Keeping a ‘pulse’ on university AI readiness

It’s no secret that generative AI is reshaping the educational landscape worldwide. 

Across higher education, faculty and students face a precise balancing act: How do they preserve the core value of learning while preparing for a future in which AI continues to evolve? Recent surveys illustrate the challenge, finding that just 19% of US students feel confident that their program is current and relevant, and 73% of faculty globally worry that AI use inhibits learning.

Against that backdrop, UT San Antonio is listening closely to how faculty and students are experiencing AI on campus. 

Through RowdyPulse, a series of short recurring surveys, UT San Antonio Academic Innovation is gathering feedback from faculty and students to better understand their experiences, questions, concerns, and needs around AI. 

It’s part of UT San Antonio’s larger commitment to AI innovation, including the Provost’s AI initiative, which is charged with helping the campus learn this widespread technology while preserving confidence, competence, and integrity. Departments across the university are collaborating in the effort.

So far, the survey shows promising results, with the campus steadily moving from uncertainty toward AI readiness as experimentation increases and expectations for use get clearer.

By the Numbers

• 2,000+ faculty and student responses collected
• 90% of faculty say AI expectations are clearly communicated in their courses
• 57% of faculty and 51% of students see positive potential in AI
• 49% of faculty plan to use AI this semester
• Guidelines and best practices are the most requested AI support resource

“RowdyPulse gives us a way to keep a continuous conversation going with faculty and students,” said Melissa Vito, vice provost for Academic Innovation at UT San Antonio. “We are not treating this as a one-time question or a one-time training. We want to continuously understand what people are experiencing, and use what we learn to make supportive decisions grounded in feedback.” 

Across RowdyPulse surveys conducted between November 2025 and April 2026, more than 2,000 faculty and students shared their experiences with generative AI, including perspectives on adoption, expectations, trust, comfort, and support needs.

Over the six-month period, responses suggest a campus becoming more familiar with AI and more confident in navigating its role in teaching and learning. Expectations are becoming clearer, use cases more practical, and respondents are identifying the kinds of support that would help them engage with AI more responsibly and effectively.

Drawing clearer lines around AI use
Clarity is a key word. As the use of AI has increased, many instructors have wondered how to determine expectations for use and communicate them clearly. Should students be able to use AI to brainstorm ideas? Revise a draft? Generate code? Where does learning end and academic misconduct begin?

The survey shows faculty are starting to answer those questions. Between January and April 2026, the share of faculty who felt expectations for acceptable and unacceptable use of generative AI were clearly communicated in their courses increased from 77% to 90%. During that same period, the share of faculty who felt their course expectations were unclear dropped from 17% to just 1%.

On the student side, there was a decrease in the same sentiment over time, but the picture was still strong, with 74% of respondents in April agreeing that expectations were clearly communicated in their courses.

Students also named specific areas where more clarity would help. Some asked how to reference or cite AI-assisted work properly, and others wanted a clear course-level disclaimer stating whether AI is allowed or prohibited from the outset.

Common ground between faculty and students
RowdyPulse also surfaced unexpected common ground between faculty and students. While conversations about AI in education often focus on tension between the two groups, the survey found that both are asking many of the same questions about when, where, and how AI use is acceptable.

In April, 57% of faculty respondents and 51% of student respondents agreed that, when used appropriately, generative AI has the potential to positively support teaching, learning, research, and creative activities.

One respondent described AI as "a support tool to better understand complex concepts by offering different perspectives and explanations."

“AI can be very beneficial when used properly,” another student shared. 

That phrase — “when used properly” — is key as faculty and students both try to understand what appropriate use looks like.

In January, only 38% of faculty and 36% of students agreed that they felt comfortable engaging with generative AI without undue fear of negative consequences.

One student put it plainly: “How can we be certain that the use of generative AI will not be flagged as negatively using AI on an assignment?”

Another student added: “Like any other tool in the correct hands and used properly it can be helpful, but it also can be a crutch.”

For Academic Innovation, finding these overlaps is useful in showing where faculty and students can engage in a shared conversation focused on what acceptable use looks like.

How faculty and students are using AI now
The RowdyPulse survey also asked respondents how they are currently using generative AI.
Among faculty respondents, the most common uses were revising or improving their own work at 42%, brainstorming ideas at 41%, drafting content such as responses, assignments, or materials at 33%, and using AI as a thinking partner across multiple steps at 30%.

"I have found  generative AI to be helpful as a support tool to better understand complex concepts by offering different perspectives and/or explanations,” one faculty member reported. 
Another said they use it “to typeset previously handwritten materials.”

Students reported similar habits. 42% said they use AI for brainstorming ideas, 35% use it for revising or improving their own work, and 33% use it for checking or verifying information.

One student shared how AI helped them study using a technique called priming, where AI can generate cues that help the brain process and retain new information. Others said AI helps them generate practice problems or create essay outlines to get started. 

Responses across both groups show AI being used across different stages of academic work, from getting momentum on heavy cognitive work to testing language, improving drafts, and working through ideas.

For some, familiarity is growing over time. 

“I am a new AI user,” one respondent shared. “It was confusing getting used to at first but today, I am able to access and use AI confidently. [It is] a great resource to use for school work and personal work/life.”

Others are choosing not to use it at all. In April, 32% of faculty and 43% of students said they do not currently use AI. Some of that hesitation reflects uncertainty around coursework, while some reflects broader concerns about the technology itself.

While some respondents cited concerns about environmental impact, others said they were still evaluating how AI fits into their academic and professional lives.

The range of attitudes captured in the survey sentiments gives Academic Innovation a clearer picture of the community it is serving: early adopters, cautious experimenters, skeptical observers, and people still deciding whether AI has a place in their lives. 


The kinds of support people want
When faculty were asked what type of support would be most helpful to improve their AI literacy, the top answer was guidelines and best practices at 40%, followed by examples from peers at 35%.

32% of surveyed students also identified guidelines and best practices as a desired resource, 23% pointed to hands-on practice, and 22% selected workshops

The responses show that above all, respondents want practical help and a shared understanding of AI’s place in academic settings. As responsible AI use continues to command a worldwide conversation, and students think about their future in a world where AI exists, maintaining that shared understanding will remain paramount. 

Rita Mitra, professor of practice in information systems and cybersecurity, said the work ahead must keep people and judgment at the center.

“We need to build trust among faculty and students, not in the AI models themselves, but in our commitment to integrating human judgment and transparency as keystones when learning about and using AI ethically,” Mitra said.

From experimentation to intentional use
While areas for improvement remain, the RowdyPulse results as a whole show the campus becoming more familiar with AI and building the conditions for responsible adoption. Earlier surveys showed a higher degree of uncertainty about AI’s role in teaching and learning, including when its use is appropriate, how expectations should be communicated, and how faculty and students can make informed decisions about tools with academic, ethical, and human implications.

This feedback can inform the next wave of university AI resources, including workshops, classroom guidance, discipline-aware examples, and student-facing materials that support informed choices.

As AI becomes more common in classrooms, workplaces, and everyday life, understanding how faculty and students experience these technologies will become increasingly important. Faculty and students are encouraged to participate in future RowdyPulse surveys and share the questions they want Academic Innovation to explore in the future.