What is it about?
Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT can support students with learning, writing, and understanding difficult concepts. However, they can also be used to complete academic work that students are expected to do themselves. This study explores why students sometimes cross that line. We examined how students’ attitudes toward AI, the ways they justify its use, and the clarity of university rules influence their decisions. We also explored the experiences of students and instructors in a Saudi university. Our findings show that students’ use of AI is not simply a matter of following or breaking rules. Language difficulties, peer behaviour, personal attitudes, and unclear or inconsistent guidance from instructors can all influence how students use AI.
Featured Image
Photo by Numan Ali on Unsplash
Why is it important?
Universities around the world are trying to decide how generative AI should be used in teaching and assessment. Simply banning AI or issuing general rules may not be enough. Our findings suggest that students need clear, practical, and consistent guidance about what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable AI use. Universities should also consider why students turn to AI, particularly when they face language or academic challenges. The study can help universities develop more realistic AI policies, design assessments that value the learning process rather than just the final product, and promote academic integrity while still allowing students to benefit from AI as a legitimate learning tool.
Perspectives
We became interested in this topic because generative AI has changed academic work remarkably quickly, while university policies and classroom practices are still developing. As educators, we could see that the distinction between using AI as a helpful learning tool and allowing it to replace a student’s own work was not always clear. We wanted to understand the issue from both sides: what influences students’ decisions and how instructors perceive those decisions. One of the most important insights for us was that inappropriate AI use cannot always be explained simply by dishonesty or an intention to cheat. Students may be responding to unclear expectations, language difficulties, peer practices, or different messages from different instructors. We hope this research encourages universities to move beyond simple rules about whether AI is allowed or prohibited and instead provide clear, consistent, and educationally meaningful guidance that helps students use AI responsibly.
Dr Zilal Meccawy
King Abdulaziz University
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Motivational and normative drivers of generative AI substitution in academic work: a mixed-methods study from Saudi higher education, International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), August 2026, Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science,
DOI: 10.11591/ijere.v15i4.38745.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
