STEM Faculty Perspectives on Generative AI in Higher Education

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.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is rapidly reshaping higher education, yet barriers to its adoption across different disciplines and institutional roles remain underexplored. Existing literature frequently attributes adoption barriers to individual-level factors such as perceived usefulness and ease of use. This study instead investigates whether such barriers are structurally produced. Drawing on a multi-method survey analysis of 272 academic and professional services (PSs) staff at a Russell Group university, we examine how disciplinary contexts and institutional roles shape perceived barriers. By integrating multinomial logistic regression (MLR), structural equation modelling (SEM), and semantic clustering of open-ended responses, we move beyond descriptive accounts to provide a multi-level explanation of GenAI adoption. Our findings reveal clear, systematic differences: non-STEM academics primarily report ethical and cultural barriers related to academic integrity, whereas STEM and PSs staff disproportionately emphasize institutional, governance, and infrastructure constraints. We conclude that GenAI adoption barriers are deeply embedded in organizational ecosystems and epistemic norms, suggesting that universities must move beyond generalized training to develop role-specific governance and support frameworks.

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.