Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper conducts a comparative analysis of generative AI policies across higher education institutions and their implementation in computer science courses, highlighting a significant gap between institutional encouragement and cautious course-level uptake. The study employs secondary analysis of syllabi from research-intensive U.S. institutions to assess how guidelines are translated into instructional practices. Key findings indicate that while institutional policies favor the use of generative AI, course-level instructors remain hesitant, suggesting a need for a more supportive framework for adoption.
Institutional policies are pushing for generative AI adoption, but instructors in computing education are still holding back鈥攚hat's causing the disconnect?
With the increased use of generative AI (GenAI) applications such as ChatGPT, higher education institutions (HEIs) have released a range of guidelines and policies to direct adoption within their institutions. In computer science (CS) courses GenAI adoption is especially high and the implications for student learning are significant. At the same time, instructors have also been forced to address the use of GenAI as students have started to use it for a range of functions. Currently, comparative analysis of guidance provided by institutions and its uptake in instruction is lacking. In this paper we bridge this gap by comparing institutional and computing course level guidance to better understand this terrain. We utilize secondary analysis of institutional and course syllabi guidelines from higher education institutions in the U.S. classified as research-intensive. Our findings reveal that although institutional guidance is more pro-use, at the course-level the uptake is still guarded. We discuss the implications and propose an instructor-centered framework to guide future adoption of GenAI.
