Students weigh GenAI use against ownership of their work

Updated Sep 28, 2026

When a student says AI saves time, ask what they still want to do for themselves. Margaret Bearman and colleagues examine students' relationships with GenAI in Higher Education Research & Development. For us, the practical question is how to preserve the distinction between useful assistance and ownership of learning when interpreting student feedback.

What the researchers asked

The researchers explored how students positioned GenAI within their studies. They used reflexive thematic analysis of 20 focus groups involving 79 students across four Australian universities, combining discussion transcripts with written Padlet contributions.

For UK Student Experience teams, use the study to plan questions about local experience. Ask about the task, the available guidance and what the student wanted to achieve before deciding which institutional team should respond.

Key findings

Efficiency was only part of the experience. Accounts included relief at completing work faster and frustration when GenAI disappointed.

Guidance left room for guesswork. Students described uncertainty about permitted use and anxiety about institutional consequences.

Ownership mattered alongside permission. Students wanted work to remain their own, while some worried about becoming dependent on GenAI.

This exploratory study does not estimate prevalence or establish causal effects. Focus-group dynamics could shape contributions, and the authors could not infer demographic associations.

Turn the findings into questions for your own institution

Our suggested application is to review AI-related comments for the decision each comment raises. Does the student need an explanation of a rule, help evaluating a tool's output, or a discussion about developing their own capabilities? Allow a comment to raise several issues. This gives quality and learning-support teams a specific question to investigate.

Check reported instructions against the relevant assessment brief and its date. If a student describes conflicting advice, record which explanations need reconciling and ask the course team to clarify them. The briefing on Glasgow's assessment-specific GenAI guidance provides a separate institutional example to consider. The aim is a response tied to the actual task and guidance students encountered.

Invite students to help interpret anonymised examples before finalising the themes. Ask what they would want to understand or practise without assistance, and which forms of support would help them do that. Treat these as proposed discussion prompts, not a questionnaire validated by this paper. Record disagreements as well as shared priorities so the report preserves the choices students want to discuss.

Give each agreed action an owner and a review point. After changing guidance, invite students unfamiliar with the revision to explain how they would use it for a sample task. Ask what remains uncertain and whether they can find someone to discuss it with. This creates a concrete way to review the response without assuming that publishing new wording has resolved the concern.

FAQ

Q: How can we start applying this to student survey comments?

A: Begin with a manageable set of comments and draft category definitions with students and relevant staff. Try distinguishing instruction clarity, access to advice and confidence in independent learning. Keep ambiguous examples for discussion and check whether the categories capture what respondents meant before extending the analysis. These are our proposed local review steps.

Q: What about comparing courses or identifying misconduct?

A: Define the purpose of the comparison first. Check question wording, respondent coverage and assessment context before interpreting differences. A comment about uncertainty should prompt clarification; it cannot, by itself, establish that a student breached a rule. Use the student comment analysis governance checklist to agree access, reporting and review responsibilities.

Q: What does this mean for student voice beyond another survey?

A: Give students a role in deciding which concerns need action and in reviewing the response. Explain what they can influence, who decides and how disagreements will be recorded. Our guide to feedback, representation and partnership can help define that role. A useful next step is a shared decision about guidance or support, followed by a visible explanation to those who contributed.

References

[Paper Source]: Margaret Bearman, T. Fawns, T. Corbin, M. Henderson, Y. Liang, G. Oberg, J. Walton and K. E. Matthews. "Time, emotions and moral judgements: how university students position GenAI within their study"

DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2025.2580616

Published online: 11 November 2025. Published in volume 45, issue 4, 2026.