A Comparative Analysis of Institutional and Course Generative AI Policies within Higher Education: Implications for Instruction in Computing Education

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is changing how students learn, yet the roles of course context, cognitive reliance, evaluation literacy, and early reliance remain underexplored. Using survey responses from 118 students across 12 AI-related courses at our institution, we examined differences in GenAI use and perceived learning experiences. We identified four user clusters: high-use students reporting many benefits, light users reporting less reliance and fewer benefits, and two moderate-use groups reporting different levels of benefit. We also found significant differences between free- and premium-version users, single- and multiple-tool users, and students experiencing different instructor policies. In multivariable regression models, academic benefit was associated with early reliance and academic task support; positive impact was associated with cognitive reliance, academic task support, confidence in GenAI reliability, and instructor policy; and negative impact was associated with early reliance and attitudinal change. The association between early reliance and negative impact became stronger as evaluation literacy increased. Finally, perceptions of GenAI-enhanced learning appear to reflect cognitive, performance, and self-efficacy benefits, while concerns about stress and diminished critical thinking are associated with lower perceived learning benefits. These findings suggest that institutions need better policies to address such inequities so that institutions can enable students to benefit from increasingly capable AI systems.

Universities have responded to generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in noticeably different ways, both internationally and within Spain. So far, the dominant reaction has been defensive, this is, most institutions frame the debate around AI detection, plagiarism, academic integrity and a presumed drop in student effort, prioritizing basic training for academic staff over students. Other group of pioneering universities is doing the opposite, pursuing deeper adoption, and assuming that any policy built on prevention or sanction will not hold. This paper sides with that second view. Obsessing about detection is a dead end, since generated text is increasingly hard to distinguish from human writing, and detectors still misfire too often to be trusted. What universities need instead is a coordinated effort to set clear, course-by-course rules for GenAI use, redesign assessment toward authentic and interdisciplinary assessment that fosters critical thinking and learner autonomy, and build a serious AI-literacy programme that treats students as critical co-creators rather than passive users. The challenge, though, is not only pedagogical. Adoption at university scale also raises organisational, technical, operational, legal and economic questions that have to be solved together. In this context, the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) is developing a strategic and sustainable AI policy and adoption framework structured around six dimensions, in which AI functions as an enabler of student autonomy and pedagogical innovation rather than as a threat to be policed.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming high-skilled domains, requiring higher education institutions (HEI) to balance the teaching of foundational principles with the integration of emerging tools to ensure workforce readiness. While HEI are increasingly adopting AI, many continue to grapple with how it should be incorporated into curricula and governed through policy, especially when such policies are set at different levels of an institution. This research analyzes AI policies across HEI from 34 states in the United States to investigate what these policies entail and how policies set across institutions as well as within different levels at an institution differ. Using natural language processing (NLP) to analyze institutional AI policies, we find a clear divergence: university-level policies emphasize data security and risk mitigation whereas school-level policies, when present, focus on pedagogical applications and tool usage. When focusing on business school specific policies, relatively few business schools maintain AI policies distinct from university frameworks, creating misalignment with discipline-specific learning objectives. This gap poses challenges particularly for faculty and students as well as for accreditation purposes. Our insights suggest that guidelines should be aligned with broader institutional policies while addressing discipline-specific learning objectives and evolving workforce demands.