Nursing students and faculty report concerns that AI use may weaken critical thinking, enable plagiarism and misinformation, and create unequal access¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Participants reported critical-thinking reduction, plagiarism risk, misinformation, and access inequality as barriers to AI use in nursing education. → Arzu Akbaba 2026

Evidence¶

Arzu Akbaba 2026¶

Arzu Akbaba, Afra Calik Kus. (2026). Nursing students’ and faculty experiences with artificial intelligence in education: a qualitative study using the technology acceptance model. BMC Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-026-04986-1

q2 · i? · qualitative · r3

Qualitative interview findings from the discussion of concerns; faculty worried about "excessive reliance on AI", and students reported inaccurate pharmacological information, raising patient-safety concerns. Participants also cited premium-access costs creating inequality.

"Faculty members often expressed concern that excessive reliance on AI could weaken analytical reasoning and academic integrity. Students reported finding inaccurate information, especially about pharmacological content."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Infrastructure barriers — limited internet speed, connectivity problems and lack of technical support — hinder effective AI use in nursing education institutions — related
• The review identifies data privacy, algorithmic fairness, academic integrity, and unequal access as interconnected ethical concerns in AI-supported mathematics education — related
• Academic integrity, professional development, and equity concerns about AI span all surveyed units, though interpreted differently — related
• Academic integrity concerns were the third most prevalent pedagogical limitation, reported in 20 of 54 studies (37%) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• AI in adult education risks reinforcing existing inequalities via the digital divide, particularly for rural, low-income, and marginalized learners — related
• Staff raised equity concerns that students who pay for upgraded GenAI tools gain an advantage over peers using free versions — related
• Economic, educational, and geopolitical inequalities structure differential access to AI capabilities, reproducing an epistemic hierarchy — related
• Qualitative findings identified plagiarism, student overreliance on AI, and a barrier of reconciling institutional policy gaps with personal ethical values — related
• Faculty members and students anticipate AI will transform education and professions, sharing concerns that excessive dependence could weaken cognitive skills — related
• Structured integration of AI can enhance students' digital literacy, content retention, and critical thinking skills in the academic context — reports the opposite
• Faculty members and students identify both user-related and algorithm-related ethical risks in AI use in education — related
• Faculty concerns centered on academic integrity (80%) and student over-reliance on AI (70%), and their most requested development topic was AI ethics and academic integrity (70%) — related
• Equitable access emerged as a prominent governance theme, with one-third of panelists explicitly mentioning equity or inclusion — related
• Teachers report concerns about infrastructure, reliability, age appropriateness, teacher competence, and student over-reliance on AI — related
• AI in education poses challenges across three interrelated domains: knowledge itself, the process of knowing, and the socio-environmental impact of knowledge production — a broader claim this one bears on
• Nursing academics hold divergent attitudes toward GenAI, from scepticism to pragmatic acceptance, and worry it may replace rather than support student learning — related
• Nursing academics fear GenAI overreliance undermines critical thinking, knowledge translation and graduates' readiness for safe clinical practice — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Institutional barriers to AI integration — ethics concerns, insufficient training, policy gaps, and infrastructure limits — are widespread and co-occurring — related
• Students raised ethical concerns about GenAI-assisted data comic creation, most frequently misinformation, bias, ownership, and reduced trustworthiness — related
• GenAI-mediated digital inequality in higher education extends beyond access to tool capability, skills, and pedagogical support — related
• University academic staff express substantial concerns about academic integrity, ethics, and erosion of skills such as critical thinking and creativity in relation to GenAI. — a broader claim this one bears on
• Staff highlight equity concerns about student access to and proficiency with GenAI tools and digital literacy, and are uncertain about staff responsibilities in training students. — related
• Over-reliance on GAI risks weakening teaching and social presence and depriving students of foundational skill development — related
• Educator- and institutional-level challenges include curricular misalignment, need for teacher mediation, unequal access, privacy concerns, academic integrity risks, and algorithmic bias — a broader claim this one bears on
• Engineering faculty report reluctant engagement with GenAI, concerns about cognitive offloading, and frustration with uncoordinated institutional policy — related
• The educational value of GAI is contingent on pedagogical integration, not on the technology itself — related
• Faculty observed that students engage shallowly with AI-generated content without structure, concluding productive use must be modeled — related
• Learning Quality & Cognitive Dependency discourse is heavily faculty-driven (Fac% 82.3), concentrated in K-12 and professor communities — related
• In higher education, the purported Silicon Valley revolution is undermined by detrimental effects on academic integrity and erosion of evidence-based pedagogical practices, compounded by the prevailing crisis of higher education — related
• Integrating AI in CS assessment raises concerns about academic integrity, algorithmic bias, transparency, and ethical evaluation — related
• Common risks of AI integration in nursing education include technological inequities, faculty preparedness gaps, and ethical concerns around privacy and bias — related
• Intensive LLM use in educational contexts may lead to an accumulation of cognitive debt that weakens critical thinking and epistemic ownership — related
• AI literacy and formal AI training remain low among nursing and health-professions students, though attitudes are largely positive — related
• Teachers express concern that student overreliance on AI may degrade independent thinking and hands-on scientific skills — related
• Teacher educators show shallow understanding of GenAI tools and gaps in aligning AI use with pedagogical goals — related
• Ethics, privacy, bias, over-reliance, accuracy, usability and cost are key challenges AI use poses for learner satisfaction and engagement — related
• Students express concerns about GenAI, with non-users (never/rarely) significantly more concerned than other users, and concerns uncorrelated with knowledge — related
• Documented GenAI-related challenges to active learning include cognitive debt, metacognitive laziness, unreflected acceptance, and overreliance on GenAI access — related
• Among 245 Indonesian undergraduates, majorities reported concern about reduced critical thinking when depending on AI (75%), excessive reliance (73%), misinformation (70%) and unintentional plagiarism (69%), and 40% about algorithmic bias — related
• Over-reliance on AI dialogue systems reduces students' critical and analytical thinking skills, especially when they become overly dependent on AI-generated content — a broader claim this one bears on
• Students regard reduced critical thinking and originality as the biggest threat of ChatGPT use in academia — related
• Easy access to AI-generated answers may reduce learners' motivation to engage deeply with material — related
• Pilot students reported structural limitations of AI-SEE: AI-tool entry barriers, limited hands-on time, and partial disconnection between ethics instruction and routine engineering decisions — related
• University students held positive attitudes toward GAI in DST creation but expressed moderate concern about over-reliance and low concern about reduced social interaction — related
• Students perceive GenAI tools as beneficial for academic engagement, particularly for overcoming language barriers and accessing up-to-date resources — related
• Four current challenges impede AI literacy implementation: inconsistent policies, uneven knowledge, resistance, and cost barriers — related
• Little attention has been paid to the undesirable consequences of indiscriminate AI application, including automation-driven socio-economic inequality — related
• An efficiency paradox: well-intentioned students default to passive GenAI processes and experience cognitive laziness and overreliance — related