4. Discussion
A recent publication (Author, 2024) presented an analysis of the
pre-survey responses. Results show inequality in the level of
familiarity with and prior use of GenAI by students. Furthermore,
students expressed a desire for autonomy in being able to choose whether
to use GenAI or not, with the vast majority agreeing that students
should retain an option to opt out of its use. Finally, most were
uncertain whether they were going to use GenAI or not in the course,
perhaps due to a lack of certainty over what types of uses were
permitted. In the end, 58.8% of the groups declared using GenAI in the
group written article. A recent study of 6,300 university students in
Germany found that 63.4% of students reported using AI-based tools for
their studies (von Garrel & Mayer, 2023) which is consistent with our
findings when considering that the rate in our study was not for
individual use but for use within a specific group assignment. While
two-fifths of the groups declared not using GenAI, overall, students
reported a significant increase in their familiarity with GenAI tools,
their use of GenAI tools to assist with their schoolwork, and in their
plans to use GenAI to support their future learning at the university.
This aligns with findings from previous work, where students acknowledge
ChatGPT, as a valuable complementary learning resource and describe it
as helpful for learning (Sánchez-Reina et al., 2024; Shoufan,
2023). Also, by the end of the course, no significant changes were found
in student beliefs related to students having the option to opt out of
using GenAI in class, nor to beliefs that grading criteria should differ
for students using AI tools versus those who do not.
In relation to the first research question, R1. Would first-year
students be accepting of a course learning agreement on GenAI use?,pre-survey results show the vast majority of students supported the use
of a course learning agreement for governing GenAI in higher education
(M = 4.45, SD = .77). Most utterances (86.1%) related to
either preventing students from being unfairly disadvantaged or helping
students learn to use AI properly as reported by Beardsley et al. (2024)
which provide insights into student expectations of the learning
agreement. At the end of the course, student support had decreased
significantly but still averaged 4 out of 5 on a Likert scale (M
= 4.00, SD = .85), suggesting continued support for the learning
agreement approach but, perhaps, a failure to meet student expectations.
In relation to the second research question, R2. Would students
adhere to the terms of the learning agreement in their group
assignment? , all student groups did make a declaration involving
technologies used, yet none felt the need to cite their use of GenAI
tools, and only 1 of the 10 groups that did declare use of GenAI
acknowledged its limitations as agreed upon in the learning agreement.
Hence, it appears students did not adhere to all items in the learning
agreement – especially items 3 and 4. Findings related to the third
research question, R3. After experiencing a course learning
agreement, how would students improve on its use?, provide insight into
possible reasons for low adherence for these items. The lack of specific
examples of what is not permitted, class time for further discussion of
issues related to the learning agreement, and opportunities to re-engage
with the learning agreement may have contributed to the lower post
rating – as these were suggestions for improvement. Additionally,
several utterances related to student motivation to adhere to the
learning agreement with some (8.33%) suggesting a stricter enforcement
of the learning agreement terms being needed while others (11.67%)
suggesting the approach should be more participative and supportive of
student autonomy. The latter aligning more closely with
self-determination theory and nicely encapsulated by one student’s
response,
The focus of the learning agreement should be on the student’s
goals and needs, rather than on the instructor’s expectations. Also,
making it more accountable, where the student should be responsible for
meeting the goals that they have set for themselves, and the instructor
should be responsible for providing the support that the student needs
to achieve those goals.