FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

Perceptions About Generative AI and ChatGPT Use by Faculty and College Students

Tiffany Petricini a, Chuhao Wu b, Sarah Zipf b

a
Communication Department, Penn State Shenango, PA, United State; b Teaching and Learning with

Technology, Penn State University Park, PA, United State

*Tiffany Petricini

147 Shenango Ave

Office 310B

Sharon, PA 16146

(724-983-2872)

[email protected]

1
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

Abstract

Since November 2022, ChatGPT has created a stir on college campuses. Approaches by colleges and

universities have varied, including updating academic integrity policies or even outright banning the

use of ChatGPT (Clercq, 2023; Mearian, 2023; Schwartz, 2023). As this new technology continues to

evolve and expand, colleges and universities are grappling with the opportunities and challenges of

using such tools. Very little literature exists on student and faculty perceptions of AI use in higher

education, particularly related to generative AI tools. The present study aims to fill this gap and offer

perceptions from both students and faculty from a large research university in the mid-Atlantic.

Survey participants consisted of 286 faculty and 380 students across multiple campuses. Participants

completed an online questionnaire that included open-ended responses, scaled items, and finite

questions. Overall, the reported use of ChatGPT technology is infrequent, though most respondents

feel its use is inevitable in higher education. Faculty and students are uncertain but familiar with

generative AI tools and ChatGPT. Institutions interested in developing policies around using ChatGPT

on campus may benefit from building trust in generative AI, for both faculty and students. Concerns

with academic integrity are prevalent. Faculty and students agree that ChatGPT use violates

institutional policy, though both groups also agree generative AI has value in education.

Keywords: artificial intelligence, ChatGPT, perceptions, higher education, faculty, students

2
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

Perceptions About Artificial Intelligence and ChatGPT Use by Faculty and College Students

Perceptions about technologies are one of the most important considerations for how well-

received and how widely adopted new technologies will become. Typically, when faced with

uncertainty, individuals turn to societal rhetoric to help fulfill their information needs, which shapes

both perceptions and the likelihood of adopting technologies. Publicly, AI is often described in ways

that are either “exaggeratedly optimistic” or “melodramatically pessimistic” (Cave et al., 2018, p. 9).

Because rhetoric and public narratives shape policy and perceptions, research on perceptions of AI is

critical to advancing the use of these important tools.

Despite AI having been coined in the 1950’s, the evolution and adoption of the technologies

in education and the public sphere has been slow (MCCarthy et al, 2006). In part, this is due to the AI

Winter, a period in which development could not keep up with funding and expectations (Umbrello,

2021). The idea of AI has existed in cultural narratives for millennia (Petricini, forthcoming?). Not only

are narratives surrounding AI part of many ancient cultures, but AI tool use in classrooms is also

relatively common place. For example, writing tools such as Quillbot (https://quillbot.com/) and

Grammarly (https://www.grammarly.com/) and plagiarism detection, such as TurnItIn

(https://www.turnitin.com/) are used regularly.

ChatGPT was introduced to the public in November in 2022, and within two months, there

were million registered users (Hu, 2023). This rapid growth ignited new interest and questions about

AI. In response, individuals involved in all sectors of higher education almost immediately started

asking questions about the implications of ChatGPT and other generative AI technologies (McMurtie,

2023). Often, the same innovative technology that threatens traditional higher education practices

can also revitalize the educational process (Christensen & Eyring, 2011). In this case, the “paradox” of

ChatGPT can potentially destroy current instructional methods while also creating new educational

opportunities (Lim et al., 2023). Higher education is slow to change, and innovation can disrupt the

system, leaving uncertainty in the wake. The introduction of generative AI tools, like ChatGPT, into

higher education is no different.

3
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

Despite the use of AI tools in education and cultural narratives of AI, the current rhetoric,

particularly in pop culture, that tends to dichotomize AI as either messianic or apocalyptic fails to paint

a realistic picture of what AI is or its potential value in education. Although some organizations are

putting forward ideas on how to incorporate AI in the classrooms, such as the University Center for

Teaching and Learning at the University of Pittsburgh (2023), others are banning its use in classrooms,

like New York public schools (Rosenblatt, 2023). Whether incorporated or banned, it is essential to

know what perceptions students and faculty have about the use of generative AI tools, like ChatGPT,

in higher education. Results of our online questionnaire show students and faculty believe the use of

AI in college classrooms is inevitable. Its use is surrounded by uncertainty, issues of trust, and unclear

academic integrity expectations. These perceptions will play a huge role in shaping how generative AI

technologies are used and misused both in settings of higher education and across the globe more

generally, as students enter the marketplace.

Literature Review
AI Perceptions & Understanding

Prior research investigating perceptions about AI is scant but shows a variety of

understandings and levels of optimism. A consumer study showed that participants often compared

AI to human beings (Chen et al., 2021). Other studies investigated perceptions related to AI being used

in hiring decisions (Acikgoz et al., 2019) and healthcare and medicine (Castagno & Khalifa, 2020; Laïet

al., 2020; Stai et al., 2020). A Royal Society (2017) report attempted to visualize the general public’s

perceptions of AI and machine learning. It revealed that even when most individuals seemed familiar

with AI applications in which speech recognition and interaction was possible, like Siri and Alexa, very

few survey participants had ever heard of the term machine learning. The Royal Society (2017) further

reported that the minimal research that did exist, showed that the public were generally “content”

with the idea that robots replace humans for dangerous or difficult jobs, but they were not as

receptive to robots on “caring” (p. 84). Fast and Horvitz (2017) analyzed perceptions of AI in New York

4
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

Times articles and found that rhetoric after 2009 was "consistently more optimistic than pessimistic”

and also found evidence of more specific concerns manifesting, such as a "loss of control of AI, ethical

concerns for AI, and the negative impact of AI on work". In February 2023, Educause found that nearly

half of the respondents reported that they were either familiar or very familiar with ChatGPT

(Muscanell & Robert, 2023). Additionally, fifty-four percent of respondents reported feeling optimistic

about AI’s role in our future (Muscanell & Robert, 2023). In a follow-up poll, Educause found that

optimism slightly increased to 67% of respondents and that most respondents (83%) felt that AI was

going to have a profound impact in higher education (McCormack, 2023).

Godoe and Johanse’s (2012) research argued that optimistic personalities can play a part in

whether technologies are perceived as being easy or useful, that leads to acceptance. Venkatesh and

Bala (2008) showed pre-implementation interventions of the technology can lead to more acceptance

by showing use in context. However, the surge of ChatGPT use has rendered pre-implementation

measures somewhat unreasonable. Rather, reactive approaches might include including training,

relationship building, and support from others and the system (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). The adoption

of new technologies carries certain considerations applicable to generative AI tools, as influenced by

perceptions and understanding.

AI Education & Training

Recent literature has explored AI use in higher education, specifically in medical education,

and investigated student perceptions of AI. Sit et al., (2020) examined attitudes of medical students

in the United Kingdom and observed most students recognized the importance of AI in their education

and careers, and also believed that training in AI should be part of the degree earning process. Out of

484 surveyed participants, only 45 had taken any type of training related to AI, of which no students

were trained as part of their coursework (Sit et al., 2020). In another study with medical students,

researchers found a difference between faculty and students' professional needs; while students

wanted training related to their patient care, faculty wanted training related to their teaching (Wood

et al., 2021). The researchers also found both students and faculty learned about AI in the media

5
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

(Wood et al., 2021), indicating a general lack of AI in the curriculum for both parties. Finally, Teng et

al., (2022) surveyed the AI perceptions of students studying healthcare, in the research that spanned

eighteen universities across Canada (Teng et al., 2022). The authors noted that roughly 75% of

participants had positive outlooks related to AI in general, though students’ attitudes varied

depending on specific disciplines. Regardless of a positive or negative outlook, most students felt AI

training should be included in coursework.

As noted previously, other types of AI have been used in the classroom and education for

decades, like Quillbot and Grammarly. Kurniati and Fithriani (2022) studied Quillbot in graduate

education. Most participants believed it was a helpful tool for learning. Because Quillbot is capable of

paraphrasing work, it can be causes for concern about the originality of one’s work (Kurniati &

Fithriani, 2022). Tutoring systems and virtual assistants, forms of generative AI, have been used by

students and faculty for some time. As early as 2005, McArthur et al., (2005) showed intelligent

tutoring systems (ITS) or “drill-and practice” type AI models that combine factual and procedural skills

to play an important role in the classroom. In another study, librarians considered virtual assistants,

such as Siri, to be a use of artificial intelligence, with 77% reported using artificial intelligence in their

personal lives (Hervieux & Wheatley, 2021). Interestingly, the number of positive responses from

librarians increased only after the AI terminology was defined (Hervieux & Wheatley, 2021), hinting

at a low level of understanding about what the tool is versus what the tool does. Without a clear

understanding, it is unsurprising that AI is rarely used in the classroom in a consistent manner

(Ferguson et al., 2016). In general, faculty seem to lack the necessary knowledge, access to training,

and support and no common definition of the tools exists.

A persistent gap between the perception of AI and its use in education seems to exist. The present

study seeks to contribute to an emerging evidence base for the integration of AI tools, such as

ChatGPT, into higher education teaching and learning practices. No evidence of perceptions of

generative AI related to faculty and students or the use in the classroom was found in the literature.

Additionally, no literature addressed students’ perceptions of their faculties’ uses of AI as a classroom

6
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

tool or addressed faculty’s perceptions of their students’ uses of AI for assignments and assessments.

This study aims to fill the gap in the literature by answering several research questions:

No evidence of perceptions of generative AI related to faculty and students or the use in the

classroom was found in the literature. Additionally, no literature addressed students’ perceptions of

their faculties’’ uses of AI as a classroom tool or addressed faculty’s perceptions of their students’ uses

of AI for assignments and assessments. This study aims to fill the gap in the literature by answering

several research questions:

RQ 1: What are the general perceptions held by students about AI use in the classroom,
especially ChatGPT?

RQ 2: What are the general attitudes held by faculty about AI use in the classroom, especially
ChatGPT?

Methods
Measures and Procedure

We developed two questionnaires to capture students’ and faculties’ perceptions of

generative AI, which were distributed online and allowed for a convenient collection process of a large

amount of data in a short period. Questionnaires contained three sections: Section 1 consisted of 8

Likert scale questions about participants’ familiarity and experiences with generative AI and ChatGPT;

Section 2 contained 14 Likert scale questions concerning the benefits and risks of using generative AI

in higher education; and Section 3 asked for participants’ demographic information with multiple-

choice options. All Likert scale items asked participants to rate their level of agreement with the given

statement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

The study was conducted at a public university in the mid-Atlantic region of the eastern United

States. The institution enrolled over 50,000 students and had roughly 7,500 faculty members during

Fall 2022 at multiple campus locations. After IRB approval, we sent recruitment materials to academic

7
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

leaders to send to their current faculty and enrolled student. The survey was open during the spring

2023 for approximately 16 weeks. Participants answered the survey on a voluntary basis.

Data analysis

Exploratory and statistical analyses were performed using R and R studio. The Likert scale

mean scores are based on a five-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree,

5=strongly agree) level of agreement. We used one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test to decide

whether the median response to a question negative (< 3) or positive (> 3). Kruskal-Wallis tests were

conducted for each question to examine whether there are significant differences between students’

and faculties’ responses.

In addition, exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation was conducted for Section 2 to

identify underlying any constructs that contribute to students’ and faculties’ attitudes towards

generative AI applications in higher education. The factorability of the data was examined by Kaiser–

Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) (Hopkins, 1998). The optimal number of factors

was determined by the eigenvalue threshold of 1.0 and visual inspection of the scree plot (Rummel,

1988). Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) were

calculated to assess the model quality. A factor loading of .45 was used to determine items associated

with a factor. After extracting the factors, we conducted ANOVA tests to examine whether there is a

relationship between factor scores and participants’ demographic information.

Results
Respondent Demographics

A total of 380 student responses and 276 faculty responses were collected across multiple

campuses. We removed 46 (12.11%) students and (20) 7.25% faculty for incomplete responses to key

8
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

items in sections 1 and 2 of the questionnaires. No duplicate responses were found in the data. This

study is largely descriptive and exploratory and did not require a specific sample size.

Overall, more male students responded to the survey than female students (53.66%), were in

the traditional-aged college student range of 18-24 (77.13%) and identified as Caucasian or white

(72.9%). Around a third of students were first-year (32.52%), identified as a first-generation student

(28.35%). More STEM students responded (45.27%) and answered maybe to whether they had an

interest in a career in technology (35.58%). We had and more female faculty than male faculty

(51.37%), between the ages of 36-59 (60.39%), and identified as Caucasian (75%). More senior faculty

with seven or more years of teaching experience (66.27%), had a doctorate (61.96%), and were

tenure-track (46.67%) responded to the questionnaire. More faculty associated their discipline to

STEM (31.37%) than other disciplines (see Table 1).

Table 1 Percentage of Student and Faculty Survey Respondent Demographics

Demographic variable Student (n=334) Faculty (n=256)
Category Percentage Category Percentage
Gender (n=328) (n=255)
Male 53.66% 38.04%
Female 37.50% 51.37%
Non-binary 4.57%
Decline to state 4.27% 10.59%

Age (n=328) (n=255)

18-24 77.13% 25-35 9.80%
25-39 15.85% 36-59 60.39%
40-59 3.96% 60+ 21.57%
60+ 0.30%
Decline to state 2.74% 8.24%

Race & Ethnicity (n=325) (n=253)

Caucasian 72.92% 75.00%
Asian 8.92% 3.17%
Black or African 5.54% 1.59%
Hispanic or Latinx 3.38% 3.57%
Decline to state 9.23% 18.25%

9
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

Semester standing/ (n=326) (n=255)

Teaching experiences First-year 32.52% < 1 year 5.88%
Sophomore 26.38% 1-3 years 11.76%
Junior 15.34% 4-6 years 16.08%
Senior 11.96% 7+ years 66.27%
Non-undergraduate 13.80%

First-generation College (n=326) (n=255)

Student /
Faculty highest degree Yes 28.35% Doctoral 61.96%
No 66.46% Master 35.29%
Decline to state 5.19% Bachelor 1.18%
Decline to state 1.96%

(n=296) (n=255)
Discipline STEM 45.27% 31.37%
Applied Disciplines 32.77% 19.61%
Humanities 3.72% 18.43%
Social Sciences 10.47% 18.04%
Arts .34% 7.45%
Decline to state 7.43% 5.10%

Interest in tech career/ (n=326) (n=210)

Faculty status Yes 30.67% Tenure-track 46.67%
No 33.74% Teaching faculty 31.90%
Maybe 35.58% Staff 4.29%
Research faculty 3.81%
Decline to state 13.33%

Familiarity with AI & ChatGPT

Overall, students and faculty were aware of AI & ChatGPT but reported limited experiences

with the technologies (see Table 2). One-sided Wilcoxon tests examined whether the mean value is

greater or less than 3, and the significance level is denoted under the Mean. Specifically, students and

10
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

faculty agreed they were familiar with the concepts of AI (µ=4.18 and 4.04, respectively) and

familiarity with ChatGPT (µ=3.70 and 3.47, respectively), though both groups indicated limited

experienced using ChatGPT (µ=2.51 and 2.62, respectively). On average, students responded that

faculty have not yet addressed the use of AI in their classrooms (µ=2.34) and faculty agreed they have

not (µ=2.49) so it is unsurprising that students had a low agreement that faculty have integrated

ChatGPT into instruction (µ=1.56) and similarly faculty have not yet integrated the tool (µ=1.51). With

fewer experiences using ChatGPT, students and faculty felt neutral about their plans to use the tool in

their coursework (µ=2.38) or instruction (µ=2.28), likely because students’ have not yet received

instruction (µ=1.57) and faculty have not yet received training or faculty development (µ=1.62) on the

use of ChatGPT. Students and faculty agreed they are interested in receiving instruction (µ=3.49) and

training (µ=3.49). The additional Kruskal–Wallis tests showed no significant difference between

students and faculty responses to these items (Figure 1).

Table 2 Survey Items About AI & ChatGPT Familiarity and Average Values
(1: strongly disagree – 5: strongly agree,
Statistical significance is denoted by ∗:p<.05, ∗∗:p<.01, ∗∗∗:p<.001)
No. Question Focus Mean
Student 4.18***
Q1.1 I am familiar with the concept of artificial intelligence (AI).
Faculty 4.04***
Student 3.70***
Q1.2 I am familiar with ChatGPT.
Faculty 3.47***
Student 2.51***
Q1.3 I have experience using ChatGPT.
Faculty 2.62***
My instructors have addressed the use of AI (especially ChatGPT and
Student 2.34***
other text and image generation tools) in my courses.
Q1.4
I have addressed the use of AI generators such as ChatGPT with my
Faculty 2.49***
students.
My instructors have integrated AI generators like ChatGPT into their
Student 1.56***
instruction.
Q1.5
I integrate ChatGPT (or similar AI text and image generators) in my
Faculty 1.51***
instruction.
I plan to use ChatGPT or similar tools for my coursework in the future. Student 2.38***
Q1.6 I plan to integrate ChatGPT (or similar tools) into my instruction in the
Faculty 2.28***
future.
Q1.7 I have received instruction about how to use ChatGPT or similar tools. Student 1.57***

11
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

I have participated in training (or related faculty development) on the

Faculty 1.62***
use of ChatGPT
I would be open to receiving instruction about how to use ChatGPT or
Student 3.49***
similar tools.
Q1.8
I am interested in receiving training (or related faculty development)
Faculty 3.49***
on the use of ChatGPT.

Q1.1

Q1.2

Q1.3

Q1.4

Q1.5

Q1.6

Q1.7

Q1.8

Figure 1. Student and faculty familiarity with AI & ChatGPT

Attitudes towards AI & ChatGPT applications

Both students and faculty demonstrated mixed attitudes towards AI applications (Table 3).

While students believe that AI has value in education (µ=3.78), they also agree that AI could be

dangerous for students (µ=3.40) and using AI to complete coursework violates academic integrity

(µ=3.84). Moreover, students were not comfortable with a syllabus created by AI (µ=2.53) and

assignments to be graded by AI (µ=2.11). Faculty expressed similar level of agreements regarding

these statements but also showed concerns on that students misuse generative AI tools (µ=3.64) and

that students need to be taught how to use generative AI (µ=4.32). Although, faculty agreed that AI is

used for good and helpful reasons (µ=3.38) and generative AI could be beneficial for students (µ=3.40),

12
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

they were not ready to use generative AI for teaching (µ=2.68) or research, scholarship, and creative

activities (µ=2.43).

Table 3 Survey questions about using AI for learning and teaching, average values, and associated
underlying factors
(Statistical significance is denoted by ∗:p<.05, ∗∗:p<.01, ∗∗∗:p<.001)
(†: student factor 1, ‡: student factor 2, §: faculty factor 1, ¶: faculty factor 2)
No. Question Focus Mean
Q2.1 † Student 3.40***
Artificial intelligence (in the form of text and image generation) could
be dangerous for students. § Faculty 3.64***
*
Q2.2 Instructors misuse AI in academic settings. Student 2.75

*** Students misuse AI text generation tools. Faculty 3.59***

I would feel confident knowing an instructor was using an AI created
Q2.3 † Student 2.53***
syllabus.
I would be comfortable using an AI text generator to build a course
¶ Faculty 2.45***
syllabus.
I trust AI in grading my assignments and assessments for my courses
Q2.4 † Student 2.11***
instead of my instructor.
I would be comfortable using an AI program to grade assignments in
¶ Faculty 2.30***
my courses.
Q2.5 ‡ Student 3.15
Student use of AI text generation tools to complete coursework is
prevalent in higher education. Faculty 3.25***
Q2.6 ‡ Student 3.81***
Students use of AI text generation tools to complete coursework is
inevitable. Faculty 3.99***
*
Q2.7 † Student 3.10
Students should be restricted from using AI text-generation tools in
their coursework. § Faculty 3.30***
*
Q2.8 † Student 3.84***
Using AI text-generation tools to complete coursework violates
academic integrity policies at the university. § Faculty 3.66***
*
Q3.1 The use of AI in education is very prevalent. ‡ 3.16*
Q3.2 AI is used in education for good and helpful reasons. † 3.38***
Q3.3 AI is misused in education. † 3.39
Student
Q3.4 Instructors use AI well in academic settings. 2.78***
Q3.5 Artificial Intelligence has value in education. † 3.78***
Q3.6 Something must be done to stop the use of AI by students. † 2.94
Q4.1 Student use of AI text-generation tools to complete coursework is
§ 3.66***
cheating.
Faculty
Q4.2 I would be comfortable using an AI text generator to build a course
¶ 2.68***
assignment or activity.

13
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

Q4.3 I intend to use an AI text-generation tool as part of my research,

¶ 2.43***
scholarship, or creative activities.
Q4.4 I intend to use a different AI tool (not a text/image generator) as part
¶ 2.45***
of my research, scholarship, or creative activities.
Q4.5 The use of AI text-generation tools could be beneficial for students. § 3.40***
Q4.6 Students will need to be taught how to use AI text generation tools
4.32***
appropriately.

Items Q2.1 to 2.9 were paired between students and faculty, and the Kruskal–Wallis tests showed a

significant difference for five items. Faculty agreed more that generative AI could be potentially

dangerous for students (H=5.12, p=.024). While students do not have strong opinions about faculty’s’

misuse of AI, 48.05% faculty agreed that students misuse generative AI to some extent ( 𝐻 =

112.12, 𝑝 < .001). Faculty also strongly agree that using AI to complete coursework would be an

inevitable trend (Q2.6, 𝐻 = 3.99, 𝑝 = .046). Attitudes towards restricting students from AI use were

mixed among students, and only 27.34% faculty disagree with such a restriction (𝐻 = 3.84, 𝑝 = .050).

Most students agreed that using generative AI to complete coursework violates academic integrity

policies (𝐻 = 5.55, 𝑝 = .019).

Q2.1

Q2.2

Q2.3

Q2.4

Q2.5

Q2.6

Q2.7

Q2.8

14
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

Figure 2 Student and faculty familiarity with AI & ChatGPT

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Student factors

We performed factor analysis to Q2.1 to 2.8 and Q3.1 to 3.6 for students’ attitudes towards

AI & ChatGPT applications. The overall MSA was .81; Q2.2 and Q3.4 were excluded from the analysis

due to low MSA (<.6). The number of factors was determined using an eigenvalue threshold of 1 (Hair

et al., 2013). Two factors were chosen after varimax rotation, accounting for 29.43% and 10.96% of

the overall variance, respectively. The RMSEA (.079) and TLI (.878) indices suggest a moderate model

fit. The loadings of each factor (see Table 4) use ±.45 as the cutoff point. Therefore, we considered

Factor 1 as students’ Distrust (Trust) in AI’s value in education and Factor 2 as Perceived prevalence of

AI use in Education.

Table 4 Factor Loadings on Student Perceptions

Question
Factor Q2.1 Q2.3 Q2.4 Q2.5 Q2.6 Q2.7 Q2.8 Q3.1 Q3.2 Q3.3 Q3.5 Q3.6
Factor 1 .669 -.602 -.477 .664 .631 -.638 .560 -.525 .776
Factor 2 .662 .542 .483

ANOVA tests on the standardized factor scores showed significant differences in Distrust in AI’s value

in education for three demographic variables: Gender ( 𝐹2,310 = 5.363, 𝑝 = .003, 𝜂𝑝2 = .024 ),

Discipline (= 3.258, 𝑝 = .012, 𝜂𝑝2 = .042), and Interest in tech career (.𝐹2,310 = 3.295, 𝑝 = .038 ,

𝜂𝑝2 = .021) (see Figure 3). No significant difference was found on Perceived prevalence of AI use. Figure

3 illustrates the distribution of Factor 1 scores across the demographic variables. The post-hoc Tukey

HSD test suggested that male students tend agree more on statements about AI’s positive value in

education (𝑝 = .005). Other post-hoc comparisons showed no significance.

15
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

Figure 3 Distributions of Distrust in AI’s value in education across students’ Gender, Discipline, and
Interest in tech career

Faculty factors

We performed factor analysis for Q2.1 to 2.8 and Q4.1 to Q4.6 for students’ attitudes towards AI &

ChatGPT applications. The overall MSA was .84 and Q2.5 was excluded from the analysis. Q2,6, Q2.2,

and Q4.6 were further removed due to poor goodness-of-fit in factor analysis. Two factors were

chosen eventually, accounting for 32.27% and 27.78% of the total variance respectively. The RMSEA

(.151) and TLI (.830) indices suggest a moderate model fit. The loadings of each factor are shown in

Table 5. Therefore, we consider Factor 1 as faculty’s Perceived dangers in student’s use of AI and Factor

2 as Willingness to use AI in education.

16
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

Table 5 Factor Loadings on Faculty Perceptions

Question
Factor Q2.1 Q2.3 Q2.4 Q2.7 Q2.8 Q4.1 Q4.2 Q4.3 Q4.4 Q4.5
Factor 1 .580 .843 .851 .836 -.558
Factor 2 .815 .579 .888 .64 .545

ANOVA tests on the standardized factor scores showed significant differences on Perceived dangers

in student’s use of AI for Race & ethnicity ( 𝐹3,233 = 3.485, 𝑝 = .016, 𝜂𝑝2 = .029), Faculty status

𝐹4,233 = 2.431, 𝑝 = .048, 𝜂𝑝2 = .038), and Discipline 𝐹5,233 = 2.490, 𝑝 = .032, 𝜂𝑝2 = .051) (see Figure

4). Post-hoc test indicated that Asian faculty might perceive less dangers in students’ use of AI

(p=.001). ANOVA of Willingness to use AI in education found no significant difference among

demographic variables.

17
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

Figure 4 Distributions of Perceived dangers in student’s use of AI across faculty’s Race & Ethnicity,
Faculty status, and Discipline

Discussion
Uncertainty & Familiarity

Results suggest that faculty and students alike were uncertain about using ChatGPT and AI

generative tools in higher education. Uncertainty is likely driven by limited experience using the tools

and a lack of training or instruction on how to use the tool in the classroom. Because of uncertainty,

certain responses, like anxiety or bewilderment, can occur (Carleton, 2016; Grupe & Nitschke, 2013;

Greco & Roger, 2003; Reuman et al., 2015; Rowe, 1994). ChatGPT is already in use, making pre-

interventions for acceptance impossible (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). Faculty and students have some

level of familiarity with generative AI tools, though fewer with ChatGPT specifically, by comparing it

18
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

to other forms of AI. This general type of familiarity is not strong enough to connect to the classroom

to fully express the opportunities and challenges of how teaching and learning will change.

ChatGPT is a popular topic in higher education, even with uncertainty. Recently, Educause

found around a quarter of colleges and university websites included ChatGPT topics related to

personal perspectives and opinions or classroom lectures (Veletsianos et al., 2023). For their

systematic literature review, Rudolph et al., (2023) included blog posts, newspaper articles, social

media posts, and other materials not commonly used in literature reviews because ChatGPT is such a

current and pressing topic. People are talking about the tool which has created a sense of familiarity,

but there is a lack of experience which potentially furthers uncertainty of its use. This combination of

familiarity, coupled with uncertainty, makes AI use in the classroom complicated, particularly as these

tools touch on the core of teaching and learning.

Previously, the introduction of calculators into classrooms caused uncertainty, but they

became so ubiquitous that acceptance and use were inevitable (Roberts et al., 2013). Calculators still

require knowledge to translate and contextualize the mathematical output, which meant instructional

focus and approach had to change. The same could be said for AI tools; the introduction into the

classroom has the capacity to refocus instructional methods and assessment to fully harness the

benefits of such output. However, similarities between calculators and AI tools likely ends here

because AI can develop seemingly unique content like that of a human. Nothing like ChatGPT and

other AI generative tools have previously existed at this scale, nor for free, so making a comparison is

difficult. Unlike calculators that had to be built and paid for (Roberts et al., 2013), ChatGPT’s

capabilities are only limited by Internet access.

Faculty in this study was uncertain about how to incorporate the technology into instruction,

and they were not alone in seeking help for what to do. When people lack of information, feelings can

be linked to uncertainty (Gao & Gudykunst, 1999; Gudykunst & Nishida, 1984; Gudykunst, 1985;

Gudykunst & Hammer, 1983; Gudykunst et al., 1996) and to help colleges and universities navigate

19
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

the tsunami of AI tools in higher education, governments and nonprofit agencies are releasing guides

around ChatGPT. For example, UNESCO highlights the beneficial and supportive roles AI can have in

the classroom, not to mention the ethical considerations, the lack of regulation, potential bias, and

accessibility uses (Sabzalieva & Valentini, 2023). These types of recommendations and ideas could be

used to help alleviate some feelings of uncertainty and potentially lead to acceptance.

Trust

When discussing AI use in the classroom, two important threads of trust studies intersect

relationship and trust between faculty and students; and individuals’ trust in AI. A major contributor

to academic achievement is the faculty-student relationship that as are positive relationships and

fostered by trust (Ullah & Wilson, 2007). Accordingly, faculty has two priorities in their trust-building

activities; they must have technical competence and the ability to place the student’s interests before

their own, if necessary (see Barber, 1993). This duality might mean giving students the guidance to

use AI tools in their work because they want and need to learn how to use these tools, even when

faculty may not personally want to use them. Trust in generative AI tools, or “TAI”, Trustworthy

Artificial Intelligence (Thiebes et al., 2020) is also critical. Successful integration of AI in higher

education will have to rely on trust, particularly because it will allow for a clear understanding of how

the tool is used, dispelling notions of overuse, abuse, or outright rejection (Glikson & Wooley, 2020).

Just as trust in AI is important to investigate, so, too, is the understanding of distrust.

Our data shows faculty think students will misuse ChatGPT, which is a potential distrust

between faculty and students. As the complexity of AI continues to grow, mistrust in the AI tool will

be fueled by the lack of transparency about how the model functions. Not unique to AI, other

computer-mediated-research has been plagued with a building trust for years, as the filtering of cues

leads to the interpreter relying on their own subjective experience to fill in the gaps about the other

(Liu, 2021; Petricini, 2019). Outside of a few experts, most people will find it difficult to fully grasp AI

functionality, so providing both faculty and students with a competency grounded in explainability will

be essential to help build trust (Ferrario & Loi, 2022; Jacovi et al., 2021; Liu, 2021). Glikson and Wooley

20
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

(2020) highlight that the distrust with AI or other machine intelligences influence both cognitive trust

as created by the abstract and opaque nature of AI, and emotional trust, in part from the human-link

forms that AI can take. The more information that users have about AI models, output generation and

decision-making processes; the less uncertainty they will harbor, and the more likely users are to

perceive those models to be trustworthy (Ashoori & Weisz, 2019). For students, especially, the trust

of AI will no doubt be shaped by how faculty frame AI use in their fields and courses. Reducing

uncertainty will be paramount.

While multiple and useful applications of AI in the classroom exist, language models of AI most

definitely have the potential for bias (Atlas, 2023), which may dissolve trust in the tool. As faculty

introduce the use of AI into their classrooms, they carry an additional responsibility for controlling and

checking for bias, while instructing students on the potential reproduction of harmful practices. In

general, trust and mistrust in AI is affected by multiple factors, which may need unique and separate

instructional approaches in classrooms.

Relational trust is the most important trust in the classroom and directly affects student

achievement (Hoy, 2002; Wilson, 2007). Over 50% of students in our study would not feel confident if

the instructor used it to create a syllabus, and the number of students who did not feel confident

having an AI grade was even higher. Faculty must be transparent about their use of AI and can be

models for ethical conduct for students. Likewise, students transparent about their use of AI for

coursework can generate faculty trust. Learning environments in which training and relationship

building through transparent use (see Vankatesh & Bala, 2008) can create a positive climate of

creativity and technological advancement, essential components to AI-classroom integration.

Academic Integrity

Based on the results from this survey, it is clear students and faculty are uncertain about

the AI technologies but believe its use in higher education is inevitable. This inevitability means higher

education must come to terms with what a tool like this means for academic integrity and instruction,

mainly cheating and plagiarism. It is likely the focus of punishable policies will be placed on students’

21
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

use for cheating, plagiarizing, or otherwise practicing “academic misconduct” or “dishonesty” (Eaton,

2021, p. 15-16). However, academic integrity can take on several dimensions beyond just students’

academic behavior, so institutions should be careful about just creating policies out of fear to prevent

students’ use.

The Department of Education (ED) calls for transparency of use, including functional

knowledge of the tool and disclosure, while still allowing for human-interventions to counter

algorithmic bias or discrimination (U.S. Department of Education, 2023). Therefore, faculty will need

to know how the technology works and always retain control of the content. Faculty will also need to

check for accuracy, especially when using the tools for grading and assessment because of “cognitive

bias” or other social identity discriminatory framing (Sabzalieva & Valentini, 2023, p. 11). AI tools

cannot make these decisions or be held accountable (Foltynek, et al., 2023). Instead, that

responsibility resides with the instructor. Additionally, faculty will need to understand and know that

students’ experiences are diverse, and faculty can inadvertently create unfair activities or

opportunities based on the generative and responsive nature of AI (ED, 2023).

Based on our data, students want instruction on AI use and this interest can help drive

decision-makers about implementation and use. Xu and Babaian (2021) note that when students’

opinions about AI tools are unknown, it is harder to design suitable curriculum and outcomes to meet

students’ needs. The students’ interest in instruction should not be taken lightly, because it can serve

as a guide for how institutions might adapt and introduce AI beyond punitive policies. Eaton (2021)

explains that unwanted academic behavior often includes moral and policy issues, on top of the

teaching and learning (p. 15). In part, the curriculum will need to consider alternative assessments so

that the desire to cheat using ChatGPT could decrease. AI can be a powerful tool, especially to help

generate ideas.

Faculty in this study felt students misused AI tools to complete coursework, going so far

as to agree that the use of ChatGPT should be restricted. Caution should be made about restrictive

use, as some uses may address accessibility (see Morris, 2020) or limit future employment

22
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

opportunities and expectations (see Dawson, 2020). The use of these AI technologies is seemingly

boundless, though thoughtful reflection for how faculty introduce the tools in their classrooms might

help curtail certain uncertainties and concerns about how students intend to use the tools. Faculty

concerned about misuse or academic integrity should consider introducing these tools only so far as

it impacts their classroom activities by altering assignments and having students cite the use like other

academic resources (Rahman, et al., 2023).

Like the introduction of calculators (Roberts et al., 2013) disruption to traditional

education can create hysteria and panic that leads to unnecessary policy making. Eaton (2021) warns

that policies around academic behaviors are often reactive to undesirable behaviors and seek to

punish or limit that bad behavior. An unintended or dangerous outcome to over-policing the use of AI

might be the psychological impact on students being accused of academic misconduct. Instead,

educators and policymakers need to think about how AI tools can be used, teaching around and about

the use, by redesigning assessments and objectives. Rudolph et al., (2023) provide some examples

about how to combat the use of ChatGPT in assignments by having students do things the AI tool

cannot do and to incorporate the tools into assignments. Short of returning to handwritten exams

(see Cassidy, 2023), faculty and administrators will need to explore ways to incorporate new tools will

continue to advance much faster than higher education is likely to move.

Conclusion

This study provides some key elements to understand student and faculty perceptions of

generative AI. Possibly the most important and pressing takeaway is that the time is ripe--Now is the

time that higher education can have the biggest impact when molding and shaping perceptions, use

and misuse, and ethical directions. AI tools, like ChatGPT, are still novel or toy-like, with a low

awareness in the general population at this point (Moor, 2005), making it an opportune time to

implement programs to build trust and literacy. Even in 2019, calls to consider regulation of AI, both

from an ethical and legal standpoint (D'Acquisto, 2020) were made, yet the impending surge was

23
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

unanticipated. Until the release of Chat-GPT 3, even most of the academic community was unaware

of the capabilities, and now, even while writing this manuscript, it is hard to keep up with the

availability, ideas, and integration into the classroom (see Coffey, 2023). Data from this study shows

students and faculty are interested in learning more about how to use these tools successfully and

earnestly in the classroom. Presently, faculty can drive how ChatGPT, and other generative AIs are

used in the classroom, within their individual disciplines and higher education in general.

Our data demonstrate the importance of faculty competency with generative AI, as very few

faculty have incorporated ChatGPT into their instruction. Given that other generative AI tools have

been used in classrooms for years, uncertainty, trust, and issues with academic integrity about

ChatGPT have most certainly played a part in decision-making. However, if higher education is going

to help meet the demands of a well-trained and educated workforce, faculty cannot opt out of the

using, discussing, and teaching AI within their classes. Students and faculty will need literacy and

competency training for generative AI tools.

Still very new, the direction of generative AI in the classroom is unclear. Policies that prohibit

use could lead to even more use (see Lim, et al., 2023), leading to even more unsavory practices.

Disregard for AI tools will not make them disappear, just like the advancement and access will not

curb use and excitement. Building familiarity and trust using studies like this to create training

opportunities is a path to hopefully ensure that the integration of generative AI in the classroom is

positive for both faculty and students.

The role that administrators and faculty will play will shape not only the use of generative AI

tools in higher education but will affect the entire globe. Students will leave universities and colleges

and enter the workforce, and the training that has been foundational for their practice and use of

generative AI technologies will shape the future of economies, societies, and intuitions. Embracing

our role in higher education to understand and adapt to perceptions is the first step in, hopefully,

shaping a future that uses generative AI for good.

24
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

Supplement materials:

Faculty Survey

Student Survey

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express gratitude to their peer Dr. Joneen Schuster of Penn State Shenango. Her

valuable input, advice, and feedback were integral to the design of this study.

25
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

References
Acikgoz, Y., Davison, K. H., Compagnone, M., & Laske, M. (2020). Justice perceptions of artificial

intelligence in selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 28(4), 399-416,

https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12306

Ashoori, M., & Weisz, J. D. (2019). In AI we trust? Factors that influence trustworthiness of AI-

infused decision-making processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.02675.

Atlas, S. (2023). ChatGPT for higher education and professional development: A guide to

conversational AI. University of Rhode Island College of Business faculty publications,

retrieved from

https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1547&context=cba_facpubs

Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust.

Berger, C. R., & Bradac, J. J. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in interpersonal

relations (Vol. 2). Hodder Education.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1974). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a

developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human communication research,

1(2), 99-112.

Carleton, R. N. (2016). Fear of the unknown: One fear to rule them all?. Journal of anxiety disorders,

41, 5-21.

Cassidy, C. (2023 Jan 9). Australian universities to return to 'pen and paper' exams after students

caught using AI to write essays. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-

news/2023/jan/10/universities-to-return-to-pen-and-paper-exams-after-students-caught-

using-ai-to-write-essays

Castagno, S., & Khalifa, M. (2020). Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence Among Healthcare Staff: A

Qualitative Survey Study. Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 3, 578983.

https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2020.578983

26
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

Cave, S., Craig, C., Dihal, K., Dillon, S., Montgomery, J., Singler, B., & Taylor, L. (2018). Portrayals and

perceptions of AI and why they matter.

https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/287193/EMBARGO%20-

%20web%20version.pdf?sequence=1

Chen, H., Chan-Olmsted, S., Kim, J., & Sanabria, I. M. (2021). Consumers’ perception on artificial

intelligence applications in marketing communication. Qualitative Market Research: An

International Journal, 25(1), (pp. 125-142), https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-03-2021-0040

Clercq, G. D. (2023). Top Top French university bans use of ChatGPT to prevent plagiarism. Reuters.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/top-french-university-bans-use-chatgpt-

prevent-plagiarism-2023-01-27/

Coffey, L. (31 Jul 2023). Professors craft courses on ChatGPT with ChatGPT. Inside Highered.

https://www.insidehighered.com

Eaton, S. E. (2021). Plagiarism in higher education: Tackling tough topics in academic integrity. ABC-

CLIO.

Ferguson, R., Brasher, A., Clow, D., Cooper, A., Hillaire, G., Mittelmeier, J., ... & Vuorikari, R. (2016).

Research evidence on the use of learning analytics: Implications for education policy.

European Commission JRC science for policy report, https://doi:10.2791/955210

Ferrario, A., & Loi, M. (2022, June). How explainability contributes to trust in AI. In 2022 ACM

Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 1457-1466).

Foltynek, T., Bjelobaba, S., Glendinning, I., Khan, Z., Santos, R., Pavletic, P., & Kravjar, J. (2023). ENAI

recommendations on the ethical use of Aritifical Intelligence in education. International

Journal for Educational Integrity 19(12).

https://edintegrity.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s40979-023-00133-4

Godoe, P., & Johansen, T. (2012). Understanding adoption of new technologies: Technology

readiness and technology acceptance as an integrated concept. Journal of European

psychology students, 3(1).

27
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

Greco, V., & Roger, D. (2003). Uncertainty, stress, and health. Personality and Individual differences,

34(6), 1057-1068.

Grupe, D. W., & Nitschke, J. B. (2013). Uncertainty and anticipation in anxiety: an integrated

neurobiological and psychological perspective. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(7), 488-

501.

Hervieux, S., & Wheatley, A. (2021). Perceptions of artificial intelligence: A survey of academic

librarians in Canada and the United States. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(1),

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102270

Hopkins, K. D. (1998). Educational and psychological measurement and evaluation. Allyn & Bacon, A

Viacom Company, www.abacon.com.

Hoy, W. K. (2002). Faculty trust: A key to student achievement. Journal of School Public Relations,

23(2), 88-103.https://voicebot.ai/2023/02/09/chatgpt-is-banned-by-these-colleges-and-

universities/

Hu, K. (2 Feb 2023). ChatGPT sets record for fastest-growing user base - analyst note. Reuters.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt-sets-record-fastest-growing-user-base-

analyst-note-2023-02-01/

Jacovi, A., Marasović, A., Miller, T., & Goldberg, Y. (2021, March). Formalizing trust in artificial

intelligence: Prerequisites, causes and goals of human trust in AI. In Proceedings of the 2021

ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 624-635).

Johnson, L., Becker, S. A., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Hall, C. (2016). NMC horizon

report: 2016 higher education edition (pp. 1-50). The New Media Consortium,

https://www.learntechlib.org/p/171478/.

Kurniati, E. Y., & Fithriani, R. (2022). Post-Graduate students’ serceptions of Quillbot utilization in

English academic writing class. Journal of English language teaching and linguistics, 7(3), 437-

451, https:// DOI:10.21462/jeltl.v7i3.852

28
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

Laï, M. C., Brian, M., & Mamzer, M. F. (2020). Perceptions of artificial intelligence in healthcare:

findings from a qualitative survey study among actors in France. Journal of translational

medicine, 18(1), 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-019-02204-y

Lim, W., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023) Generative AI and the

future education: Ragnarök or reformation? A paradoxical perspective from management

educators. International Journal of Management Education, 21(2).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790.

McArthur, D., Lewis, M., & Bishary, M. (2005). The roles of artificial intelligence in education: current

progress and future prospects. Journal of Educational Technology, 1(4), 42-80.

McCarthy, J., Minsky, M. L., Rochester, N., & Shannon, C. E. (2006). A proposal for the Dartmouth

summer research project on artificial intelligence, august 31, 1955. AI magazine, 27(4), 12-

12.

McCormack, M. (2023). EDUCAUSE QuickPoll : Adopting and Adapting to Generative AI in Higher Ed

Tech. EDUCAUSE. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2023/2/educause-quickpoll-results-did-

chatgpt-write-this-report

McMurtie, B. (2023). ChatGPT is everywhere. The chronicle of higher education. Retrieved from

https://www.chronicle.com/article/chatgpt-is-already-upending-campus-practices-colleges-

are-rushing-to-respond

Mearia, L. (2023). Schools look to ban ChatGPT, students use it anyway. Computer World. Retrieved

from https://www.computerworld.com/article/3694195/schools-look-to-ban-

chatgpt-students-use-it-anyway.html

Momani, A. M., & Jamous, M. (2017). The evolution of technology acceptance theories. International

Journal of Contemporary Computer Research (IJCCR), 1(1), 51-58.

Moor, J. H. (2005). Why we need better ethics for emerging technologies. Ethics and information

technology, 7(3), 111-119.

29
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

Muscanell, N., & Robert, J. (2023). EDUCAUSE QuickPoll results: Did ChatGPT write this report?

EDUCAUSE. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2023/2/educause-quickpoll-results-did-

chatgpt-write-this-report

Petricini, T. (2019). Explorations in the noosphere: Hermeneutic presence and hostility in

cyberspace. Explorations in Media Ecology, 18(1-2), 57-71.

Petricini, T. (2024). ChatGPT: Everything to everyone all at once. Forthcoming in ETC: A Review of

General Semantics, 8.

researcharchive/3357/Public-Attitudes-to-Science-2014.aspx

Reuman, L., Jacoby, R. J., Fabricant, L. E., Herring, B., & Abramowitz, J. S. (2015). Uncertainty as an

anxiety cue at high and low levels of threat. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental

psychiatry, 47, 111-119.

Roberts, D., Lenug, A., & Lins, A. (2013). From the Slate to the Web: Technology in Mathematics

Curriculum. In M.A. Clements, A.J. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F.K.S. Leung (Eds.) Third

International Handbook of Mathematics Education. Springer.

Roll, I., & Wylie, R. (2016). Evolution and revolution in artificial intelligence in education.

International journal of artificial intelligence in education, 26(2), 582-599,

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0110-3

Rowe, W. (1994) Understanding uncertainty. Risk Analysis, 14(5), 743-750.

Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S., (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments

in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1).

https://journals.sfu.ca/jalt/index.php/jalt/article/view/689/539

Rummel, R. J. (1988). Applied factor analysis. Northwestern University Press.

Sabzalieva, E., & Valentini, A. (2023). ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence in higher education.

UNESCO. https://www.iesalc.unesco.org/

Sangapu, I. (2018). Artificial intelligence in education-from a teacher and a student perspective.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3372914

30
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

Schwartz, E. H. (2023). ChatGPT is banned by these colleges and universities. Voicebot.ai. Retrieved

from

Sit, C., Srinivasan, R., Amlani, A., Muthuswamy, K., Azam, A., Monzon, L., & Poon, D. S. (2020).

Attitudes and perceptions of UK medical students towards artificial intelligence and

radiology: a multicentre survey. Insights into imaging, 11, 1-6.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0830-7

Stai, B., Heller, N., McSweeney, S., Rickman, J., Blake, P., Vasdev, R., Edgerton, Z., Tejpaul, R.,

Peterson, M., Rosenberg, J., Kalapara, A., Regmi, S., Papanikolopoulos, N., & Weight, C.

(2020). Public Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics in Medicine. Journal of

endourology, 34(10), 1041–1048. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.0137

Taherdoost, H. (2018). A review of technology acceptance and adoption models and

theories. Procedia manufacturing, 22, 960-967.

Teng, M., Singla, R., Yau, O., Lamoureux, D., Gupta, A., Hu, Z., Kell, D., MacMillan, K., Malik S,

Mozzoli, V., Teng, Y. Laricheva, M., Jarus, T. . & Field, T. S. (2022). Health care students’

perspectives on Artificial intelligence: countrywide survey in Canada. JMIR Medical

Education, 8(1). doi:10.2196/33390

The Royal Society. Machine learning: The power and promise of computers that learn by Example.

(2017). https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/machine-

learning/publications/machine-learning-report.pdf

Thiebes, S., Lins, S., & Sunyaev, A. (2021). Trustworthy artificial intelligence. Electronic Markets, 31,

447-464.

U.S. Department of Education [ED], (2023). Artificial Intelligence and Future of Teaching and

Learning: Insights and Recommendations. Office of Educational Technology, Washington,

D.C., https://tech.ed.gov

31
FACULTY STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GENERATIVE AID

Ullah, H., & Wilson, M. A. (2007). Students' academic success and its association to student

involvement with learning and relationships with faculty and peers. College student journal,

41(4), 1192-1203.

Umbrello, S. (2021). AI Winter. In M. Klein & P. Frana (eds.), Encyclopedia of artificial intelligence:

The past, present, and future of AI (pp. 7-8). ABC-CLIO.

Veletsianos, G., Kimmons, R., & Bondah, F., (2023 Mar 15). ChatGPT and higher education: Initital

prevalance and areas of interest. EDUCAUSE.

https://er.educause.edu/articles/2023/3/chatgpt-and-higher-education-initial-prevalence-

and-areas-of-interest

Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on

interventions. Decision sciences, 39(2), 273-315.

Wood, E. A., Ange, B. L., & Miller, D. D. (2021). Are we ready to integrate artificial intelligence

literacy into medical school curriculum: students and faculty survey. Journal of medical

education and curricular development, 8, pp. 1-5, https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205211024

Xu, J. J., & Babaian, T. (2021). Artificial intelligence in business curriculum: The pedagogy and

learning outcomes. The international journal of management education, 19(3), 100550,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100550

32