Tag: ethical

  • Student AI Use on the Rise: Why Universities Must Lead with Ethical Support

    Student AI Use on the Rise: Why Universities Must Lead with Ethical Support

    Title: 2025 U.S. Student Wellbeing Survey

    Source: Studiosity in partnership with YouGov

    The higher education landscape is undergoing a profound transformation shaped by rapid technological advancements and shifting student expectations. The 2025 U.S. Student Wellbeing Survey, conducted by Studiosity in partnership with YouGov, offers in-depth insights into student behavior, particularly their growing reliance on AI tools for academic support.

    The report states that 82 percent of U.S. students have used AI for assignments or study tasks. This trend is even more pronounced among international students, with 40 percent reporting regular AI use compared with 24 percent of domestic students. The findings make clear: AI is no longer emerging—it’s central to the student academic experience.

    While student use of AI is high, only 58 percent of respondents feel their universities are adapting quickly enough to provide institution-approved AI tools, a figure that shows minimal improvement from 2024 (57 percent). Furthermore, 55 percent of students now expect their institution to provide AI support, reflecting shifting priorities among students. This year, “confidence” overtook “speed” as the main reason students prefer institution-provided AI tools, underscoring the demand for reliable and ethical solutions.

    The data also highlight heightened stress levels linked to AI use, with 66 percent of students reporting some level of anxiety about incorporating AI into their studies. Students voiced concerns about academic integrity, accidental plagiarism, and cognitive offloading. One student said, “AI tools usually need a well-detailed prompt. Most times AI gets outdated data. Most importantly, the more reliable AI tools require payment, which makes things unnecessarily hard.” This highlights an equity issue in AI use, as some students reported paying for a premium AI tool to get better results. Those experiencing constant academic stress were more likely to report regular AI use, suggesting a need for support systems that integrate human connection with technological assistance.

    The research emphasizes actionable strategies for universities:

    • Develop or purchase institution-backed AI tools with clear ethical guidelines.
    • Provide transparent and consistent policies to help students understand how to use AI responsibly.
    • Integrate AI support with existing academic services to preserve human interaction and peer engagement.
    • Ensure equitable, affordable access to AI technologies to avoid exacerbating existing inequalities.

    As students navigate an increasingly AI-driven academic environment, universities must step into a leadership role. Providing ethical, institution-approved AI tools isn’t just about keeping pace with technology; it’s about safeguarding learning, reducing stress, and fostering confidence in academic outcomes. The 2025 survey makes one thing clear: students are ready for universities to meet them where they are in their AI use, but they are asking for guidance and assurance in doing so.

    To download a copy of the USA report, click here. For global reports and surveys, including cross-institutional meta-analyses and educator surveys, click here.

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • Most students, educators use AI–but opinions differ on ethical use

    Most students, educators use AI–but opinions differ on ethical use

    Key points:

    As generative AI continues to gain momentum in education each year, both its adoption and the attitudes toward its use have steadily grown more positive, according to a new report from Quizlet.

    The How America Learns report explores U.S. student, teacher, and parent perspectives on AI implementation, digital learning and engagement, and success beyond the classroom.

    “At Quizlet, we’ve spent nearly two decades putting students at the center of everything we do,” said Quizlet CEO Kurt Beidler. “We fielded this research to better understand the evolving study habits of today’s students and ensure we’re building tools that not only help our tens of millions of monthly learners succeed, but also reflect what they truly need from their learning experience.”

    AI becomes ubiquitous in education
    As generative AI solutions gain traction in education year over year, adoption and attitudes towards the technology have increased and improved. Quizlet’s survey found that 85 percent of respondents–including high school and college teachers, as well as students aged 14-22–said they used AI technology, a significant increase from 66 percent in 2024. Of those respondents using AI, teachers now outpace students in AI adoption (87 percent vs 84 percent), compared to 2024 findings when students slightly outpaced teachers.

    Among the 89 percent of all students who say they use AI technology for school (up from 77 percent in 2024), the top three use cases are summarizing or synthesizing information (56%), research (46 percent), and generating study guides or materials (45 percent). The top uses of AI technology among teachers remained the same but saw significant growth YoY: research (54 percent vs. 33 percent), summarizing or synthesizing information (48 percent vs. 30 percent), and generating classroom materials like tests and assignments (45 percent vs. 31 percent).

    While the emergence of AI has presented new challenges related to academic integrity, 40 percent of respondents believe that AI is used ethically and effectively in the classroom. However, students are significantly less likely to feel this way (29 percent) compared to parents (46 percent) and teachers (57 percent), signaling a continued need for education and guidelines on responsible use of AI technology for learning.

    “Like any new technology, AI brings incredible opportunities, but also a responsibility to use it thoughtfully,” said Maureen Lamb, AI Task Force Chair and Language Department Chair at Miss Porter’s School. “As adoption in education grows, we need clear guidelines that help mitigate risk and unlock the full potential of AI.  Everyone–students, educators, and parents–has a role to play in understanding not just how to use AI, but when and why it should be used.”

    Digital learning demands growth while equity gap persists
    Just as AI is becoming a staple in education, survey results also found that digital learning is growing in popularity, with 64 percent of respondents expressing that digital learning methods should be equal or greater than traditional education methods, especially teachers (71 percent).

    Respondents indicated that flexibility (56 percent), personalized learning (53 percent), and accessibility (49 percent) were the most beneficial aspects of digital learning. And with 77 percent of students making sacrifices, including loss of sleep, personal time, and missed extracurriculars due to homework, digital learning offers a promising path toward a more accommodating approach. 

    While the majority of respondents agreed on the importance and benefits of digital learning, results also pointed to a disparity in access to these tools. Despite nearly half (49 percent) of respondents agreeing that all students in their community have equal access to learning materials, technology, and support to succeed academically, that percentage drops to 43 percent for respondents with diagnosed or self-identified learning differences, neurodivergent traits, or accessibility needs.

    Maximizing success for academic and real-world learning
    While discussion around AI and education has largely focused on use cases for academic learning, the report also uncovered an opportunity for greater support to help drive success beyond the classroom and provide needed resources for real-world learning.

    Nearly 60 percent of respondents believe a four-year college degree is of high importance for achieving professional success (58 percent). However, more than one-third of students, teachers, and parents surveyed believe schools are not adequately preparing students for success beyond the classroom.

    “As we drive the next era of AI-powered learning, it’s our mission to give every student and lifelong learner the tools and confidence to succeed, no matter their motivation or what they’re striving to achieve,” said Beidler. “As we’ve seen in the data, there’s immense opportunity when it comes to career-connected learning, from life skills development to improving job readiness, that goes well beyond the classroom and addresses what we’re hearing from students and teachers alike.”

    The top five skills respondents indicated should be prioritized more in schools are critical thinking and problem solving (66 percent), financial literacy (64 percent), mental health management (58 percent), leadership skills (52 percent), and creativity and innovation (50 percent).

    This press release originally appeared online.

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link

  • Applying the Moral Intensity Framework: Ethical Decision-Making for University Reopening During COVID-19

    Applying the Moral Intensity Framework: Ethical Decision-Making for University Reopening During COVID-19

    by Scott McCoy, Jesse Pietz and Joseph H Wilck

    Overview

    In late 2020, universities faced a moral and operational crisis: Should they reopen for in-person learning amid a global pandemic? This decision held profound ethical implications, touching on public health, education, and institutional survival. Using the Moral Intensity Framework (MIF), a multidimensional ethical decision-making model, researchers analysed the reopening choices of 62 US universities to evaluate the ethical considerations and outcomes. Here’s how MIF provides critical insights into this complex scenario.

    Why the Moral Intensity Framework matters

    The Moral Intensity Framework helps assess ethical decisions based on six dimensions:

    1. Magnitude of Consequences: The severity of potential outcomes.
    2. Social Consensus: Agreement on the morality of the decision.
    3. Probability of Effect: Likelihood of outcomes occurring.
    4. Temporal Immediacy: Time between the decision and its consequences.
    5. Proximity: Emotional or social closeness to those affected.
    6. Concentration of Effect: Impact on specific groups versus broader populations.

    This framework offers a structured approach to evaluate ethical trade-offs, especially in high-stakes, uncertain scenarios like the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Universities’ dilemma: in-person -v- remote learning

    The reopening debate boiled down to two primary considerations:

    1. Educational and Financial Pressures: Universities needed to deliver on their educational mission while addressing steep revenue losses from tuition, housing, and auxiliary services. Remote learning threatened educational quality and the financial viability of institutions, especially those with limited endowments.
    2. Public Health Risks: Reopening campuses risked COVID-19 outbreaks, jeopardising the health of students, staff, and surrounding communities. Universities also faced backlash for potential spread to vulnerable populations.

    Critical Findings Through the Moral Intensity Lens

    Magnitude of Consequences

    Reopening for in-person learning presented stark risks: potential illness or death among students, staff, and the community. However, keeping campuses closed threatened jobs, reduced education quality, and caused financial strain. The scale of harm from reopening was considered higher, particularly in densely populated campus settings.

    Social Consensus

    Public opinion and government policies influence decisions. States with stringent public health mandates leaned toward remote learning, while those with lenient regulations often pursued in-person or hybrid models. Administrators balanced community sentiment with institutional needs, highlighting the importance of localized consensus.

    Temporal Immediacy

    Health risks from in-person learning manifested quickly, while financial and educational setbacks from remote learning had longer timelines. This immediacy added ethical weight to public health considerations in reopening decisions.

    Probability of Effect

    The uncertainty surrounding COVID-19 transmission and mitigation complicated ethical judgments. Universities needed more data on the effectiveness of safety protocols, making probability assessments challenging.

    Proximity and Concentration of Effect

    Campus communities are close-knit, amplifying the emotional weight of decisions. Both reopening and remaining remote affected broad populations similarly, lessening these dimensions’ influence.

    Ethical Outcomes and Practical Mitigation Strategies

    Many universities implemented extensive safety measures to align reopening decisions with ethical standards:

    • Testing and Tracing: Pre-arrival testing, on-campus surveillance, and contact tracing reduced outbreak risks.
    • Modified Learning Environments: Hybrid and remote options ensured flexibility, accommodating vulnerable populations.
    • Health Protocols: Social distancing, mask mandates, and enhanced cleaning protocols were widely adopted.

    Despite risks, universities that reopened often avoided large-scale outbreaks, demonstrating the effectiveness of these measures.

    Lessons for Crisis Management

    The COVID-19 reopening experience offers valuable lessons for future crises:

    1. Use Multidimensional Ethical Frameworks: Applying tools like MIF provides structure to navigate complex moral dilemmas.
    2. Prioritize Stakeholder Engagement: Balancing diverse perspectives helps bridge gaps between perceived and actual risks.
    3. Adapt Quickly: Flexibility in implementing mitigation strategies can mitigate harm while achieving core objectives.
    4. Build Resilience: Strengthening financial reserves and digital infrastructure can reduce future vulnerabilities.

    Global Implications

    While this analysis focused on U.S. universities, the findings have worldwide relevance. Institutions globally grappled with similar decisions, balancing public health and education amid diverse cultural and political contexts. The Moral Intensity Framework offers a universal lens to evaluate ethical challenges in higher education and beyond.

    Conclusion

    The reopening decisions of universities during COVID-19 exemplify the intricate balance of ethical, financial, and operational considerations in crisis management. The Moral Intensity Framework provided a robust tool for understanding these complexities, highlighting the need for structured ethical decision-making in future global challenges.

    This blog is based on an article published in Policy Reviews in Higher Education (online 20 September 2024) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23322969.2024.2404864.

    Scott McCoy is the Vice Dean for Faculty & Academic Affairs and the Richard S. Reynolds, Jr. Professor of Business at William & Mary’s Raymond A. Mason School of Business.  His research interests include human computer interaction, social media, online advertising, and teaching assessment.

    Jesse Pietz is a faculty lead for the OMSBA program at William & Mary’s Raymond A. Mason School of Business.  He has been teaching analytics, operations research, and management since 2013.  His most recent faculty position prior to William & Mary was at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. 

    Joseph Wilck is Associate Professor of the Practice and Business Analytics Capstone Director
    Kenneth W. Freeman College of Management, Bucknell University He has been teaching analytics, operations research, data science, and engineering since 2006. His research is in the area of applied optimization and analytics.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • A code of ethical university governance is overdue

    A code of ethical university governance is overdue

    It’s a thankless job being a university governor at the best of times.

    The structures and hierarchies – established over decades, even centuries – feel impenetrable.

    You’re overwhelmed with papers and reading, never completely sure what’s going on at meetings.

    Statutes and ordinances, rules and regulations, sub-committees and working groups. And all this you’re doing for free?

    But during precarious times for the sector, the job gets even harder. Income lags further behind expenditure. The funding model seems loaded against you.

    Doubt sets in. Have you really been holding institutional managers robustly to account? Are those course closures and staff redundancies really unavoidable?

    Behind the seens

    Governing bodies are the highest authorities in most institutions. Structures vary from one university to the next, as does the language of governance.

    But in England, all boards are legally accountable to the sector regulator, the Office for Students, and hold significant powers, up to and including the authority to remove the vice chancellor if they so choose.

    However, governing bodies remain a reticent and mostly unseen grouping. Students and staff may occasionally glimpse members at award ceremonies or public events, but closer forms of engagement tend to be discouraged (or carefully managed).

    On policies that reshaped the sector in recent decades, like the 2012 fee rise, governors had little to say. During Covid, one commentator was moved to ask if anyone had seen the governing body.

    Another had previously dismissed governors as “a small cadre talking amongst themselves.” Until a media exposé in 2018, almost all UK vice chancellors were members of the sub-committee that made recommendations on their own pay.

    A 2019 investigation found “significant and systemic” failings in one governing body.

    Yet many individual governors continue to invest substantial time and effort into their never-more-important role – lay members can bring vital external expertise to a sector that has too often been inward-looking and naïve, and staff and student members can help institutional managers see the campus from a ground-level perspective.

    Last year, the Council for the Defence of British Universities (CDBU) conducted interviews with current or former governors at over forty English universities.

    While most reported enjoying the opportunity to learn how universities operate, the same issues arose time and time again:

    • Membership was demographically and ideologically narrow, resulting in “business realist” discourses that privileged the university’s finance and estates over its educational purpose
    • Chairs were too close to senior managers to bring meaningful “challenge”;
    • Cliques had emerged, leading to some members’ views carrying more weight than others;
    • Power dynamics were problematic;
    • Meetings of the main board sometimes served as rubber-stamping exercises for decisions already taken;
    • Processes were reported to be opaque, with few governors understanding how the agenda was set, or knowing how to have an item added.

    More worryingly, as OfS has increased the burden of regulatory and legal compliance, so governing bodies appear to have become more ideologically compliant. The logic of the market goes unchallenged, and the whims of policy-makers and the sector regulator courteously indulged.

    Surprisingly, this critique emerged from lay members as strongly as from elected staff and student governors.

    Relevant, useable and inclusive

    Now the Council for the Defence of British Universities (CDBU) has launched a consultation for its new Code of Ethical University Governance. The sector already has a Higher Education Code of Governance, authored by the Committee of University Chairs (CUC Code) – the new Code supplements this, while presenting a vision of university governance that is more relevant, more useable and more inclusive.

    Practical advice is offered to all members on what to expect from governance, how to navigate complex organisation structures, and – most crucially – how to impact decision-making processes.

    The consultation is necessary so that the Code can be a co-produced document, capturing as many perspectives as possible. So please consider completing this short survey if you’re a current or former governor, a student, a university employee, someone with other connections to the higher education sector, or someone with no connections at all to the higher education sector.

    So far, governing bodies have mostly avoided using their potentially formidable powers to intervene as the sector has been politicised and defunded. Over 10,000 campus jobs are currently at risk, and 40 per cent of universities face budget deficits.

    But the aim of the Code is not to look backwards, let alone to apportion blame. It is to help give future generations of university governors the confidence and wherewithal to bring genuine, meaningful challenge.

    At a time when higher education needs urgently to reclaim its status as a prized public asset, governing bodies have a duty to surpass the Nolan principles, and operate to the very highest standards.

    The CDBU’s Code of Ethical University Governance may be the first step towards nudging governors beyond compliance, and empowering them to speak out. The long-term goal is for governing bodies to see their role as standing up for communities of students and staff, and for the value of higher education to everyone.

    The draft Code can be found here, and the consultation here.

    Source link