Artificial intelligence causes a significant change of direction for higher education institutions, its leaders, faculty and students, a new survey says.
Concerns about cheating and academic integrity are higher than the decreased attention spans of students, according to the report from the American Association of Colleges & Universities and Elon University’s Imagining the Digital Future Center. The lack of preparedness to handle generative artificial intelligence tools, called GenAI, is better than 1 of 2 among college and university leaders.
The report, “Leading Through Disruption,” assesses a future with better learning outcomes, positively affected student lives and instruction being better for assignments, teaching, learning and research. The point in the journey today, however, is challenged – and that may be an understatement.
“While our survey reveals significant growing pains as colleges adapt to AI – from concerns about cheating to gaps in faculty preparedness – there’s a clear recognition that we’re at an inflection point in higher education,” said C. Edward Watson, vice president for digital innovation of the association. “The fact that 44% of institutions have already created AI-specific courses shows both the urgency and opportunity before us. The challenge now is turning today’s disruption into tomorrow’s innovation in teaching and learning.”
Watson co-authored the analysis with Lee Rainie, director of Elon’s Imagining the Digital Future Center. Responses to at least some portions of the survey Nov. 4-Dec. 7 came from 337 college leaders. They say the sample is diverse, including the size of the undergraduate population and schools’ geographic distribution, but not generalizable.
The release coincided Thursday with the three-day annual American Association of Colleges & Universities meeting in Washington, D.C., that wraps up Friday.
“The overall takeaway from these leaders is that they are working to make sense of the changes they confront and looking over the horizon at a new AI-infused world they think will be better for almost everyone in higher education,” Rainie said. “They clearly feel some urgency to effect change, and they hope the grand reward is revitalized institutions that serve their students and civilization well.”
In assessing how the leaders’ institutions are managing now, 69% of the leaders responding say their schools have written policies on GenAI tools, 44% have created new classes, and 20% have created new majors or minors related to artificial intelligence.
GenAI use by students “is prevalent” to the tune of 89%. By contrast, the report says 62% of respondents estimate “that fewer than half of faculty use the tools.” GenAI is used by 83% of the respondents.
College and university leaders said their respective institutions “are not very or not at all ready to use GenAI for such things as preparing students for the future (56%), preparing faculty to use GenAI for teaching and mentoring (53%) and helping nonfaculty use the tools for work (63%).”
“Some 59% believe last spring’s graduates were not prepared for work in companies where skill in using GenAI tools is important,” a release on the report says.
Cheating is up 59% since tools became available, and 21% say it is up a lot, the report says.
For all the positives in enhanced learning, improved research skills, better student writing and increased creativity, there are considerable concerns beyond academic integrity and decreased attention spans for dependence on GenAI, and digital inequities.
Better learning outcomes because of GenAI tools is expected in five years by 21% and 46% believe it “will be somewhat for the better.” The difference is 50%-12% of academic leaders saying GenAI’s impact on students will be more positive than negative rather than more negative than positive.
Because of GenAI tools, respondents say, quality of assignments to students will get a lot or somewhat better (70%); faculty will get relief from “routine work” (68%); faculty research will improve (68%); lectures and lessons will improve (54%); and quality of feedback and grading of student performance will improve (51%).
Campus job reductions are anticipated by just under one-third (29%), though about 1 in 5 are unsure of staffing level impact.
The leaders (95%) were universal in feeling a negative consequence from GenAI tools on academic integrity, including 56% saying it would “be a lot of impact.” Overreliance (92%) and digital divide inequities impact (81%) are two other dark areas.
The report says 66% believe “GenAI will diminish student attention spans, including 24% who think the tools will greatly impact this.”
More positively, 91% believe GenAI tools will enhance and customize learning; 75% believe research skills will improve; 69% think clear and persuasive writing will increase; and 66% believe creativity will increase.
