Academic Jobs - Home of Higher Ed Logo

Majority of UK Students Report They Would Not Use AI in Assessments When Forbidden, New Study Finds

Post a Story
372views
Native advertising — guest articles from $400See packages
a man standing in the middle of a crowd of people
Photo by Elena Jiang on Unsplash

Study Highlights Student Honesty on AI in UK Higher Education

A recent survey of more than 6,000 students across seven UK universities has revealed that the majority of those using generative artificial intelligence tools claim they would refrain from employing them in assessments when explicitly instructed not to do so. The findings, led by researchers at Edinburgh Napier University, challenge assumptions about widespread academic misconduct involving AI and point to a more nuanced picture of student behaviour in an era of rapidly evolving technology.

The study, conducted in collaboration with independent researcher Stephen Gow and academics Sam Illingworth, Khristin Fabian and Callum Goddard, polled students at institutions in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It forms part of a preprint paper exploring trust, motivations and capabilities around AI use. Researchers noted that while generative AI is embedded in everyday technology for many, a significant portion of students—around 32 per cent—report not using it at all in their studies.

Key Findings on Compliance and Usage Patterns

Among students who incorporate AI into their degree work, 67 per cent indicated they would not use the technology to assist with part or all of an assessment if forbidden by their instructors. This suggests a strong inclination towards following explicit rules. However, the data also shows variation: 5.2 per cent of habitual users admitted to using generative AI most of the time or always, even when aware of prohibitions.

Usage rates differ by demographics. Men reported higher rates of regular use at 59 per cent, compared with 44 per cent of women. International students, particularly non-native English speakers, emerged as frequent users, with 32 per cent relying on the tools daily and 34 per cent weekly. The survey highlights that many students view AI as a support tool rather than a replacement for their own work, with more than half expressing negative sentiments about the accuracy of AI outputs while 76 per cent felt confident in their prompting skills.

Broader Context of AI Adoption in UK Universities

Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT have become commonplace in higher education since their widespread availability. Complementary research from the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) in its Student Generative AI Survey 2026 found near-universal adoption, with 95 per cent of full-time UK undergraduates reporting use in at least one way and 94 per cent using it to help with assessed work. This contrasts with the Edinburgh Napier findings on prohibited use, underscoring that context—such as explicit instructions—matters greatly.

UK universities have responded variably. Many have developed policies ranging from outright bans in certain assessments to encouraged integration with disclosure requirements. The sector lacks a uniform approach, leading to student uncertainty. Experts emphasise the need for clearer guidance to support academic integrity while preparing graduates for an AI-influenced workforce.

man and woman talking at the balcony

Photo by Yolanda Suen on Unsplash

Implications for Academic Integrity and Policy

The results offer reassurance to administrators concerned about cheating but also highlight ongoing challenges. A small minority of habitual users continue to disregard rules, raising questions about enforcement and detection tools. Universities are increasingly returning to in-person exams or revising assessment designs to reduce opportunities for misuse.

Researchers stress the importance of involving students as co-creators of policy rather than after-the-fact focus groups. This collaborative approach could address fears around accuracy, ethics and future employability. The study notes growing signs of an AI backlash among those who see ethical concerns or threats to traditional skills.

Perspectives from Students and Staff

Student voices in the research reveal a desire for consistency, transparency and fairness. Many understand the evolving nature of the technology but seek practical help in navigating its role in studies and careers. Staff perspectives often focus on balancing innovation with integrity, with some institutions piloting AI literacy programmes.

Non-native English speakers' higher reliance underscores equity issues, as these tools can aid language support but also risk over-dependence if not guided properly. Institutions are urged to consider diverse student needs in policy development.

Future Outlook and Recommendations

As AI capabilities advance, UK higher education faces opportunities to lead in ethical integration. Linking approaches across schools and universities could create seamless transitions for students. The preprint authors express hope that dialogue will shift focus from cheating narratives to supportive frameworks.

Actionable steps include embedding critical AI literacy into curricula, standardising disclosure practices and investing in staff development. These measures could enhance student confidence and institutional trust while mitigating risks.

a large brick building with a clock tower

Photo by Winston Tjia on Unsplash

Impact on Careers and Graduate Employability

For academics and administrators, the findings signal a need to adapt teaching and assessment practices. PhD-track job seekers and early-career researchers may benefit from demonstrating AI literacy in applications. Employers increasingly value skills in responsible AI use, making university experiences pivotal.

Resources on career development in higher education can provide further guidance for those navigating these changes.

Portrait of Gabrielle Ryan
About the author

Gabrielle RyanView author

Academic Jobs In House Author

Discussion

Sort by:

Be the first to comment on this article!

You

You’ll be asked to sign in before your comment is posted.

New0 comments

Join the conversation!

Add your comments now!

Have your say

Engagement level

Browse by Faculty

Browse by Subject

Frequently Asked Questions

📊What does the Edinburgh Napier University study reveal about AI use?

The study of more than 6,000 students found that 67 per cent of those using AI would not employ it for assessments if forbidden. Around 32 per cent reported no AI use at all in studies.

🔍How many students admit to using AI despite prohibitions?

Only 5.2 per cent of habitual users said they use generative AI most of the time or always even when not permitted.

👥Which groups use AI more frequently in UK universities?

Men reported 59 per cent regular use versus 44 per cent for women. Non-native English speakers showed the highest frequency, with 32 per cent daily users.

🏛️What are UK universities doing about AI policies?

Policies vary widely, with some banning AI in assessments and others encouraging disclosure. The sector lacks a shared approach, leading to student uncertainty.

📈How does this compare to HEPI survey findings?

HEPI's 2026 survey found 95 per cent of undergraduates use AI in some way and 94 per cent for assessed work, showing high adoption but the Napier study focuses on rule compliance.

💡What recommendations do researchers make?

Involve students in policy co-creation, provide consistent guidance, and link approaches across education levels to support AI literacy and integrity.

🌍Are there equity concerns with AI use?

Yes, international and non-native English speakers rely more heavily, raising questions about access, support and potential over-dependence.

✍️How might this affect assessment design?

Universities may increase in-person exams or redesign tasks to emphasise original thinking while teaching responsible AI use.

📝What is the preprint paper's main conclusion?

For those using it, the majority of students are honest the majority of the time and try to avoid submitting direct generative AI outputs.

🔗Where can I read more about the study?

The findings are detailed in a Times Higher Education article and the preprint on OSF at osf.io/preprints/edarxiv/bsx47_v1.