Faculty members rate equality, inclusiveness, and justice highest and institutional support lowest, with adequacy of institutional guidelines the lowest-rated item¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In the faculty survey, the Equality, inclusiveness, and justice dimension scored highest (M = 4.10) and Institutional support lowest (M = 3.81). → Buket Bilgiç and Demet Sever 2026 q2 i? At item level, supporting institutional measures against unethical AI use scored highest (M = 4.59) and adequacy of institutional guidelines lowest (M = 2.99). → Buket Bilgiç and Demet Sever 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Buket Bilgiç and Demet Sever 2026¶

Buket Bilgiç and Demet Sever (2026). Understanding ethical dimensions of AI in higher education: insights from faculty members and students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-026-00601-0

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Descriptive statistics from the faculty member survey at a public university. The article reports the highest dimension mean for "Equality, inclusiveness, and justice" (M = 4.10) and the lowest for "Institutional support" (M = 3.81); means are descriptive, with no effect size reported.

"the faculty members' survey on the ethical use of AI in educa -tion revealed that the highest mean score was in the "Equality, inclusiveness, and justice" dimension (M = 4.10), whereas the lowest was in the "Institutional support" dimension (M = 3.81)"

Buket Bilgiç and Demet Sever 2026 (2)¶

Buket Bilgiç and Demet Sever (2026). Understanding ethical dimensions of AI in higher education: insights from faculty members and students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-026-00601-0

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Item-level descriptive statistics from the same faculty survey. The highest-rated item was "Supporting institu -tional measures to prevent unethical use of AI tools" (M = 4.59) and the lowest " Adequacy of institutional guidelines" (M = 2.99); no inferential test is reported.

"At the item level, the highest mean was observed for "Supporting institu -tional measures to prevent unethical use of AI tools" (M = 4.59), while the lowest was for " Adequacy of institutional guidelines" (M = 2.99)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Lighthouse institutions showed uneven baseline capacity for adaptive courseware implementation, lowest in course redesign capacity — related
• In an online case-based course, students perceive cognitive presence as highest and least variable, and teaching presence as the most variable, among the CoI presences and metacognition dimensions — related
• CoI survey ratings reveal uneven presence profiles: course organization and exploration rated highest while most facilitation items and three cognitive-presence items (curiosity, reflection, testing and applying knowledge) rated below 4.0 — related
• Students rate ethical awareness and responsible use highest and academic integrity lowest, with responsibility for defending ethical appropriateness the lowest-rated item — related
• Students rate their ethical awareness of AI higher than instructors, while instructors report stronger willingness to experiment with AI tools and higher behavioural intention — related
• Faculty perceptions of student ethical inadequacy contradict students' own acceptance of ethical responsibility, with both groups showing pragmatic conscious acceptance of AI — related