Author
Abstract
Gen AI’s rapid assimilation into higher education calls for critical consideration of its ethical, pedagogical, and competency-shaping effects. This study explores the essential dimensions of college students’ learning experiences and the broader implications of AI-supported learning environments. This qualitative-phenomenological inquiry used a survey/interview protocol in Google Forms to collect detailed, self-reported information from Filipino college students representing multiple higher education institutions across the Philippines. Systematic thematic analysis was used to identify patterns, themes, and categories in students’ responses regarding practical applications, detrimental effects, and recommendations for pedagogical change. Students see GenAI as a double-edged tool that helps with ideation, summarizing complex topics, and becoming more efficient when writing. Yet it posed a significant problem regarding academic dishonesty and the resultant loss of specific basic competencies, such as analysis, logical reasoning, and independent effort. And they reported taking measures to mitigate risk, such as conducting extensive fact-checking and regulating their own activities—even as many students said clearer standards for disclosing sources were needed. This study posited that such duality of GenAI requires an institutional response in kind. It is suggested that the Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and faculty move “beyond a blanket ban approach, toward an integration of use” strategy. Specific recommendations include co-creating clear ethical guidelines; rethinking tasks to become “AI-resilient” by focusing more on process-based assessment, such as reflection, collaboration, and application in the real world; and shifting instructors’ roles to facilitators of deep, process-focused learning.
Suggested Citation
Mark Kevin Astrero, 2025.
"The Double-Edged Tool: Student Perspectives on the Ethical Use, Skill Impact, and Pedagogical Adaptation of Generative AI in Higher Education,"
Research and Advances in Education, Paradigm Academic Press, vol. 4(10), pages 1-13, December.
Handle:
RePEc:bdz:readeu:v:4:y:2025:i:10:p:1-13
DOI: 10.63593/RAE.2788-7057.2025.12.001
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bdz:readeu:v:4:y:2025:i:10:p:1-13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Editorial Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.paradigmpress.org/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.