CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 375Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines

Open access
McDonald, Nora, Johri, Aditya, Ali, Areej, Hingle, Aayushi·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2402.01659arXiv 2402.01659
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The release of ChatGPT in November 2022 prompted a massive uptake of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) across higher education institutions (HEIs). HEIs scrambled to respond to its use, especially by students, looking first to regulate it and then arguing for its productive integration within teaching and learning. In the year since the release, HEIs have increasingly provided policies and guidelines to direct GenAI. In this paper we examined documents produced by 116 US universities categorized as high research activity or R1 institutions to comprehensively understand GenAI related advice and guidance given to institutional stakeholders. Through an extensive analysis, we found the majority of universities (N=73, 63%) encourage the use of GenAI and many provide detailed guidance for its use in the classroom (N=48, 41%). More than half of all institutions provided sample syllabi (N=65, 56%) and half (N=58, 50%) provided sample GenAI curriculum and activities that would help instructors integrate and leverage GenAI in their classroom. Notably, most guidance for activities focused on writing, whereas code and STEM-related activities were mentioned half the time and vaguely even when they were (N=58, 50%). Finally, more than one half of institutions talked about the ethics of GenAI on a range of topics broadly, including Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) (N=60, 52%). Overall, based on our findings we caution that guidance for faculty can become burdensome as extensive revision of pedagogical approaches is often recommended in the policies.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2402.01659

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.

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?

  • AI documents accompanying policies were employed to inform instructors and students about suggested AI syllabi statements, pedagogical approaches, types of recommended AI tools, potential ethical issues, and other general guidance.

    “Researchers described how AI documents that accompanied policies were being employed to inform instructors and students about suggested AI syllabi statements, pedagogical approaches, types of recommended AI tools, potential ethical issues, and other general guidance.”

    From Policy analysis of higher education institutes in Ontario, Canada: A focus on artificial intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as McDonald et al. (2024)

    The Overview (pp. 8–9) reports institutional guidance on sample syllabus statements, classroom activities, teaching approaches, and GenAI ethics. The Introduction (p. 2) describes policies as a source of information for faculty and students. The passages do not establish that the accompanying documents advised them on types of recommended AI tools; the discussion of named detection tools (section 4.2.2, p. 12) chiefly cautions against their reliability. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • A study of US higher education genAI policies found that while 116 of 131 R1 institutions had genAI-related policies as of November 2023, only 58 addressed genAI use in STEM courses, and most STEM mentions were in computer science (n = 56).

    “While the majority of R1 institutions (116 out of 131) had genAI-related policies as of November 2023, the more prevalent fields for their policies were in writing and humanities; only half of the institutions (n = 58) addressed the use of genAI in STEM courses.”

    From Scaffold or Crutch? Examining College Students' Use and Views of Generative AI Tools for STEM Education (2025) · cites this paper as McDonald et al, 2024

    Data Collection (p. 7) identifies 131 R1 institutions, a collection period ending November 26, 2023, and 116 institutions with a GenAI policy or classroom mention. STEM-related use (p. 17) reports 58 institutions mentioning STEM courses, including 56 mentioning computer science. The paper says guidance focused on writing, but the citing sentence’s additional claim that humanities was a more prevalent field is not established by these passages; it also describes policies more narrowly than the paper’s 'policy or mention' criterion. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • McDonald et al. (2024) found that 63% of the higher education institutions with policies or documents related to AI use encouraged AI use.

    “They found that 63% encouraged AI use and 41% provided clear guidance for use in learning environments.”

    From Policy analysis of higher education institutes in Ontario, Canada: A focus on artificial intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as McDonald et al. (2024)

  • McDonald et al. (2024) found that 41% of the higher education institutions with policies or documents related to AI use provided clear guidance for use in learning environments.

    “They found that 63% encouraged AI use and 41% provided clear guidance for use in learning environments.”

    From Policy analysis of higher education institutes in Ontario, Canada: A focus on artificial intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as McDonald et al. (2024)

  • Even when uses in STEM courses were addressed, institutional guidance was often superficial, primarily focusing on coding and writing tasks rather than discipline-specific guidance.

    “Furthermore, even when uses in STEM courses were addressed, the guidance was often superficial, primarily focusing on genAI's roles in supporting coding and writing tasks rather than providing discipline-specific guidance.”

    From Scaffold or Crutch? Examining College Students' Use and Views of Generative AI Tools for STEM Education (2025) · cites this paper as McDonald et al, 2024

Self-check

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

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

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 35 · Cited by 375

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. [1][1] Ahmad Uzir, N., Gašević, D., Matcha, W., Jovanović, J. and Pardo, A. 2020. Analytics of time management strategies in a flipped classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning . 36, 1 (2020), 70 -88. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12392. - · DOI · Paper page
  2. [3][3] Alkaissi, H. and McFarlane, S.I. Artificial Hallucinations in ChatGPT: Implications in Scientific Writing. Cureus . 15, 2, e35179. DOI:https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.35179. - · DOI · Paper page
  3. [5][5] Ames, M.G. 2019. The Charisma Machine: The Life, Death, and Legacy of One Laptop per Child . The MIT Press. -
  4. [6][6] Araujo, G.G. and Kyrilov, A. 2020. Plagiarism prevention through project based learning with GitLab. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges . 35, 10 (Apr. 2020), 53 -58. -
  5. [7][7] Ariyo Okaiyeto, S., Bai, J., Xiao, H., and College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Qingdao Agricultural University, Qingdao 266126, China 2023. Generative AI in education: To embrace it or not ? . International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering . 16, 3 (2023), 285 -286. DOI:https://doi.org/10.25165/j.ijabe.20231603.8486. - · DOI · Paper page
  6. [8][8] Bahroun, Z., Anane, C., Ahmed, V. and Zacca, A. 2023. Transforming Education: A Comprehensive Review of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Educational Settings through Bibliometric and Content Analysis. Sustainability . 15, 17 (Jan. 2023), 12983. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712983. - · DOI · Paper page
  7. [9][9] Baidoo-Anu, D. and Owusu Ansah, L. 2023. Education in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI): Understanding the Potential Benefits of ChatGPT in Promoting Teaching and Learning. SSRN Electronic Journal . (2023). DOI:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4337484. - · DOI · Paper page
  8. [11][11] Brown, M. and Klein, C. 2020. Whose Data? Which Rights? Whose Power? A Policy Discourse Analysis of Student Privacy Policy Documents. The Journal of Higher Education . 91, (Jun. 2020), 1 -30. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2020.1770045. - · DOI
  9. [13][13] Chan, C.K.Y. 2023. A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education . 20, 1 (Jul. 2023), 38. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3. - · DOI · Paper page
  10. [16][16] Conroy, G. 2023. How ChatGPT and other AI tools could disrupt scientific publishing. Nature . 622, 7982 (Oct. 2023), 234 -236. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03144-w. - · DOI · Paper page
  11. [17][17] Cotton, D.R.E., Cotton, P.A. and Shipway, J.R. 2023. Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International . 0, 0 (2023), 1 -12. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148. - · DOI · Paper page
  12. [18][18] Crawford, J., Vallis, C., Yang, J., Fitzgerald, R., O'Dea, C. and Cowling, M. 2023. Editorial: Artificial Intelligence is Awesome, but Good Teaching Should Always Come First. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice . 20, 7 (Nov. 2023). DOI:https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.7.01. - · DOI · Paper page
  13. [19][19] Cuban, L. 2003. Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom . Harvard University Press. -
  14. [20][20] Dai, C.-P. and Ke, F. 2022. Educational applications of artificial intelligence in simulation-based learning: A systematic mapping review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence . 3, (2022), 100087. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100087. - · DOI
  15. [21][21] Dalalah, D. and Dalalah, O.M.A. 2023. The false positives and false negatives of generative AI detection tools in education and academic research: The case of ChatGPT. The International Journal of Management Education . 21, 2 (Jul. 2023), 100822. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100822. - · DOI · Paper page
  16. [22][22] Dergaa, I., Chamari, K., Zmijewski, P. and Ben Saad, H. 2023. From human writing to artificial intelligence generated text: examining the prospects and potential threats of ChatGPT in academic writing. Biology of Sport . 40, 2 (Apr. 2023), 615 -622. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2023.125623. - · DOI · Paper page
  17. [23][23] Escotet, M.Á. 2023. The optimistic future of Artificial Intelligence in higher education. PROSPECTS . (Jul. 2023). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-023-09642-z. - · DOI · Paper page
  18. [26][26] Homolak, J. 2023. We do not stand a ghost of a chance of detecting plagiarism with ChatGPT employed as a ghost author. Croatian Medical Journal . 64, (Sep. 2023), 293 -4. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2023.64.293. - · DOI
  19. [27][27] Hsu, Y.-C. and Ching, Y.-H. 2023. Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education, Part One: the Dynamic Frontier. TechTrends . 67, 4 (Jul. 2023), 603 -607. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-02300863-9. - · DOI
  20. [29][29] Kangasharju, A., Ilomäki, L., Lakkala, M. and Toom, A. 2022. Lower secondary students' poetry writing with the AI-based Poetry Machine. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence . 3, (Jan. 2022), 100048. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100048. - · DOI
  21. [31][31] Májovský, M., Černý, M., Kasal, M., Komarc, M. and Netuka, D. 2023. Artificial Intelligence Can Generate Fraudulent but AuthenticLooking Scientific Medical Articles: Pandora's Box Has Been Opened. Journal of Medical Internet Research . 25, (May 2023), e46924. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2196/46924. - · DOI · Paper page
  22. [33][33] Moorhouse, B.L., Yeo, M.A. and Wan, Y. 2023. Generative AI tools and assessment: Guidelines of the world's top -ranking universities. Computers and Education Open . 5, (Dec. 2023), 100151. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100151. - · DOI · Paper page
  23. [34][34] Ng, D.T.K., Luo, W., Chan, H.M.Y. and Chu, S.K.W. 2022. Using digital story writing as a pedagogy to develop AI literacy among primary students. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence . 3, (Jan. 2022), 100054. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100054. - · DOI · Paper page
  24. [35][35] Nordling, L. 2023. How ChatGPT is transforming the postdoc experience. Nature . 622, 7983 (Oct. 2023), 655 -657. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03235-8. - · DOI · Paper page
  25. [36][36] Okewu, E., Adewole, P., Misra, S., Maskeliunas, R. and Damasevicius, R. 2021. Artificial Neural Networks for Educational Data Mining in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review. Applied Artificial Intelligence . 35, 13 (Nov. 2021), 983 -1021. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2021.1922847. - · DOI
  26. [37][37] Peres, R., Schreier, M., Schweidel, D. and Sorescu, A. 2023. On ChatGPT and beyond: How generative artificial intelligence may affect research, teaching, and practice. International Journal of Research in Marketing . 40, 2 (Jun. 2023), 269 -275. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2023.03.001. - · DOI · Paper page
  27. [38][38] Popenici, S.A.D. and Kerr, S. 2017. Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on teaching and learning in higher education. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning . 12, 1 (Nov. 2017), 22. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-017-0062-8. - · DOI · Paper page
  28. [40][40] Sakirin, T. and Said, R.B. 2023. User preferences for ChatGPT-powered conversational interfaces versus traditional methods. Mesopotamian Journal of Computer Science . 2023, (Feb. 2023), 24 -31. DOI:https://doi.org/10.58496/MJCSC/2023/006. - · DOI · Paper page
  29. [41][41] Sinha, S., Burd, L. and Du Preez, J. 2023. How ChatGPT Could Revolutionize Academia - IEEE Spectrum. IEEE Spectrum . (Feb. 2023). -
  30. [42][42] Tan, M. and Subramonyam, H. 2023. More than Model Documentation: Uncovering Teachers' Bespoke Information Needs for Informed Classroom Integration of ChatGPT. arXiv. -
  31. [45][45] Van Noorden, R. and Perkel, J.M. 2023. AI and science: what 1,600 researchers think. Nature . 621, 7980 (Sep. 2023), 672 -675. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02980-0. - · DOI · Paper page
  32. [46][46] Vo, N.N.Y., Vu, Q.T., Vu, N.H., Vu, T.A., Mach, B.D. and Xu, G. 2022. Domain-specific NLP system to support learning path and curriculum design at tech universities. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence . 3, (Jan. 2022), 100042. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100042. - · DOI
  33. [47][47] Walters, W. 2023. The Effectiveness of Software Designed to Detect AI-Generated Writing: A Comparison of 16 AI Text Detectors. Open Information Science . 7, (Oct. 2023). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2022-0158. - · DOI · Paper page

Authors
McDonald, N., Johri, A., Ali, A., & Hingle, A.
Affiliations
  • George Mason University (US)
  • Management Support Technology (United States) (US)
  • Montgomery College (US)
Corresponding author
McDonald, Nora
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Volume
3
Pages
100121-100121
ISSN
2949-8821 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2402.01659
arXiv
2402.01659
OpenAlex
W4406571986
Cited by
375
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 223 · 2025: 135 · 2024: 17
FWCI
370.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (2319137)
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
generative AI, higher education, institutional policy, AI guidelines, ChatGPT, AI in teaching and learning, R1 universities, AI curriculum, writing instruction, AI ethics, diversity, equity, and inclusion, faculty guidance, teaching practice

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