Generative AI Usage of University Students: Navigating Between Education and Business

The rapid proliferation of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is reshaping pedagogical practices and assessment models in higher education. While institutional and educator perspectives on GenAI integration are increasingly documented, the student perspective remains comparatively underexplored. This study examines how students perceive, use, and evaluate GenAI within their academic practices, focusing on usage patterns, perceived benefits, and expectations for institutional support. Data were collected through a questionnaire administered to 436 postgraduate Computer Science students at the University of Hertfordshire and analysed using descriptive methods. The findings reveal a Confidence-Competence Paradox: although more than 60% of students report high familiarity with tools such as ChatGPT, daily academic use remains limited and confidence in effective application is only moderate. Students primarily employ GenAI for cognitive scaffolding tasks, including concept clarification and brainstorming, rather than fully automated content generation. At the same time, respondents express concerns regarding data privacy, reliability of AI-generated information, and the potential erosion of critical thinking skills. The results also indicate strong student support for integrating AI literacy into curricula and programme Knowledge, Skills, and Behaviours (KSBs). Overall, the study suggests that universities should move beyond a policing approach to GenAI and adopt a pedagogical framework that emphasises AI literacy, ethical guidance, and equitable access to AI tools.

Higher education students are increasingly using generative AI in their academic work. However, existing institutional practices have not yet adapted to this shift. Through semi-structured interviews with 23 college students, our study examines the environmental and social factors that influence students' use of AI. Findings show that institutional pressure factors like deadlines, exam cycles, and grading lead students to engage with AI even when they think it undermines their learning. Social influences, particularly peer micro-communities, establish de-facto AI norms regardless of official AI policies. Campus-wide ``AI shame'' is prevalent, often pushing AI use underground. Current institutional AI policies are perceived as generic, inconsistent, and confusing, resulting in routine noncompliance. Additionally, students develop value-based self-regulation strategies, but environmental pressures create a gap between students' intentions and their behaviors. Our findings show student AI use to be a situated practice, and we discuss implications for institutions, instructors, and system tool designers to effectively support student learning with AI.

Student use of Generative AI (GenAI) products in completing their classwork, with or without their professors' knowledge and/or approval, has resulted in substantial shifts in higher education. While GenAI use is widespread, its impact on student study methods, faculty course development, grade reporting, and overall learning is not well documented. This is a mixed-methods, multi-course study using retrospective quantitative analysis, instructor surveys, and anonymous student surveys at a university in the New England region of the United States. This research seeks to identify and document patterns in student and faculty perceptions of, and experiences in, the use of LLMs as a learning tool inside and outside of the university classroom. Alongside quantitative and thematic analysis of both faculty and student survey responses, historical grade data as reported to the university registrar is used to triangulate the phenomenon of learning achievement in pre- and post-LLM eras. It is hoped that this research can serve as a pilot study for a broader set of institutions. Results from this study can inform GenAI policy for professors, universities, and other educational institutions that are trying to maximize student learning in the age of AI.