A new study from UBC Okanagan says students appear to be using generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) responsibly, and as a way to speed up tasks, not just boost their grades.
Dr. Meaghan MacNutt, who teaches professional ethics in the UBCO School of Health and Exercise Sciences (HES), recently published a study in Advances in Physiology Education . Published this month, the paper-titled Reflective writing assignments in the era of GenAI: student behaviour and attitudes suggest utility, not futility-contradicts common concerns about student use of AI.
Students in three different courses, almost 400 participants, anonymously completed a survey about their use of AI on at least five reflective writing assignments. All three courses used an identical AI policy and students had the option to use the tool for their writing.
"GenAI tools like ChatGPT allow users to interface with large language models. They offer incredible promise to enhance student learning, however, they are also susceptible to misuse in completion of writing assignments," says Dr. MacNutt. "This potential has raised concerns about GenAI as a serious threat to academic integrity and to the learning that occurs when students draft and revise their own written work."
While UBC offers guidance to students and faculty about the risks and benefits of using GenAI, policies regarding its use in courses are at the discretion of individual instructors.
Dr. MacNutt, who completed the study with doctoral student and HES lecturer Tori Stranges, notes that discipline-specific factors contribute to the perception that many courses in HES are particularly challenging and many students strive for excellence, often at the expense of their mental wellbeing.
So, how often were the students using AI and what was motivating their use?
While only about one-third of the students used AI, the majority of users, 81 per cent, reported their GenAI use was inspired by at least one of the following factors: speed and ease in completing the assignment, a desire for high grades and a desire to learn. About 15 per cent of the students said they were motivated by all three factors, with more than 50 per cent using it to save time on the assignment.
Dr. MacNutt notes that most students used AI to initiate the paper or revise sections. Only 0.3 per cent of assignments were mostly written by GenAI.
"There is a lot of speculation when it comes to student use of AI," she says. "However, students in our study reported that GenAI use was motivated more by learning than by grades, and they are using GenAI tools selectively and in ways they believe are ethical and supportive of their learning. This was somewhat unexpected due to the common perception that undergraduate students have become increasingly focused on grades at the expense of learning."
The study does raise some cautions, she warns. GenAI can be a useful tool for students learning English or people with reading and writing disabilities. But there is also the potential that if paid versions are better, students who can afford to use a more effective platform might have an advantage over others-creating further classroom inequities.
MacNutt says continued research in this area can only provide a better understanding of student behaviour and attitudes as GenAI technologies continue to advance. She also suggests, while AI continues to be used more frequently, that institutions and educators adopt an approach that embodies "collaboration with" rather than "surveillance of" students.
"Our findings contradict common concerns about widespread student misuse and overuse of GenAI at the expense of academic integrity and learning," says Dr. MacNutt. "But as we move forward with our policies, or how we're teaching students how to use it, we have to keep in mind that students are coming from really different places. And they have different ways of benefiting or being harmed by these technologies."
