Students were more positive than staff that GAI use enhances academic performance, with staff means below the scale midpoint¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? The student Performance Expectancy distribution was skewed to the right with a mean of 5, while staff Performance Expectancy had a mean of 3.9, suggesting workload- and productivity-related affordances were not in view for many staff. → Kahn P 2026
Evidence¶
Kahn P 2026¶
Kahn P, Carrigan M, Wyman I, Liu R, Smith P, Andonegui AR, Murtagh L and Song F (2026) Still emerging: understanding Generative AI use in Higher Education. Front. Educ. 11:1885253. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1885253
q2 · i? · associational · r1
Validated Performance Expectancy scales on both surveys (Table 1). The student distribution was skewed to the right (p-values <0.05 on a D'Agostino test) with a mean of 5; the staff scale mean was 3.9 (SD 1.6), so the article concludes suitable affordances for easing workloads were "not straightforwardly in view for many staff respondents."
"While a direct comparison between the responses of staff and students is not appropriate given the different items that were used across the two surveys, the skew indicates a positive response on the part of respondents on this dimension of the student survey. The mean of 5 on this scale for the student responses would suggest that specific use cases were typically in view for the student respondents."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Staff showed more negativity in attitudes towards student use of GAI than students did — related
- Staff perceived students' use of GAI for academic purposes as more extensive than students reported themselves — related
- The main student use of GAI tools consistently in view was supporting language-usage and text production — related
- Students perceived facilitating conditions for GAI tool use to a greater extent than staff in the surveyed School — related
- Ghanaian pre-service science teachers hold significantly positive performance expectancy and effort expectancy toward AI — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
performance-expectancy-staff-student-gap |
title |
Students were more positive than staff that GAI use enhances academic performance, with staff means below the scale midpoint |
description |
Students were more positive than staff that GAI use enhances academic performance, with staff means below the scale midpoint |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-11 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — kahn-p-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.