By Cincade Drudge
A stressed student sits at a table in the Helmke Library, considering their options. They click from the tab containing their research notes to the Word document showing their barely started research paper.
The student is facing a 12-page research paper with a rapidly approaching due date. The paper’s dull topic makes it even harder to find motivation to work on it, especially while juggling the workload from their other classes and a part-time job.
Thinking of the time and effort it would take to write the whole paper in the little time they had remaining, the student makes an all-too-common choice: turning to ChatGPT for assistance.
This anonymous student isn’t alone in this course of action. Whether they are using it for brainstorming, to check grammar, or even to write entire assignments, artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT have become common tools in the arsenal of many college students.
Some see it as a revolutionary tool for evolving learning, while others view it as a threat to critical thinking. Regardless of one’s personal stance on it, one thing is clear: AI is here, and it is affecting education for better or worse.
According to a survey from the Digital Education Council, 86 percent of university students already use AI in some form for their studies. The degree to which students use AI, and the frequency of use, can vary, but the numbers collected in the survey paint a striking picture.
Of all students surveyed, around 54 percent use AI on at least a weekly basis, with nearly 1 in 4 of all respondents using AI daily. The degree to which students use AI goes from simple tasks like searching for information or checking grammar to more complex, ethically gray uses like drafting entire assignments.
The rise of AI tools and their application to educational assignments has sparked debate on college campuses across the country. Students and faculty are forced to reimagine how learning happens to keep up with the times. With that comes a flurry of questions about ethics, integrity, and what education is supposed to look like in the digital age.
On a student level, AI usage is all about choice. Students can choose not to use AI at all, to use it responsibly, or to abuse it.
Zach Grindle, a sophomore student at PFW, doesn’t shy away from using AI; however, he aims to keep his use of it ethically acceptable.
“I look at it as a learning tool, not as a way to cheat,” he said. “I don’t have it write assignments for me, but if I don’t understand something, I’ll ask ChatGPT. It helps fill the gap between Googling and going to a professor.”
Grindle’s measured use of AI represents a positive usage of AI as more of an academic assistant rather than a shortcut. He’s also careful to follow the intent of professors’ guidelines on AI and respect their opposition to AI, even if he personally disagrees.
“I think if you teach students how to use it correctly, it becomes a benefit,” he said. “If you ignore it, students will just use it anyway.”
But not all students maintain such a balanced relationship with the technology.
The overwhelmed student from the beginning of this story, who asked to remain anonymous, admits to having relied on AI far too heavily in the past.
“Last year, I used it to an unhealthy degree,” they said. “It wrote most of my assignments for me. I’d just change the wording to avoid detection.”
They know it’s hurting their learning but find it difficult to stop using it.
“It’s just so useful—it’s hard not to use it,” they said.
For a final research paper last semester, they fed ChatGPT all of their research and had it draft the paper section by section.
This student’s experience with AI underscores the danger of resources like ChatGPT, as it can become a crutch that harms students’ academic development.
On a faculty level, professors have both optimism about the potential of AI and concerns about students exploiting it.
Kevin Stoller, a professor at PFW and a faculty member at the university’s Center for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching, has an optimistic view of AI’s potential.
“I encourage students to use AI to dig deeper and create better assignments,” Stoller said. “It helps them brainstorm and see different perspectives. I see it as an opportunity for learning, not a threat.”
For Stoller, the key is engagement.
“If you critique the AI’s response, analyze it, and think through what it’s telling you, then you’re learning. If you just copy and paste, you’re not,” he said.
He acknowledges the risks, especially for students who cut corners, but believes the solution is creating assignments that allow for students to critically engage with both course material and AI.
“We have to equip students to use it responsibly,” he said. “Almost every job they enter in the future will expect them to know how to use AI.”
Through the Center, faculty are given multiple templates for AI policies. Some professors ban it outright. Others allow limited use with transparency. The university encourages each instructor to choose what best fits their teaching goals while pursuing academic honesty.
Deborah Bauer, a history professor at PFW, shares both optimism and concern when it comes to AI’s influence in higher education.
“I both find ChatGPT and AI beneficial but also worrying,” she said.
On the one hand, she’s found AI helpful in developing more creative assignments for her online courses, especially for non-history majors who may struggle adapting to more traditional formats of teaching.
“I do kind of turn to AI when I’m trying to think of new kinds of creative assignment ideas. I’m working on redesigning online versions of some classes where the assignments may be easily answered by AI,” Bauer said. “The AI has been neat, suggesting things like timeline assignments and poster assignments and different things like that.”
To Bauer, AI has its uses, but her core concern lies with students who rely too heavily on AI before they have developed basic academic skills.
“It’s stressful when I get answers that look AI-generated,” she said. “Some submissions feel like they were prompted directly into ChatGPT. They don’t draw from class lectures or materials.”
While she recognizes the signs of AI usage: the tone, phrasing, or even suspiciously polished structure, Bauer finds herself stopping short of accusing students.
“I can’t prove it, and I don’t want to falsely accuse anyone,” she said.
Professor Bauer believes AI is best used by students who already know how to evaluate its suggestions.
“I worry that students who haven’t mastered research or writing don’t even realize when AI gives them the wrong information. They can’t tell,” Bauer said.
She still sees AI as an opportunity. But for her, the soul of learning lies in human connection.
“One of the best parts of teaching is seeing students’ faces, responding in real-time, and watching them learn from each other. That can’t be replaced,” she said.
Educators like Professors Stoller and Bauer face the same problems as many educators across the country and begin asking questions: What counts as cheating? What happens when AI can paraphrase well enough to dodge plagiarism checkers? And how do you teach critical thinking in a world where answers are instantly available? Are AI detection tools accurate?
The answers to many of these questions remain unclear, as the educational debate on AI continues.
As AI continues to evolve, so too must education. Students and professors alike argue that banning AI entirely is both unrealistic and counterproductive.
As Professor Stoller said, AI will be used in these students’ future careers, but the point raised by Professor Bauer about human connection in the classroom is also relevant as we consider how education will evolve along with AI.
Students like Grindle and the anonymous student will serve as test cases in the first generation of learners to adapt to AI. Whether this will in the end be to their benefit or detriment remains to be seen. But nothing can put that genie back in the bottle; AI is here, and students and professors alike will be forced to adapt to it.
And back at Helmke Library, that stressed-out anonymous student stares at the screen as the AI-generated paragraphs build. It’s fast. It’s convenient. But it’s not their voice, and deep down, they know it.