Graphic by Brianna Stockwell ’28
By Gianna Akter ’29
S&E Writer
Schools across the globe have seen an increase in the use of generative AI with the rise of models such as Claude and ChatGPT. From professors themselves to the student body, many have become reliant on these AI tools to assist with grading or “brainstorming” ideas. The rise of generative AI has brought with it questions: If, when and how should AI be utilized in higher education?
At Mount Holyoke College, many students have voiced opposition to the introduction of AI, such as through a student flyer posted on campus. However, many professors have chosen to allow AI usage through the implementation of tools such as Gemini, which Mount Holyoke has enabled in student accounts. The College's official policy for the “ethical use of AI” acknowledges concerns over its implementation in education — though allows its usage so long as it supports human values, avoids bias, discrimination and plagiarism while also perpetuating fairness, equity and integrity. This also means each professor can mitigate its use in accordance with their individual policies, sometimes prohibiting it from classes altogether.
Amid debate about whether AI should be used or allowed in academic settings, it may be helpful to consider what drives students to use AI for their assignments. Academic stress has been shown to lead to increased dependency on generative AI tools in higher education, according to Li Zhang and Yunxue Deng in “Stressed minds, smart tools: How academic expectation stress fuels generative AI dependency in Chinese higher education.”
This may be related to a phenomenon called “cognitive offloading,” where people use external tools to reduce the mental effort required for a task or assignment or to free up room to concentrate on other tasks, according to an article by the American Psychological Association. The temptation to offload using AI when academics get overwhelming can be ever-present, whether that be from a hefty work schedule, rigorous coursework, or something else entirely.
Mount Holyoke student Erin Mihok ’29 observed how high school students in the summer program she worked at thought about AI, saying, “I noticed that a few of [the highschoolers] were disappointed that we had a 'no AI' policy. Something I’ve heard echoed by many students … is the reluctance to spend time on tasks or assignments when AI could just do it for them.”
While many have argued that AI has become an encouragement for students to cheat, according to Artificial Intelligence Governance Professional Matthew Wemyss, researchers have found that AI actually has not affected the cheating rates among students; it has just become another method. Thus, many of the reasons why students choose to cheat using AI are the same reasons students choose to cheat using other methods.
A 2021 meta-analysis by researchers Megan Krou, Carlton Fong, and Meagan Hoff found that students who were more extrinsically motivated, meaning they acted in pursuit of good grades or other external rewards, demonstrated higher levels of academic dishonesty.
Meanwhile, students who were more intrinsically motivated, meaning they acted in pursuit of self-satisfaction or based on their individual interests, demonstrated lower levels of academic dishonesty. These findings could suggest that academic dishonesty, including the unauthorized use of AI, could be decreased in the classroom by fostering an academic environment where students are encouraged to prioritize intrinsic motivations like content mastery and personal growth, rather than grades in an environment where each student gets a learning experience that is individualized and personal.
As discussion continues over whether AI should have a place in higher education, and, if not, what should be done to limit AI usage, it’s important to acknowledge where students that utilize generative AI may be coming from. For students that may be struggling with stress, overwhelm or pressure to succeed academically, Mount Holyoke offers various support systems on campus, such as wellness initiative groups, office hours, peer study groups and campus tutors.
Quill Nishi-Leonard ’27 contributed fact-checking.
