When artificial intelligence stormed into classrooms last year, it caught many institutions flat-footed. Now, educators are sending a clear message to their administrators: we need guidelines, and we need them now.
A revealing new survey from learning technology company D2L shows that 75% of higher education staff want well-defined institutional policies on AI. The finding highlights the urgent tension between embracing innovative teaching tools and establishing responsible guardrails around this rapidly evolving technology.
“Faculty are caught in a difficult position,” explains Dr. Lena Rodriguez, an educational technology researcher at the University of British Columbia. “They recognize AI’s potential to transform learning experiences but lack institutional frameworks to guide implementation. It’s like being asked to drive a new vehicle without knowing the rules of the road.”
The survey, which gathered responses from educators across North America, reveals a profession grappling with practical questions: When is AI use appropriate for students? What constitutes academic dishonesty in an age of AI writing assistants? How should faculty incorporate these tools into their teaching?
This policy vacuum isn’t just creating anxiety—it’s slowing adoption of potentially valuable educational technologies. Among respondents, only 38% reported that their institutions have implemented AI guidelines, leaving the majority operating in uncertain territory.
For those institutions that have developed policies, approaches vary widely. Some have taken a restrictive stance, limiting or banning AI use in assignments. Others have embraced a more permissive approach, encouraging experimentation while requiring transparency when AI tools assist with coursework.
“The most successful policies we’re seeing strike a balance,” notes education technology consultant Maria Chen. “They acknowledge AI is here to stay while establishing clear boundaries that protect academic integrity and ensure students still develop critical thinking skills.”
The challenges extend beyond policy development. The survey also found significant knowledge gaps, with 42% of respondents reporting they don’t fully understand how AI could support their teaching.
This knowledge deficit points to another pressing need: professional development. Faculty can’t be expected to effectively integrate tools they don’t understand or haven’t been trained to use. Several pioneering institutions have recognized this reality and launched AI literacy programs specifically designed for educators.
Ryerson University’s Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, for instance, now offers monthly workshops where faculty can explore tools like ChatGPT in a supportive environment. “We’ve seen tremendous interest,” says the center’s director. “Our educators want to understand these tools both to guide students and to enhance their own teaching.”
The survey results also challenge the perception that resistance to AI stems primarily from technophobia among older faculty. Instead, the data suggests educators across age demographics recognize AI’s potential value but want thoughtful implementation.
“Most faculty aren’t saying ‘no’ to AI—they’re saying ‘not yet’ or ‘not like this,'” explains Dr. James Williams, who studies technology adoption in higher education. “They want meaningful input into how these tools reshape their teaching environments.”
Beyond academic integrity concerns, educators also worry about equity implications. AI tools often require reliable internet access and sometimes subscription fees, potentially disadvantaging students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Comprehensive policies must address these access issues to prevent widening educational divides.
The clock is ticking for institutions to respond. As AI tools become more sophisticated and accessible, the absence of clear guidelines creates risk. Students may inadvertently violate academic standards, faculty may miss opportunities to enhance learning, and institutions may find themselves playing catch-up to technological change rather than shaping it.
“This isn’t just about policing student behavior,” Rodriguez emphasizes. “It’s about reimagining education for an AI-augmented world. That requires thoughtful policies developed with input from all stakeholders.”
The survey findings should serve as a wake-up call for higher education administrators. Faculty aren’t asking to avoid AI—they’re asking for leadership on how to navigate it effectively. As colleges and universities develop these frameworks, the most successful will likely balance innovation with appropriate guardrails, ensuring AI enhances rather than undermines educational objectives.
For institutions still developing their approach, the message from educators is clear: the time for comprehensive AI policies isn’t sometime in the future. It’s now.
