanding natural text that is input by a user and generating appropriate responses in various forms. This tool represents a major step in how humans are interacting with technology. This paper specifically focuses on how ChatGPT is revolutionizing the realm of engineering education and the relationship between technology, students, and faculty and staff. Because this tool is quickly changing and improving with the potential for even greater future capability, it is a critical time to collect pertinent data. A survey was created to measure the effects of ChatGPT on students, faculty, and staff. This survey is shared as a Texas A&M University technical report to allow other universities and entities to use this survey and measure the effects elsewhere.
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?
Other U.S.-based studies reported higher overall rates of GenAI use than this study.
“other U.S.-based studies [6, 46] reported higher overall rates of GenAI use”
From Understanding the Practices, Perceptions, and (Dis)Trust of Generative AI among Instructors: A Mixed-methods Study in the U.S. Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [6]
The Intended Survey Audience section identifies a survey at Texas A&M University, and Highlights of Data Received reports that 64% of faculty/staff and 73% of students had used ChatGPT. Those are usage rates from a U.S.-based study, but the paper does not establish that they are higher than the citing study’s rate, and its reported rates concern ChatGPT rather than GenAI tools overall. The indexed passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023). Education in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI): Understanding the Potential Benefits of ChatGPT in Promoting Teaching and Learning. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4337484 · DOI · Paper page
- Male, S.A., Bush, M.B., & Chapman, E.S. (2011). Understanding Generic Engineering Competencies, Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 17:3, 147-156, DOI: 10.1080/22054952.2011.11464064. · DOI
- Stefanou, C.R., & Salisbury-Glennon, J.D. (2002). Developing Motivation and Cognitive Learning Strategies Through an Undergraduate Learning Community. Learning Environments Research, 5, 77-97 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015610606945 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Robots Are Here: Navigating the Generative AI Revolution in Computing Education
Prather, J., Denny, P., Leinonen, J., Becker, B. A., Albluwi, I., Craig, M., Keuning, H., Kiesler, N., Kohn, T., Luxton-Reilly, A., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education · doi:10.1145/3623762.3633499 · Cited by 396 · see citing works
Yu, H. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24289 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
RetractedExamining faculty and student perceptions of generative AI in university courses
Kim, J., Klopfer, M., Grohs, J. R., Eldardiry, H., Weichert, J., Cox, L. A., & Pike, D. (2025) · Innovative Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10755-024-09774-w · Cited by 109 · see citing works
“However, the study also uncovered significant apprehension about generative AI’s impact on foundational learning competencies (Amani et al., 2023; White et al., Fig.”
InfluentialLyu, W., Zhang, S., Chung, T., Sun, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2025) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100383 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Instructor Perceptions of AI Code Generation Tools - A Multi-Institutional Interview Study
Sheard, J., Denny, P., Hellas, A., Leinonen, J., Malmi, L., & Simon (2024) · Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 · doi:10.1145/3626252.3630880 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Elhassan, S. E., Sajid, M. R., Syed, A. M., Fathima, S. A., Khan, B. S., & Tamim, H. (2025) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/63065 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Wang, K. D., Wu, Z., Tufts, L., Wieman, C., Salehi, S., & Haber, N. (2025) · 2025 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) · doi:10.1109/educon62633.2025.11016406 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Mathew, R., & Stefaniak, J. E. (2024) · TechTrends · doi:10.1007/s11528-024-00964-z · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Hsu, H.-Y., Hakouz, A., & Fotouhi, G. (2025) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-025-00794-6 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Karakitsou, C., Karayianni, I., Leftheriotis, K., Logotheti, A., & Avgerinou, M. D. (2025) · Journal of Visual Literacy · doi:10.1080/1051144x.2025.2538256 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Amani, S., White, L., Balart, T., Arora, L., Shryock, K. J., Brumbelow, K., & Watson, K. L.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2304.14415
- OpenAlex
- W4367623535
- Cited by
- 76
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 4
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- OakTrust (Texas A&M University Libraries) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- American Society for Engineering Education
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Keywords
- generative AI, ChatGPT, perceptions of AI, engineering education, teacher perceptions, student perceptions, employee perceptions, artificial intelligence in academia, large language models
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
