Enterprise AI Analysis

Appropriate GenAI Use for Learners (RQ2)

Learning vs. Cheating: Students draw a clear distinction: GenAI for learning enhancement (e.g., scaffolding thinking, brainstorming, low-stakes practice) is acceptable, but for assessed or marked work, it constitutes cheating or plagiarism. The core principle cited is "authorship": "If you didn't create it, it shouldn't count as your work." Rewriting AI output in one's own words is considered a minimum threshold for integrity.

Subject Dependency: Acceptable GenAI use varies by subject. In STEM fields (maths equations, procedural guidance), GenAI is seen as a useful tool. However, in humanities (English essays, where authorship and expression are key) and expressive arts (creativity, personal voice), it's deemed less appropriate, sometimes "defeating the purpose."

Learners' Views on Teachers' GenAI Use (RQ3)

Administrative & Resource Creation: Students generally accept teachers using GenAI for impersonal, low-stakes tasks, such as drafting lesson slides, generating practice material, and creating quizzes. However, there is an expectation that teachers will fact-check any GenAI-generated content before using it in class.

Feedback & Reporting: Opinions range from mixed to negative regarding teachers using GenAI for personalized tasks like writing pupil reports or formative feedback. Students value individualised feedback and believe generic AI-generated reports "defeat the purpose." Some may tolerate it if human commentary remains prominent.

AI Use Equity: Many students perceive it as hypocritical for teachers to ban student GenAI use while using it themselves, arguing that such actions "encourage students to also use AI" and "defeat the purpose of the whole school system."

Additional Themes

Significant Minority of Non-Users: A notable number of students avoid GenAI entirely due to concerns about reliability ("wasted time," "getting wrong answers"), fear of academic consequences ("If I was to write down something wrong... I fail"), or anxiety about eroding future competence and fostering over-reliance. Risk-aversion is a common strategy for many.

Desire for Clearer Guidelines: Inconsistent rules regarding AI use across different classes and teachers create uncertainty and anxiety. Students express concern about accidental misconduct and highlight stark subject-specific differences. They advocate for consistent school policies.

AI Literacy for Teachers & Students: Students attribute inconsistent GenAI policies to varying staff expertise, calling for mandatory professional development for teachers. They also desire explicit instruction on how to interrogate AI output, check sources, recognize bias, and engage in critical evaluation, extending beyond mere "how to prompt" guides. There is also a strong wish to learn about the wider ethical landscape, including privacy, misinformation, and the environmental cost of AI.

Over-Reliance & Creativity: Students voice anxieties about long-term dependence on GenAI, fearing a dilution of personal style ("don't really develop your own style") and weakened cognitive skills ("you can't do your working, so you're obviously not learning"). They acknowledge that even brief use can quickly foster a hard-to-break reliance.