"Using a large language model to analyze 31,692 publicly available course syllabi between 2021 and 2025-a task that would have taken 3,000 human hours with manual coding-Chirikov found academics had shifted toward more permissive use of AI by autumn 2025. Academic integrity concerns were the main talking point regarding AI among 63 percent of course materials in spring 2023, but this fell to 49 percent by autumn 2025."
"Instead, policies shifted toward calls for students to attribute their AI use, which was cited in only 1 percent of syllabi in early 2023. By the end of 2025, this figure was 29 percent, according to the working paper, titled "How Instructors Regulate AI in College: Evidence From 31,000 Course Syllabi," published in Berkeley's open-access repository. "References to AI as a learning tool remain relatively rare at 11 percent by fall 2025, though this represents growth from near zero," notes Chirikov."
"Course materials that mention AI instead moved toward policies that explicitly restrict or permit AI use depending on a specific task, continues the paper. When policies mention drafting or revising, 79 percent of policies ban the use of AI, it explains. For reasoning and problem-solving, 65 percent prohibited AI use, but for coding/technical work only 20 percent banned AI, and for editing or proofreading the proportion was 17 percent."
More than 31,000 publicly available course syllabi from a large Texas university covering 2021–2025 show a shift toward permissive, task-specific AI policies by autumn 2025. Highly restrictive rules introduced after ChatGPT's late-2022 release eased across disciplines except the arts and humanities. Academic integrity was the primary concern in 63 percent of course materials in spring 2023, falling to 49 percent by autumn 2025. Attribution requirements rose from 1 percent in early 2023 to 29 percent by the end of 2025. References to AI as a learning tool grew to 11 percent by fall 2025. Policies increasingly banned AI for drafting/revising (79%) and reasoning/problem-solving (65%), but banned it less for coding (20%) and proofreading (17%).
Read at Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]