Roles and Responsibilities of Teachers and Students in Higher Education A WPR analysis of AI policies

Abstract

Purpose: This thesis investigates how the roles and responsibilities of students and teachers regarding AI are made visible through AI policies at the course level. Moreover, the study aims to contribute to the field of IT and learning by highlighting some implications of AI on learning. Theory: The theoretical framework is based on Bacchi’s views on policy, problems and genealogical sensibilities. She draws inspiration from several scientific and philosophical traditions, including poststructuralism and governmentality studies. Method: The primary material consisted of AI policies available to students at the course level, regardless of which organisational level they originated from. They were collected from the heads of education at each department of one representative Swedish higher education institution. This material was coded and analysed using Bacchi’s analytical strategy: “What’s the problem represented to be?” (WPR). In addition to these primary policies, secondary policies were collected from the university’s website and coded for general themes. This secondary material was used to potentially identify the genealogy of the primary policies. Results: The WPR analysis of the 59 primary policies found three problem representations which were consistent over all organisational levels: 1) cheating and academic integrity, 2) ambiguity in the role and status of AI, and 3) the fast development of AI creates chaos. Another finding was that higher organisational levels often pushed responsibility for decision-making to lower levels. Furthermore, individuals were often ultimately made responsible for the problems, something Bacchi calls responsibilisation. Moreover, there was a subjectification effect between students and teachers, positioning them against each other as police or guardians of academic integrity and potential cheaters. There was an inconsistency in the terminology used for AI: some policies talked about GenAI but used the term AI instead. Lastly, an examination of the secondary policies showed a focus on academic integrity, similar to the primary policies, as well as on learning.