Search and Filter

Repository Feedback

Your feedback helps us improve the repository's content relevance and usability. Please share your thoughts to help us better serve researchers and practitioners.

Submit feedback

Submit a research study

Contribute to the repository:

Add a paper

A Comparative Analysis Of Institutional And Course Generative AI Policies Within Higher Education: Implications For Instruction In Computing Education

Date
Publisher
arXiv
With the increased use of generative AI (GenAI) applications such as ChatGPT, higher education institutions (HEIs) have released a range of guidelines and policies to direct adoption within their institutions. In computer science (CS) courses GenAI adoption is especially high and the implications for student learning are significant. At the same time, instructors have also been forced to address the use of GenAI as students have started to use it for a range of functions. Currently, comparative analysis of guidance provided by institutions and its uptake in instruction is lacking. In this paper we bridge this gap by comparing institutional and computing course level guidance to better understand this terrain. We utilize secondary analysis of institutional and course syllabi guidelines from higher education institutions in the U.S. classified as research-intensive. Our findings reveal that although institutional guidance is more pro-use, at the course-level the uptake is still guarded. We discuss the implications and propose an instructor-centered framework to guide future adoption of GenAI.
Study at a glance
  • Question: How do university generative AI policies compare to and align with computer science course syllabi guidelines?
  • Setting and data: 141 institutional policies and 98 computer science course syllabi from U.S. R1 universities, collected in 2023 and 2024.
  • Method: Content analysis and comparative qualitative coding of institutional policy documents and course syllabi.
Why it matters

A gap remains in understanding how instructors translate and implement institutional generative AI guidance into course syllabi, which is essential to support technical skill development while preserving lifelong learning skills.

Key findings
  • While 63% of universities encouraged generative AI use, half of computer science syllabi outright prohibited it, with only 41% allowing partial use.
  • Institutions with the most comprehensive AI policies more frequently offered course-level guidelines (48.3% to 71.4%) than moderately comprehensive institutions.
  • Course syllabi frequently named specific tools like ChatGPT (90 syllabi) and personified AI as an assistant, whereas institutional guidance remained tool-agnostic and addressed broader ethics like DEI.

Summary drafted with AI from the full paper and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.

Who is the user?
Who age?