Studies from the Department of Communication and Learning in Science show that AI tools such as ChatGPT are not merely being used as support in students’ studies. In fact, they may be reshaping how students perceive knowledge and learning – a perspective that is not always shared by teachers and universities.
Generative AI has, in a short period of time, become a natural part of students’ everyday lives. While public debate often becomes stuck on issues of cheating, assessment and control, research indicates that the transformation runs far deeper than that.
Today, students use AI to search for information, explain connections, summarise literature and test ideas – often without involving teachers. Alongside this, some students have begun to question which skills are truly relevant when so much academic work can be carried out with, and by, AI. At the same time, many express concern that higher education does not provide sufficient training in how to use AI in ways that meet the expectations of working life and society.
What is the value off higher education institutions?
These changing behaviours and expectations challenge the traditional role of universities, which has historically been built on specific assumptions about what it means to learn, to know and to perform. When both knowledge production and problem-solving increasingly take place in interaction with AI, universities need to redefine, articulate and justify their learning outcomes and pedagogy in ways that feel relevant to today’s students.
“The question then becomes: What is it that higher education actually offers that cannot be replaced by AI, and how can this value be communicated and realised in practice?”
says Tiina Leino Lindell, postdoctoral researcher, who together with Professor Christian Stöhr has conducted several studies on AI in higher education.
The studies, based on interviews with both teachers and students, also show that students increasingly use AI to prioritise their time. Tasks perceived as boring, repetitive or irrelevant to future careers are often delegated to AI tools, while activities considered important or personally developing are prioritised. This, in turn, creates tensions, as teachers express concern that students may miss foundational elements or practise certain skills too little.
Academic integrity over technology
Another challenge is that while technological development and student behaviour are changing very rapidly, university organisations are designed for stability and long-term planning. Discussions about digitalisation therefore often become reactive: technology changes practice first, and guidelines are formulated afterwards. The researchers argue that universities need to work in a more principle-based rather than technology-based manner.
“Guidelines that are strongly tied to individual technologies risk becoming outdated quickly as both tools and patterns of use evolve. A recurring theme in the material is therefore the need for guidelines grounded in overarching pedagogical principles, such as academic integrity, transparency, clear learning outcomes and responsibility. In this way, the need to rewrite guidelines every time technology changes is reduced,”
says Christian Stöhr.
He emphasises that questions of AI and pedagogy cannot rest on individual teachers alone, but must become a natural part of universities’ collective work on educational goals and quality.
“Our studies do not show how AI should be used in higher education. However, they do show that both students and teachers are already engaging with the technology in ways that challenge established norms. This makes questions of goals, responsibility and pedagogy difficult to postpone,”
says Christian Stöhr.
The aim of the study was to investigate how generative AI affects norms, roles, and practices in engineering education from the students’ perspectives. It is based on interviews with 25 engineering students who actively use generative AI in their studies.
Four key themes in the study
Students’ self-directiveness and efficiency
Students use generative AI to solve practical problems, such as translating languages, understanding theory, and debugging code. They view the tool as a fast and constantly available mentor, in contrast to traditional digital tools that are often perceived as slower or insufficient.
The objectives of learning are challenged
Many students feel that mastering generative AI is necessary to be prepared for working life and therefore adapt their learning to what they perceive as future demands. However, this is also an area where they feel that education does not provide sufficient support.
The role of teachers is changing
This role changes when students’ actual AI use does not always align with teachers’ formal rules. Students often turn to generative AI for simpler questions, which reduces interaction with teachers. Differences between teachers’ and students’ views on how generative AI use should be restricted also create new challenges for the teaching role.
The ethics of cheating are challenged
These are challenged when a high workload is combined with the efficiency of AI tools, which can lead to boundary-drawing practices that conflict with academic integrity.
The study was conducted in two phases. The first phase consisted of interviews, both individual and group-based, with engineering students from 13 different programmes. The questions focused on whether, how and why students use generative AI. One aim was to capture their views on the advantages and disadvantages, as well as their thoughts on what rules and guidelines might be needed. The students’ input was then grouped into five themes.
In the second phase, university teachers, postdoctoral researchers and educational developers used these five themes as a starting point to explore different possible futures, rather than to predict a single outcome. This scenario planning approach is an effective way to identify challenges and imagine future directions. A two-year timeframe was chosen to be both realistic and forward-looking.
For questions, please contact:
- Professor, Engineering Education Research, Communication and Learning in Science