EMERGING DIALOGUES IN ASSESSMENT

Introduction and Institutional Context: AI on a Relational Campus

With 96% of undergraduates under the age of 25 and 95% of students enrolled full-time, Illinois State University (ISU) is a traditional residential campus. Since 2001, ISU has administered the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) to better understand the factors that contribute to the quality of student experiences. NSSE results have consistently shown that ISU is a relational campus characterized by strong interactions with faculty, staff, and peers, as well as extensive participation in high-impact and co-curricular experiences. Drawing from engagement theory, a relational campus is one in which learning is shaped not only by coursework, but also by meaningful experiential academic and co-curricular interactions that significantly impact learning (Felton & Lambert, 2020).

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) introduces a new dynamic into a relationship-rich environment, raising questions about how tools designed for efficiency and individual use intersect with practices that depend on relationships and experience-based learning. In a review of recent studies, Klimova & Pikhart (2025) report the benefits of AI use by students (e.g., personalized learning), but also the drawbacks of decreased face-to-face interactions and loneliness. These authors also note that, "educational institutions should adopt a balanced approach that combines AI’s efficiency with human-centered pedagogical methods to foster interpersonal skills and emotional intelligence" (p. 4).

As AI becomes increasingly embedded in students’ lives, the central questions are: How do students at a relational campus perceive and use AI? And what might those experiences reveal about the relationship between AI, student engagement, and learning? This article examines what students told us about AI and considers the implications for assessment professionals seeking to understand the role of AI within relationship-centered learning environments.

Data and Approach: Linking AI Use and the Relational Campus

To examine these questions, ISU administered the NSSE Shorts Generative AI Use & Perceptions survey in spring 2026. These items capture multiple dimensions of student interaction with AI, including frequency of use, specific academic applications (e.g., brainstorming, drafting, editing), perceived benefits (e.g., saving time, improving understanding), and attitudes toward ethical use and institutional policies. To provide additional context for interpreting the ISU results, this study also includes results from more than 17,000 undergraduate students at 54 baccalaureate-level institutions that participated in NSSE 2026 and who also completed the NSSE Shorts AI instrument.

What Students Told Us About AI

Students View AI as a Study Partner, Not a Ghost Writer

Generative AI has become a normalized part of students' academic experiences, though it has not become universal. Nearly half of ISU students (49%) reported using AI sometimes, often, or very often during the academic year. The other half reported never or rarely using it. This usage at ISU is slightly lower than NSSE 2026 results where 51% reported the same level of AI usage. This suggests a consistent level of adoption for ISU students and their peers across the country.

Students primarily use AI as a learning support and study tool. The most frequent uses of AI to support student learning (students who indicated their use as sometimes, often, or very often) were preparing for exams (ISU 6561 NSSE 59%) brainstorming ideas (ISU 65%; 61%), providing feedback on drafts (ISU 55%; NSSE 56%), and summarizing academic material (ISU 51%; NSSE 45%).  The least frequent uses were to help with homework (ISU 39%; NSSE 31%) and creating visual materials or slides (ISU 17%; NSSE 23%). Students' responses to the open-ended text question suggest that AI is being incorporated into learning. As one student explained, "I see generative AI as a support tool rather than a replacement for learning." Another noted that AI can function as "another teacher that can be accessed outside the classroom." Together, these comments suggest that students use AI to supplement rather than replace existing sources of support.

Rather than adopting AI indiscriminately, many students are actively negotiating its role in their learning. About two-thirds of ISU students and their peers at the 54 NSSE institutions reported  “understanding complex course material better” as the greatest benefit. The next two highest reported benefits were efficiency (saving time) and improving the quality of work. 41% of ISU students and 49% of students from NSSE institutions reported AI benefited their critical thinking ability.

These results suggest that students are incorporating AI into an existing ecosystem of learning support. Their use of AI appears most beneficial for completing assignments efficiently and understanding course material.

Students Have Already Drawn an Ethical Boundary

Students at ISU and their NSSE peers are clear about what constitutes ethical AI use. Nearly 90%  of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that using AI tools to complete tests and course assignments constitutes academic dishonesty and that just over 90%  agreed or strongly agreed that they felt confident in knowing when AI use is ethical. Open-ended responses frequently described AI as appropriate for brainstorming, studying, revising, and clarifying concepts.

Even though ISU students demonstrated a strong awareness of ethical issues surrounding AI use, many described feeling caught between competing priorities. Many described feeling caught between heavy workloads and a desire to learn ethically, viewing AI as a coping tool for managing competing demands. As one student explained, "In order to sustain my living and not burnout, AI has become a necessity and has for many of my peers." Many viewed AI as a tool for balancing competing responsibilities.

At a relational campus, students value authentic interactions and trust. At the same time, students who feel overwhelmed may turn to AI for assistance in the same way they might seek help from a tutor, instructor, advisor, or peer.  This highlights a central challenge institutions need to navigate regarding AI: what elements of the collegiate experience should be mediated through human interaction and which ones can be conducted by or with the support of AI? It is more complicated than creating AI rules, it is about ensuring students have access to the human support systems they need.

Students Want Guidance More Than Governance

Students report frequently encountering policies, but fewer report experiencing conversations or demonstrations about effective use. Students generally understood that institutional and course-level expectations existed, but what they really wanted was guidance regarding how AI could be used appropriately. Many expressed frustration with inconsistent expectations across courses and uncertainty about where the boundaries should be drawn. Viewed through a relational lens, students are asking for more than rules. They want guidance, feedback, mentoring, and preparation for life after graduation.

Students are not Universally Embracing AI

Approximately one-quarter of ISU students reported never using AI. The qualitative responses revealed some negative towards AI. Many students expressed concerns about dependency, diminished critical thinking, academic dishonesty, and the possibility that AI could undermine learning. Several students also expressed distrust of AI, and mentioned bias, unreliability, hallucinations, environmental concerns, impacts on their careers, and the possibility that AI could undermine learning.. Students consistently distinguished between using AI to support learning and using AI to perform learning tasks on their behalf. As one student noted, "We need to learn from it, not rely on it." Another argued that using AI beyond brainstorming "robs you of the process of learning."

Themes from the qualitative responses focused on learning, growth, trust, guidance, authentic effort, and mentoring. These are all relational concepts. The qualitative data suggest that students want institutions to help them navigate AI in ways that preserve the human elements of their college experience.

The Rise of AI May Increase the Importance of Human Relationships

ISU students appreciated how AI supplements learning, but did not indicate wanting it to replace human support.  The results from ISU students closely resemble the results of close to 20,000 students at 54 institutions, suggesting that adoption of AI at ISU is not anomalous but rather part of a national trend among college students. They still value interactive learning and believe employer-valued skills will not come from AI alone. Students are entering professions that are uncertain about how AI will evolve and what access to increasingly sophistical technologies entails. As such, they will continue to seek guidance in how to approach and use technology instead of settling for a list of rules, which will quickly get outdated. Students are not asking institutions to decide whether AI belongs in higher education. They are asking institutions to help define how AI can or should be integrated into their lives.

AI may make relational practices, like mentoring, feedback, context, and guidance for making sense of their environment, more important rather than less. Institutions should consider how AI can free time for the relational interactions students value most. In a way, the institutions that will be most successful in navigating the opportunities and challenges of AI will be the ones that place the most focus on human relationships, not technological strategies.

REFERENCES

Felton, P. & Lambert, L. (2020). Relationship-rich Education: How Human Connections Drive Success in College. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.

National Survey of Student Engagement. (n.d.). NSSE Shorts. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. https://nsse.indiana.edu/nsse/nsse-shorts/index.html

Klimova, B., & Pikhart, M. (2025). Exploring the effects of artificial intelligence on student and academic well-being in higher education: A mini-review. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1498132. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1498132