As an AI-forward institution, the University of Missouri has worked to integrate AI tools into classrooms and curriculum through various initiatives, including the generative AI software Show-Me AI and the AI certificate.
Between Feb. 24 and April 10, Data & Investigation reporters at The Maneater surveyed 411 Mizzou students about their opinions on generative AI in education and their personal usage of AI tools.
Although artificial intelligence tools are beginning to be integrated on campus through specialized courses and Show-Me AI, most of the students polled by The Maneater claim they are largely opposed to this integration. While most students report using AI tools, the majority also expressed resistance towards professors using generative AI tools to create syllabi (60%), assignments (70%) and feedback on coursework (86%).
Senior Charlie Hill, who is studying communications, opposes incorporating generative AI tools into coursework. Hill said he’s been given class assignments that require students to use ChatGPT.
“We’re doing that in, like, senior-level persuasion courses, and I feel like that’s really contradictory because I’m not learning anything,” he said. “I’m just learning how to paste something into an AI bot.”Jared Schroeder, an associate professor in the Missouri School of Journalism, is a major proponent for AI literacy among his students. He thinks students should be educated about AI so they can make informed decisions about whether they want to use it.
“This, to me, is not saying you have to use AI and it’s good, because I’m not sure it’s good,” Schroeder said. “But it’s at least saying you need to know enough about it that if an employer asks, you can function. You know what they’re talking about.”
Last semester, Schroeder included an assignment in his Communications Law class that required students to write an essay using AI. He removed the assignment from the curriculum after his students expressed their disapproval, but he added that those students felt their AI literacy had improved.
While there is broad skepticism among students towards professors using generative AI for course content, roughly 71% of students polled said they use the programs.
Senior Logan Dick, who is studying chemical engineering, frequently uses generative AI to help with schoolwork and to learn formulas. But he noted that there are drawbacks to heavy AI usage.
“I’m not ever gonna say, ‘Oh, I want to use AI. I think everyone should use AI. It’s great, it’s great. It’s gonna make me smarter,’” Dick said. “No, it’s definitely rotted my brain a little bit and, like, ruined some of my efficiency.”
Almost a quarter (22%) of students polled said they never use generative AI tools for coursework, while roughly 15% said they use them rarely. Around 29% of students polled said they occasionally use generative AI tools for coursework, and the same percentage (29%) said they use AI frequently. A small percentage of students (4%) reported always using AI for coursework.
“As for me, I feel like I have to use it, and if I use it too much, I feel the repercussions down the line just because of the work I do,” Dick added.
Philip Robbins, chair of philosophy in the College of Arts and Science, has similar worries. Robbins is largely concerned that individuals are outsourcing tasks to AI, which results in the atrophy of their ability to perform those tasks themselves.
“I think that’s part of what it is to sort of become a fully-fledged person,” Robbins said. “And if you don’t, if that development doesn’t occur or is somehow impeded in fundamental ways, that’s clearly just really problematic, you know?”
Students tend to believe that their classmates use AI more often than they themselves do.
Roughly 2% of students polled believe that other students never use generative AI tools for coursework. Nearly the same percentage (2%) said they believe other students rarely use it for coursework. Almost 14% of students said other students occasionally use AI. A large majority of students polled (71%) said they believed their fellow students frequently use generative AI tools for coursework, while 11% said they believe other students always use AI.
Senior Audrey Giles, who is studying social work, said she uses generative AI tools to help her study, but doesn’t use them as often as her peers. Giles believes there are legitimate uses of generative AI, but she said it can never replace human work.
“I do myself use it occasionally to help organize my thoughts. I have ADHD, so, like, I’m not good at that,” she said. “But definitely, I think other students probably use it 10 times more than what I do.”
Hill recounted experiences of seeing classmates rely on generative AI to get through their coursework.
“Every time I look up, everybody is on the laptop, and any time there’s an in-class assignment, as long as the teacher’s not looking, they immediately dive into ChatGPT,” he said. “And it kind of breaks my heart, because this is how many people in my major, in my communications major, like, actually know what they’re talking about, as opposed to they got here via AI, and that’s all they know.”
Robbins has opted not to use digital media assessment tools in his classes or allow the use of electronic devices, which he said his students received well.
“They were forced to take a break, I guess,” Robbins said. “Like it’s sort of like a short sort of detox kind of thing.”
The vast majority (83%) of students polled said their professors generally provide clear guidelines for AI use in class.
Schroeder said that clarity in academic policy is necessary to ensure students don’t misuse AI, and faculty need to be educated on AI so they can make their assessments legitimate. With that in mind, he also recognizes that requiring instructors to outline overly specific or “one-size-fits-all” AI policies for their classes also veers into academic freedom issues.
Clintin Davis-Stober, the faculty lead for AI innovation in the College of Arts and Sciences, believes that faculty still need to learn how to apply AI to teaching practices.
“I think all faculty are just trying to thread that needle of where can AI help them?” Davis-Stober said. “And how can they then develop skills where AI can allow them to do more? And where is AI just completely counterproductive?”
Davis-Stober’s expertise in getting students involved with AI is research based.
“There’s a lot of really exciting cutting-edge projects happening involving AI on campus,” Davis-Stober said. “And for students that are so interested in that particular research interests or science interests or whatever, I think it’s really important to kind of avail yourself of these opportunities to get involved with these labs.”
Davis-Stober noted that one positive aspect of the AI issue at Mizzou is that the university provides a place for conversation and exploration of AI from a variety of different perspectives. He encourages individuals to make strong arguments for their opinions, even if they disagree with AI for ethical or philosophical reasons.
“From my perspective, as one of the campus leaders, we need their voices,” Davis-Stober said. “We need everyone’s voice in this.”
Maneater reporters Daniel Davis II and Lily Dunn contributed to this article.
