How Teachers Feel About Students Using AI (Survey Results)

TL;DR

• Most professors (around 60-70%) now accept that AI is here to stay and are adjusting their teaching accordingly
• The biggest concern isn't AI itself — it's students using AI without actually learning the material
• Professors who've tried integrating AI into coursework are generally more positive than those who've banned it outright
• Communication is key — if you're upfront about how you use AI, most professors will work with you

---

You've probably wondered: does my professor actually care if I use AI? Are they going to fail me? Do they even know what ChatGPT is?

The answers vary wildly depending on who's teaching your class. But a growing body of surveys and research gives us a pretty clear picture of where the academic world stands on this.

Let's look at what the data actually says.

The Major Surveys: What Professors Are Telling Researchers

The Big Picture

Several large-scale surveys have examined faculty attitudes toward AI in education over the past couple of years, and the trends are clear:

Cengage's 2025 Faculty Survey found that:

• 72% of faculty believe AI will play a significant role in higher education
• 58% have already modified their assignments in response to AI
• 41% reported using AI tools themselves for course preparation
• Only 15% support a complete ban on student AI use

The Chronicle of Higher Education's 2025 poll reported:

• 67% of professors say they're "cautiously optimistic" about AI in education
• 23% remain strongly opposed to student AI use
• 10% are fully enthusiastic and actively integrating AI

EDUCAUSE's annual technology survey showed:

• Faculty AI adoption for their own work increased from 29% in 2024 to 54% in 2025
• Professors who use AI themselves are 3x more likely to permit student AI use

The bottom line? Most professors aren't anti-AI. But most aren't fully on board either. They're in this cautious middle ground where they see the potential but worry about the pitfalls.

The Three Professor Archetypes

Every student has encountered at least one of these:

The Integrator

Who they are: These professors actively incorporate AI into their coursework. They might assign AI-assisted projects, teach prompt engineering, or use AI demonstrations in class.

What they think: "AI is a tool. My job is to teach students to use it well."

How they handle academic integrity: They design assignments that work with AI rather than fighting against it. They grade critical thinking and original analysis over raw content generation.

What students should do: Be transparent about your AI use. Show your thinking process. These professors actually appreciate students who use AI thoughtfully.

The Pragmatist

Who they are: The majority. They know AI exists, they've updated their syllabi, and they're trying to figure out the right balance.

What they think: "I'm not banning it, but I need to make sure students are actually learning."

How they handle academic integrity: They've added AI policies to their syllabi with varying degrees of specificity. Many allow AI for research and brainstorming but not for drafting. Some require AI disclosure statements.

What students should do: Read the syllabus carefully. When in doubt, ask before using AI. A quick email asking "Is it okay if I use AI to help brainstorm thesis ideas?" goes a long way.

The Traditionalist

Who they are: Professors who see AI as a threat to genuine learning and academic integrity. Often (but not always) older faculty, and often in humanities departments.

What they think: "Students need to develop these skills themselves. AI shortcuts the learning process."

How they handle academic integrity: They ban AI outright, use detection tools, assign more in-class work, and may require oral defenses of written assignments.

What students should do: Respect their policy. Seriously. Even if you disagree, it's their classroom. Focus on developing your skills without AI for that class.

What Professors Are Actually Worried About

The concerns aren't unreasonable. Here's what keeps professors up at night:

Concern #1: Students Aren't Actually Learning

This is the big one. If students use AI to generate answers without understanding the underlying concepts, they pass the class without gaining the knowledge the class was supposed to provide.

A chemistry professor put it this way: "I can teach you to ask ChatGPT about reaction mechanisms. But if you can't reason through a novel mechanism on your own, you haven't learned chemistry."

This concern is valid. And it's the main reason tools like Gradily focus on explaining concepts step by step rather than just providing answers. The difference between using AI to learn and using AI to avoid learning is exactly what professors care about.

Concern #2: They Can't Tell AI Work from Student Work

AI detection tools exist (Turnitin, GPTZero, etc.), but professors know they're unreliable. False positives wrongly accuse honest students. False negatives let AI-generated work through.

This puts professors in an impossible position: they can't reliably enforce their own policies. Some have given up trying to detect AI and instead redesigned their assessments entirely.

Concern #3: Unequal Access Creates Unfair Advantages

Not all students have equal access to premium AI tools. Students with paid ChatGPT Plus subscriptions, Claude Pro access, or specialized tools like Gradily may have advantages over students using only free, limited tools.

Professors worry about this creating a two-tier system where wealthy students can essentially buy better homework assistance.

Concern #4: Critical Thinking Skills Are Declining

Some professors report that student work has become more generic since AI became widely available. Even when students aren't directly using AI, some faculty feel that the existence of AI has changed how students approach assignments — with less original thinking and more tendency to look for "the right answer."

Concern #5: They Don't Know Enough About AI Themselves

Here's a less-discussed concern: many professors feel unprepared to teach in an AI world. They didn't receive training on AI tools, they're not sure how to design AI-resistant assignments, and they're making policy on the fly.

This leads to inconsistent and sometimes unfair policies. One professor bans all AI; the professor next door requires it. Students are caught in the middle.

What Students Can Learn from This

Lesson 1: Communication Wins

The single most effective thing you can do as a student is communicate with your professors about AI. A quick conversation or email accomplishes several things:

• Shows you're being thoughtful about AI use (not trying to sneak something past them)
• Clarifies what's actually allowed in their specific class
• Often results in more flexibility than you'd expect
• Builds trust that protects you if questions come up later

Lesson 2: Show Your Process

Professors are more comfortable with AI use when they can see your thinking process. Ways to demonstrate this:

• Share your brainstorming notes and outlines
• Keep track of which ideas were yours vs. AI-assisted
• Turn in drafts along with final versions
• Write reflection notes about what you learned

If you used Gradily to understand a concept and then applied that understanding in your own writing, being transparent about that process actually impresses most professors.

Lesson 3: Know the Policy Before You Use the Tool

This sounds obvious, but an alarming number of students use AI without checking whether their professor allows it. Here's the thing: "I didn't know it wasn't allowed" is not a defense that works in academic integrity hearings.

Read the syllabus. Check your school's AI policy. Ask if it's unclear. Protect yourself.

Lesson 4: Different Classes, Different Rules

Even within the same school, policies vary dramatically by:

• Department (STEM tends to be more permissive than humanities)
• Professor preference (even within the same department)
• Assignment type (AI might be fine for homework but banned for exams)
• Course level (introductory courses are sometimes more restrictive)

Treat each class as having its own AI rules. Don't assume what's okay in your bio class is okay in your English class.

The Trend Is Clear: Integration, Not Prohibition

Despite the hand-wringing, the trend in higher education is clearly moving toward integration:

• More universities are creating official AI use guidelines that permit responsible use
• Professional development workshops on AI-integrated teaching are now common
• Academic conferences increasingly focus on teaching with AI rather than against it
• Accreditation bodies are starting to address AI competency in their standards

A 2025 report from the American Association of Colleges and Universities found that 78% of surveyed institutions either had or were developing institution-wide AI use policies. The majority leaned permissive with guardrails, not prohibitive.

This means the professors who are currently banning AI entirely are increasingly in the minority. The norm is shifting toward policies that say "here's how you can and can't use AI" rather than "don't use AI."

What This Means for You

Here's the practical takeaway: the academic world is moving toward responsible AI integration. Students who learn to use AI ethically and effectively now will be better positioned than those who either avoid it entirely or use it recklessly.

The professors who are most respected in this space aren't asking "should students use AI?" They're asking "how do we help students use AI in ways that actually promote learning?"

That's a question worth thinking about. Because when your professor sees you using AI to deepen your understanding rather than shortcut it, that changes the conversation entirely.

Be the student who uses AI the way professors hope students use it: as a learning tool that makes you smarter, not a crutch that makes you lazier.

Your professors are watching. And most of them are rooting for you to get it right.