Qualitative themes for the impact of GenAI on higher education
| Theme | Categories |
|---|---|
| Overall Impact on Higher Education | GenAI offers new faculty opportunities but raises ethical concerns |
| Faculty are at different stages of adoption | |
| GenAI compared to the WWW launch (1990s) | |
| Viewed as a disruptor in a slow-moving system | |
| Fear that GenAI may lead to replacing faculty | |
| Concern that institutional decisions prioritize efficiency over teaching and learning | |
| Challenges for Higher Education | Institutional AI policies are inadequate or lagging |
| Uncertainty described as “building the parachute as we're falling” | |
| Faculty stress and inability to keep up with GenAI developments | |
| Lack of professional development (PD) | |
| Need to teach students to use AI effectively and ethically | |
| Impact on Traditional Academic Practices | Tasks completed faster and across varied areas |
| Divide between AI-literate and non-AI-literate faculty | |
| Need for critical evaluation of AI-generated content | |
| Impacts pedagogy, curriculum, curriculum planning and assessment | |
| Risk of increased reliance and unethical use | |
| Unintended Consequences | Privacy concerns about data shared with GenAI |
| Easier for students to cheat | |
| Shift in education dynamic (Teacher–AI–Student) | |
| Risk of over-dependence on AI | |
| Strengths | Speeds up task completion |
| Supports content creation, grading and communication | |
| Encourages higher order thinking through prompting | |
| Aids brainstorming and ideation | |
| Acts as a 24/7 collaborator with knowledge beyond the faculty's own | |
| Automates repetitive tasks, freeing faculty time | |
| Ineffectiveness/Concerns That Must Be Addressed | May discourage cognitive engagement if overused |
| Timely feedback does not track student growth | |
| AI-assisted grading can be slower | |
| AI use can become time-consuming and distracting | |
| Undermines the learning process if misused | |
| Purpose of GenAI unclear to students | |
| Students not taught to verify AI outputs | |
| Should not be a replacement for teacher shortages |
| Theme | Categories |
|---|---|
| Overall Impact on Higher Education | GenAI offers new faculty opportunities but raises ethical concerns |
| Faculty are at different stages of adoption | |
| GenAI compared to the WWW launch (1990s) | |
| Viewed as a disruptor in a slow-moving system | |
| Fear that GenAI may lead to replacing faculty | |
| Concern that institutional decisions prioritize efficiency over teaching and learning | |
| Challenges for Higher Education | Institutional AI policies are inadequate or lagging |
| Uncertainty described as “building the parachute as we're falling” | |
| Faculty stress and inability to keep up with GenAI developments | |
| Lack of professional development (PD) | |
| Need to teach students to use AI effectively and ethically | |
| Impact on Traditional Academic Practices | Tasks completed faster and across varied areas |
| Divide between AI-literate and non-AI-literate faculty | |
| Need for critical evaluation of AI-generated content | |
| Impacts pedagogy, curriculum, curriculum planning and assessment | |
| Risk of increased reliance and unethical use | |
| Unintended Consequences | Privacy concerns about data shared with GenAI |
| Easier for students to cheat | |
| Shift in education dynamic (Teacher–AI–Student) | |
| Risk of over-dependence on AI | |
| Strengths | Speeds up task completion |
| Supports content creation, grading and communication | |
| Encourages higher order thinking through prompting | |
| Aids brainstorming and ideation | |
| Acts as a 24/7 collaborator with knowledge beyond the faculty's own | |
| Automates repetitive tasks, freeing faculty time | |
| Ineffectiveness/Concerns That Must Be Addressed | May discourage cognitive engagement if overused |
| Timely feedback does not track student growth | |
| AI-assisted grading can be slower | |
| AI use can become time-consuming and distracting | |
| Undermines the learning process if misused | |
| Purpose of GenAI unclear to students | |
| Students not taught to verify AI outputs | |
| Should not be a replacement for teacher shortages |
Note(s): All eight interviewees reported being users of GenAI
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.