A recent roundtable discussion brought together university students and Provost Alec Gallimore to explore the evolving role of artificial intelligence in higher education. The meeting addressed student perspectives on generative AI tools and faculty concerns regarding shared governance in academic decisions.
Key Takeaways
- Students use AI for various reasons, including motivation, procrastination, and managing high-pressure assignments.
- Many students are unaware of the university's managed AI platform, DukeGPT, or are hesitant to use it.
- Faculty previously raised concerns about a lack of involvement in the decision to provide unlimited ChatGPT-4o access.
- Provost Gallimore emphasized equity and data privacy as key drivers for the university's AI initiative.
- Shared governance involves a 'matrix framework' with strong relationships between committees and leadership.
Student Perspectives on AI Usage
Eight undergraduate students from diverse academic fields shared their experiences with generative AI. They offered valuable insights for faculty on how and why students integrate these technologies into their studies. The discussion highlighted a range of motivations behind AI adoption.
Senior Maddie Davies noted that students often turn to AI when facing a lack of motivation or when they have procrastinated. She specifically mentioned its use for "high-pressure, high stakes" assignments. This suggests AI acts as a coping mechanism in demanding academic environments.
Junior Olivia McConnell added that fear and burnout also contribute to AI reliance. She described the challenges of adapting to a high-achieving environment, where students feel "always on the move." This pressure can lead them to "start cutting corners here and there."
"This is a high-performance environment, so you turn to anything that you can to catch up as quickly as you can," McConnell stated during the roundtable.
AI Usage Motivations
- Lack of motivation
- Procrastination
- High-pressure assignments
- Fear of falling behind
- Academic burnout
AI as a Learning Supplement
Senior Radhika Subramani explained that students often use chatbots when a course feels like it is merely "checking boxes." She believes AI tools can serve as valuable supplements when course materials foster real-world connections or demand creativity.
"Students most often turn to these tools when they feel that engaging deeply with the material is not actually going to matter when the work feels more about compliance than about curiosity," Subramani observed. This suggests a disconnect between student engagement and perceived course value can drive AI use.
Sophomore Alain Soto raised concerns about over-reliance on AI. He stressed that higher education's purpose is to cultivate critical thinking. While asking chatbots questions "from the comfort of [his] living room" is convenient, Soto believes such shortcuts do not adequately prepare students for future problem-solving.
Students largely agreed that using AI in the classroom should not be automatically equated with cheating. Davies argued that the conversation should shift from "policing and regulating" the technology. Instead, the focus should be on incentivizing students' intrinsic motivation and curiosity.
Senior Barron Brothers echoed this sentiment. He emphasized that developing best practices for AI in the classroom requires open communication. It also means respecting students' decisions regarding whether to use these tools.
Challenges with University AI Platform
During the discussion, students were asked about their use of DukeGPT, the university's managed AI platform, compared to other tools like ChatGPT. Most undergraduates, they reported, lack awareness of DukeGPT. Others expressed reluctance to use it.
The primary fear among some students is that using a Duke-affiliated AI platform might allow professors to access their search history. This concern highlights significant data privacy anxieties among the student body.
Background on AI Initiative
The Arts & Sciences Council hosted this roundtable after faculty members voiced concerns in October. They felt the launch of the Provost’s Initiative on AI, which granted students unlimited ChatGPT-4o access, lacked sufficient faculty involvement in the decision-making process.
Provost Defends AI Initiative
Provost Alec Gallimore defended the university's decision to provide free, unlimited undergraduate access to ChatGPT-4o through a pilot program with OpenAI. He cited concerns over equity as a key factor behind the rollout.
Gallimore noted that various chatbot versions are available, with some students able to purchase the latest models while others are limited to free versions. Providing free, unlimited access aims to "level the playing field" in classrooms where there are "no guardrails." He also assured that the university's collaboration with OpenAI helps ensure student data remains private.
The Provost's Initiative on AI will also establish a "support network" for faculty. This network will assist them in adopting new tools and identifying best practices for AI use in the classroom. Gallimore emphasized the inevitability of AI integration.
"The reality is, [students] are using AI. They're going to use AI," Gallimore stated. "What we want to do is take the bull by the horns and do it in a way that's responsible, and that's why we made the decision."
Shared Governance Framework
Following the AI discussion, Gallimore outlined his "matrix framework" for shared governance. He described it as consisting of "rows"—standard committee and council work—and "columns"—where faculty directly engage with university leadership.
"The magic happens when you have a strong relationship between the columns and the rows," Gallimore explained. This relationship, he added, requires mutual trust, transparency, and clear communication. Both sides must understand their boundaries and work towards what is best for the university.
Gallimore pointed to past Provost’s initiatives, such as those on the Middle East and on Free Inquiry, Pluralism, and Belonging, as examples of successful faculty input. He noted these initiatives involved extensive "canvassing" through consultations with school deans and small group dinners with faculty members, ensuring broad engagement.
