Perceived institutional AI regulation differs significantly across STEM subjects, with mathematics and natural sciences perceived as prohibitive and computer science as permissive¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2031: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Regulatory perceptions vary significantly across the four subjects (Kruskal-Wallis H = 360.15, p < .001), with 65.9% of mathematics students and 55.3% of science students reporting prohibition versus 51.2% of computer science students viewing AI as a legitimate tool. → Martin Lnenicka and Petr Coufal 2026

Evidence¶

Martin Lnenicka and Petr Coufal 2026¶

Martin Lnenicka and Petr Coufal. (2026). Navigating AI in STEM: what secondary students actually do with generative AI-driven tools. International Journal of STEM Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-026-00637-8

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Cross-sectional survey analysis of Question C1 across four subjects in the n = 416 sample, visualized in Fig. 3. The article reports that "51.2% of computer science students view them as an integrated, legitimate tool, with very few reporting total prohibitions (8.2%)" and that economics occupies an intermediate position.

"Across all years, 65.9% of mathematics students and 55.3% of science students report prohibition. A Kruskal-Wallis H test confirmed that these differences in regulatory configurations are statistically significant across the four subjects (H = 360.15, p < .001)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Frequency of generative AI use for homework differs significantly by subject, with natural sciences most resistant and economics most adopted — related
• Perceived clarity of AI rules is significantly dependent on discipline, with the most restrictive subjects also the least clear — related
• Institutional GenAI guidance is more pro-use than computing course syllabus policies, where 92% of syllabi set explicit permissions and half prohibit use outright — related
• In-service science educators use AI far less in subject-specific DiKoLAN areas (SIM, DAP, DAQ) than in general areas — related
• Most undergraduate students in computer science–related programs are unaware of their institution's GenAI regulations (62.25% not aware; 25.83% aware) — related
• Strict AI prohibitions can intensify students' moral conflict without preventing AI use — related