top of page

Higher Ed AI Guidelines

First, thank you to those who send me a quick note indicating that the summaries of SoTL articles are helpful to you, that makes my day! I am trying to be sensitive and provide just-in-time relevant teaching research that you can use in your classroom. I realize that I have been sharing more AI articles over the past year, as you might imagine there is much interest in this area. I hope it is not necessary, but I would like to remind everyone that when I share an article, it is not an endorsement, but an attempt to provide a service to each of you to help with your busy schedule. 


With all that said, I will be sharing another integrating AI into teaching article this week. The article, which just came out is entitled, “Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines, ” by McDonald et al. (2025). From many discussions with colleagues, after a little over two years since ChatGPT came out with a more mainstream platform, the questions on how to integrate GenAI into higher ed productively remain. This article shares some data on how and to what extent universities are implementing AI, which may help you benchmark your institution. 


The research questions which guided this research included: 

  1. What guidance are higher education institutions (HEIs) providing to their constituents about the use of GenAI?

  2. What is the overall sentiment on the use of GenAI articulated by HEIs (e.g., do they encourage or discourage use) and how is it manifested in actual guidelines?

  3. What ethical and privacy considerations, if any, are represented in the guidelines?


The authors analyzed 116 U.S. universities resulting in a comprehensive examination of the advice and guidance offered by stakeholders about GenAI. They found that:

  • A majority of universities (N = 73, 63%) encourage the use of GenAI, 

    • with many offering detailed guidance for its use in the classroom (N = 48, 41%);

  • Over half the institutions provided sample syllabi (N = 65, 56%);

  • Half (N = 58, 50%) provided sample GenAI curriculum and activities;

  • The majority of guidance focused on writing activities, whereas references to STEM activities were infrequent (N = 58, 50%); and

  • More than half of institutions talked about the ethics of GenAI (N = 60, 52%). 


The authors summarize four major findings:

  1. Many institutions whose guidance encourages the use of GenAI express little concern for ethics.

  2. Many institutions have overly embraced GenAI, figuring it into every aspect of curriculum, reminding us that GenAI is not a student. 

  3. The thrust towards normalization of GenAI through constant use runs the risk of making its presence indiscernible. There must be considerable cognitive overhead that accompanies turning in assignments with GenAI prompts and other process data.

  4. It is unclear of the long term impact on intellectual growth and pedagogy.


For instructors who are currently integrating GenAI into Teaching and Learning, Jose Bowen (2024) shares a few suggestions:


And a bonus article on How to Use AI to Create Role-Play Scenarios for Your Students by Mollick and Mollick (2024).


References

McDonald, N., Johri, A., Ali, A., & Hingle Collier, A. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines, Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 3, 100121, ISSN 2949-8821, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100121 

 

Comments

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Archive
Search By Tags
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square

© 2023 by GREG SAINT. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page