Understanding the Generative AI Divide: Faculty and Student Perspectives in Higher Education

Authors

  • Christine DeStefano
  • Joshua Hackney
  • Patsy Moskal University of Central Florida

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v30i2.5911

Keywords:

Generative AI, higher education, faculty development, student learning, educational policy, artificial intelligence

Abstract

As generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools rapidly transform educational landscapes, higher education institutions face the critical challenge of developing effective policies and guidelines for their integration. However, little empirical research has examined actual GenAI usage patterns, perceptions, knowledge assessments, and training needs among faculty and students in U.S. universities. This study presents findings from a comprehensive survey of 3,164 students and 166 faculty members at a large R1 university in the southeastern United States. Results indicate that while 88% of students are familiar with GenAI concepts, only about a quarter currently use these tools for academic work, and 76% have received no formal classroom instruction on their use. Faculty demonstrate comparable familiarity but report substantial support needs, including assistance with AI-resistant assessments and effective integration strategies. The findings highlight a “familiarity-usage paradox” and underscore the need for institutional policies, faculty development, and clearer guidance to support effective and ethical GenAI integration in higher education.

Author Biography

Patsy Moskal, University of Central Florida

Patsy D. Moskal is the Director of Digital Learning Impact Evaluation for the Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness at the University of Central Florida (UCF). Since 1996, she has served as the liaison for faculty research of distributed learning and teaching effectiveness at UCF. Patsy specializes in statistics, graphics, program evaluation, and applied data analysis. She has extensive experience in research methods including survey development, interviewing, and conducting focus groups and frequently serves as an evaluation consultant to school districts, and industry and government organizations. She has also served as a co-principal investigator on grants including the National Science Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and Gates-Foundation-funded Next Generation Learning Challenges (NGLC). She frequently serves as a reviewer for conferences and journals and also for Department of Education and National Science Foundation SBIR/STTR proposals. Patsy has co-authored numerous articles and chapters on blended and online learning and frequently presents on these topics. In 2011 she was named a Sloan-C Fellow “In recognition of her groundbreaking work in the assessment of the impact and efficacy of online and blended learning. Patsy's most recent book, with co-authors, Dziuban, Picciano and Graham, Conducting research in online and blended learning environments: New pedagogical frontiers was published in 2015.

References

Angehr, E., Bloem, M., Howell, J., & Walton Radford, A. (2026, February). College faculty perceptions of generative artificial intelligence in higher education. College Board Research. https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/airesearchbrief3_vf.pdf

Blomquist, J. K., Alderden, J., Llewellyn, S., Haynes, M., & Dworak, E. (2025). Student and faculty perceptions and use of generative artificial intelligence in nursing education. Journal of Nursing Education, 64(8), 519–522. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20250312-06

Divekar, R. R., Gonzalez, L., Guerra, S., Boos, N., & Divekar, R. (2025). Can generative AI replace search engines for learning? Understanding student preferences, use and perceived proficiency in using AI. TechTrends, 69, 1040–1055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-025-01095-9

Faraon, M., Rönkkö, K., Milrad, M., & Tsui, E. (2025). International perspectives on artificial intelligence in higher education: An explorative study of students' intention to use ChatGPT across the Nordic countries and the USA. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 17835–17880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13492-x

Golding, J. M., Lippert, A., Neuschatz, J. S., Salomon, I., & Burke, K. (2025). Generative AI and college students: Use and perceptions. Teaching of Psychology, 52(3), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283241280350

Hazari, S. (2025). Marketing students' perceptions towards ChatGPT: An AI-assisted thematic analysis. Marketing Education Review, 35(3), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2025.2470198

Kim, J., Klopfer, M., Grohs, J. R., Eldardiry, H., Weichert, J., Cox, L. A., II, & Pike, D. (2025). Examining faculty and student perceptions of generative AI in university courses. Innovative Higher Education, 50, 1281–1313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-024-09774-w

Lund, B. D., Lee, T. H., Mannuru, N. R., & Arutla, N. (2025). AI and academic integrity: Exploring student perceptions and implications for higher education. Journal of Academic Ethics, 23, 1545–1565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09613-3

Malik, A., Khan, M. L., Hussain, K., Qadir, J., & Tarhini, A. (2025). AI in higher education: Unveiling academicians’ perspectives on teaching, research, and ethics in the age of ChatGPT. Interactive Learning Environments, 33(3), 2390–2406. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2409407

Maxwell, D., Oyarzun, B., Kim, S., & Bong, J. Y. (2025). Generative AI in higher education: Demographic differences in student perceived readiness, benefits, and challenges. TechTrends, 69, 1248–1259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-025-01109-6

Onal, S., Kulavuz-Onal, D., & Childers, M. (2025). Patterns of ChatGPT usage and perceived benefits on academic performance across disciplines: Insights from a survey of higher education students in the United States. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 54(1), 34–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395251341214

Saeli, H., Ringer, J., Mayer, C., Cheney, M. B., & Duncan, G. (2026). Parallel surveys of GenAI and writing: Students' perspectives and instructors' perception of student perspectives in writing-intensive courses. Written Communication, 43(1), 196–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883251372207

Shata, A., & Hartley, K. (2025). Artificial intelligence and communication technologies in academia: Faculty perceptions and the adoption of generative AI. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00511-7

Slepchuk, A. N., & John, J. (2025). Exploring perceptions of AI in the marketing classroom: A stimuli-organism-response framework. Marketing Education Review, 35(4), 280-288. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2025.2478869

Stone, B. W. (2025). Generative AI in higher education: Uncertain students, ambiguous use cases, and mercenary perspectives. Teaching of Psychology, 52(3), 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283241305398

Walker, A. P., Banks, L., Gibbs, D. J., Lee, H., & Lee, H. Y. (2026). Generative artificial intelligence use among social work students: The role of perceived utility and knowledge. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 23(1), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/26408066.2025.2596186

Wilson, K., Gay, K., Barth, D., Chelf, C., Ford, C., & Zone, E. (2025). Student engagement and AI: Research overview and findings. The Online Learning Consortium. https://www.d2l.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/OLC-Report-2025.pdf

Downloads

Published

2026-06-01

How to Cite

Christine DeStefano, Joshua Hackney, & Moskal, P. (2026). Understanding the Generative AI Divide: Faculty and Student Perspectives in Higher Education. Online Learning, 30(2), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v30i2.5911

Issue

Vol. 30 No. 2 (2026): Online Learning

Section

Higher Education in an AI-Transformed World

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Patsy Moskal; Christine DeStefano, Joshua Hackney

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.

Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions