{"title":"Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines","authors":"Nora McDonald , Aditya Johri , Areej Ali , Aayushi Hingle Collier","doi":"10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The release of ChatGPT in November 2022 prompted a massive uptake of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) across higher education institutions (HEIs). In response, HEIs focused on regulating its use, particularly among students, before shifting towards advocating for its productive integration within teaching and learning. Since then, many HEIs have increasingly provided policies and guidelines to direct GenAI. This paper presents an analysis of documents produced by 116 US universities classified as as high research activity or R1 institutions providing a comprehensive examination of the advice and guidance offered by institutional stakeholders about GenAI. Through an extensive analysis, we found 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%) and half (N = 58, 50%) provided sample GenAI curriculum and activities that would help instructors integrate and leverage GenAI in their teaching. Notably, the majority of guidance focused on writing activities focused on writing, whereas references to code and STEM-related activities were infrequent, and often vague, even when mentioned (N = 58, 50%). Finally, more than half of institutions talked about the ethics of GenAI on a broad range of topics, including Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) (N = 60, 52%). Based on our findings we caution that guidance for faculty can become burdensome as policies suggest or imply substantial revisions to existing pedagogical practices.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100324,"journal":{"name":"Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans","volume":"3 ","pages":"Article 100121"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949882125000052","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The release of ChatGPT in November 2022 prompted a massive uptake of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) across higher education institutions (HEIs). In response, HEIs focused on regulating its use, particularly among students, before shifting towards advocating for its productive integration within teaching and learning. Since then, many HEIs have increasingly provided policies and guidelines to direct GenAI. This paper presents an analysis of documents produced by 116 US universities classified as as high research activity or R1 institutions providing a comprehensive examination of the advice and guidance offered by institutional stakeholders about GenAI. Through an extensive analysis, we found 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%) and half (N = 58, 50%) provided sample GenAI curriculum and activities that would help instructors integrate and leverage GenAI in their teaching. Notably, the majority of guidance focused on writing activities focused on writing, whereas references to code and STEM-related activities were infrequent, and often vague, even when mentioned (N = 58, 50%). Finally, more than half of institutions talked about the ethics of GenAI on a broad range of topics, including Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) (N = 60, 52%). Based on our findings we caution that guidance for faculty can become burdensome as policies suggest or imply substantial revisions to existing pedagogical practices.