Source-linked AI summary
The AI generation gap: Are Gen Z students more interested in adopting generative AI such as ChatGPT in teaching and learning than their Gen X and Millennial Generation teachers?
Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan, Katherine K. W. Lee
TL;DR
The study examines how Gen Z students and Gen X and Gen Y teachers experience and perceive GenAI in higher education. Using survey data, it finds broad agreement on institutional planning and GenAI awareness, alongside higher student usage and a conclusion favoring combined technology and traditional teaching methods.
Problem
The study addresses limited understanding of Gen Z students’ and Gen X and Gen Y teachers’ experiences, perceptions, knowledge, concerns, and intentions regarding GenAI in higher education.
Method
The researchers used an online survey with open and closed questions, convenience sampling, descriptive analysis, thematic coding, and agreement analysis.
Results
Students and teachers showed no significant overall group differences, while students reported higher GenAI usage than teachers.
Takeaways & Limitations
Effective learning should combine technology with traditional teaching, while institutions develop evidence-based policies and foster critical thinking and digital literacy.
Takeaways & Limitations
The study’s generalizability is limited by uncertain generational classification, a predominantly Hong Kong sample, and relatively small sample size.
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
This study aimed to explore the experiences, perceptions, knowledge, concerns, and intentions of Gen Z students with Gen X and Gen Y teachers regarding the use of generative AI (GenAI) in higher education. A sample of students and teachers were recruited to investigate the above using a survey consisting of both open and closed questions. The findings showed that Gen Z participants were generally optimistic about the potential benefits of GenAI, including enhanced productivity, efficiency, and personalized learning, and expressed intentions to use GenAI for various educational purposes. Gen X and Gen Y teachers acknowledged the potential benefits of GenAI but expressed heightened concerns about overreliance, ethical and pedagogical implications, emphasizing the need for proper guidelines and policies to ensure responsible use of the technology. The study highlighted the importance of combining technology with traditional teaching methods to provide a more effective learning experience. Implications of the findings include the need to develop evidence-based guidelines and policies for GenAI integration, foster critical thinking and digital literacy skills among students, and promote responsible use of GenAI technologies in higher education.
1. Introduction
The introduction frames GenAI adoption as an intergenerational higher-education challenge involving a digitally shaped Gen Z student population and Gen X and Millennial teachers. It asks about both groups’ experiences, perceptions, knowledge, concerns, and intentions regarding GenAI use.
- A prior study reported that 47% of Gen Z-ers spend at least three hours daily on YouTube.
- Gen Z’s distinctive characteristics reflect information technologies, social and cultural shifts, and financial volatility.
- Higher education institutions need to engage Gen Z effectively while integrating GenAI into curricula ethically.
- Changing student demographics and advances in GenAI may require evaluating and modifying classroom policies and pedagogical approaches.
- The study compares Gen Z students with Gen X and Gen Y teachers on GenAI experiences, perceptions, knowledge, concerns, and intentions.
2. Literature Review
The literature review presents GenAI as a potential source of personalized educational support and efficiency while identifying privacy, bias, oversight, and generational differences as important considerations for adoption.
- GenAI may support higher education through virtual tutors, personalized guidance, feedback, peer collaboration, and assistance with course-material generation.
- AI systems can customize curriculum and content according to students’ needs, potentially improving learning experiences and educational quality.
- Students have positive perceptions of AI for administrative and admission processes but are more hesitant about replacing faculty in teaching and learning.
- Responsible GenAI integration must address data privacy and security, algorithmic bias, and human oversight in AI-driven decisions.
- Generations differ in teaching preferences, learning styles, technology usage, and communication methods, shaping GenAI integration considerations.
- Gen X tends to combine traditional and technology-based teaching methods, whereas Millennials prefer interactive, self-paced, technology-based education.
- The study focuses on interactions between experienced Gen X and junior Gen Y educators and predominantly Gen Z undergraduates.
- Gen Z grew up with constant digital access, contributing to digital-first expectations for technological resources and educational support.
GEN Y/ MILLENIALS
The generational profile describes Gen Z as digital-first and technologically immersed, contrasting with earlier cohorts’ communication, feedback, and technology patterns.
- Gen Z is identified as spanning approximately 1995–2012 and as digital natives or technoholics.
- Gen Z integrates social media into daily life, while earlier groups use it less consistently for personal or professional communication.
- Gen Z expects consistent, immediate, and frequent feedback rather than annual-review-style feedback.
- Gen Z’s communication preferences emphasize online and mobile texting and FaceTime.
COMMUNICATIONS APPROACHES
The communication profile contrasts older generations’ reliance on telephone, email, and face-to-face interaction with Gen Z’s mobile and online communication preferences.
- Earlier generations use telephone, email, and text messages as primary communication channels.
- Face-to-face communication is preferred ideally by some groups, with telephone or email used when required.
- Gen Z favors online and mobile texting and FaceTime for communication.
- The generational profile associates older cohorts with patience, soft skills, respect for traditions, emotional intelligence, and hard work.
- Some communication preferences are described as based on mutuality and cooperation.
KNOWLEDGE SHARING
The section identifies self-interest or external pressure as conditions for participation, alongside values emphasizing effort, openness, diversity, curiosity, and practicality.
- Participation occurs only when motivated by self-interest or compelled by external pressure.
- Together, the passages contrast conditional participation with a broad set of practical and inclusive values.
- The stated values include hard work, openness, respect for diversity, curiosity, and practicality.
ATTITUDE TOWARDS CAREER
Career orientations range from employer-defined organizational careers to early portfolio careers characterized by loyalty to a profession rather than a particular employer.
- ATTITUDE TOWARDS CAREER: Organizational careers are defined by employers.
- ATTITUDE TOWARDS CAREER: Early portfolio careers emphasize loyalty to a profession rather than necessarily to an employer.
AIM AND ASPIRATION
The profile emphasizes job security and work-life balance alongside personal and virtual relationships, flexibility, present-focused behavior, and increasingly collaborative and opportunity-oriented work attitudes.
- AIM AND ASPIRATION: Job security and work-life balance are identified as important features of the desired working environment.
- AIM AND ASPIRATION: Relationships are described as primarily personal, supported by personal and virtual networks.
- AIM AND ASPIRATION: Flexibility, mobility, creativity, freedom of information, and broad but superficial knowledge are emphasized.
- AIM AND ASPIRATION: The profile favors living for the present, rapid reactions, initiative, bravery, and rapid access to information and content.
- AIM AND ASPIRATION: Digital entrepreneurs work with organizations, while career multitaskers move between organizations and pop-up businesses.
- AIM AND ASPIRATION: Work relationships are described as principally virtual and superficial, with self-centered, medium-term, and sometimes egotistical orientations.
- AIM AND ASPIRATION: The profile also includes communal, unified thinking and horizontal, independent, collaborative, and entrepreneurial characteristics.
- AIM AND ASPIRATION: The natural environment of multinational companies is characterized as unknown, and change is framed as caution, opportunity, improvement, or expectation.
CHANGE MANAGEMENT
Training and rule-related behavior vary from moderation and necessity to continuous learning and active participation in changing, creating, customizing, or challenging rules.
- CHANGE MANAGEMENT: Training is described as preferred in moderation, required as necessary, continuous and expected, or ongoing and essential.
- CHANGE MANAGEMENT: Responses to rules range from changing them to creating, customizing, or challenging them.
- CHANGE MANAGEMENT: The framework was extracted and analyzed from literature cited across the study.The cited literature includes works published by Bencsik et al., Bíró, Borys and Laskowski, EAB, and others.
3. Methodology
The study used an online survey with open and closed questions to examine GenAI-related views among Gen Z students and Gen X and Millennial teachers in higher education. Quantitative responses were compared between groups, while open-ended responses were thematically coded.
- An online survey examined participants’ experiences, perceptions, knowledge, and concerns about GenAI in higher education.The survey combined open and closed questions to capture participants’ views.
- Participants were recruited through convenience sampling after bulk email invitations and informed consent.
- The sample comprised 583 participants: 399 students and 184 teachers, with students treated as Gen Z and teachers generally as Gen X or Gen Y.
- T-test analyses compared students’ and teachers’ responses, treating Not Sure responses as missing in the main analyses and separately testing uncertainty proportions.The survey included 21 items with a Not Sure option in addition to the five-point Likert scale, excluding Item 1 on usage frequency.
- Two independent coders used inductive thematic coding for the three open-ended questions to identify recurring themes and patterns.They independently coded a random selection of 50 responses, discussed disagreements, and finalized the coding protocol; agreement was 72% for willingness and intentions and 77% for concerns.
4. Findings
Gen Z students generally reported more frequent use of GenAI and more positive views of its educational benefits than Gen X and Y teachers, who expressed greater caution about risks, uncertainty, and overreliance. Both groups intended to use GenAI for information gathering, writing support, personalized feedback, and teaching or learning activities, while also recognizing concerns about integrity, accuracy, privacy, and human skills.
- Quantitative results: Students reported more frequent GenAI use than teachers, including ChatGPT, with mean scores of 2.27 and 2.03 respectively.The usage scale ranged from 1 (“Never”) to 5 (“Always”).
- Quantitative results: Students were more likely than teachers to believe GenAI would positively impact future teaching and learning, save time, improve writing, and support students anonymously.Students also expressed greater confidence that GenAI outputs would not be distorted by harmful input.
- Quantitative results: Teachers were more cautious about GenAI outputs, agreeing more strongly that information should be fact-checked and validated and that outputs may be factually inaccurate.These responses indicate greater skepticism about GenAI capabilities and risks to students’ learning and academic achievement.
- Quantitative results: Teachers expressed greater concern than students about biased or unfair outputs, reduced social interaction, assignment advantages, and student overreliance on GenAI.Teachers’ overreliance concern was substantially higher, with means of 4.12 versus 2.87 for students.
- Uncertainty Among Students and Teachers: Teachers were more uncertain than students about GenAI’s educational benefits, capabilities, limitations, biases, statistical reasoning, emotional intelligence, and susceptibility to harmful input.The differences included uncertainty about whether GenAI could handle complex tasks and support originality, creativity, and time savings.
- Intentions and concerns: Both groups intended to use GenAI for gathering and summarizing information, brainstorming, writing support, personalized feedback, teaching materials, and activities that develop critical evaluation skills.Some participants also believed GenAI could hinder learning, threaten creativity, or encourage unethical uses such as cheating and plagiarism.
- Concerns: Students and teachers shared concerns about unethical use, cheating, plagiarism, job displacement, weakened academic integrity, privacy, transparency, and broader social risks.Some respondents nevertheless believed human involvement would remain necessary in managing GenAI and teaching.
5. Discussion
The study found that Gen Z students were optimistic about GenAI’s educational benefits and intended uses, whereas Gen X and Gen Y teachers were more cautious about ethical, pedagogical, and overreliance risks. Both groups supported informed, responsible integration through guidelines, critical evaluation, and complementary human teaching.
- Gen Z participants viewed GenAI as beneficial for productivity, efficiency, personalized learning, information acquisition, language learning, and writing support.
- Teachers acknowledged GenAI’s benefits but reported greater uncertainty and concern about ethical and pedagogical implications than students.
- Both groups recognized risks involving inaccurate, inappropriate, biased, and emotionally limited outputs, while teachers additionally worried that overreliance could weaken students’ thinking and evaluative skills.
- The study argues that GenAI should support rather than replace human teachers, with technology combined with traditional and experiential teaching methods.
- Participants emphasized the need for guidelines, policies, and continued discussion to support fair, informed, ethical, and responsible GenAI use rather than outright prohibition.
- The study’s limitations include uncertain generational categorization, a predominantly Hong Kong-based and relatively small sample, and potential social desirability bias in self-reported responses.
6. Conclusions
The paper concludes that generational experiences shape orientations toward GenAI in education, while technology is most effective when combined with traditional teaching. It recommends responsible integration that develops students’ critical thinking, digital literacy, and ethical use of GenAI.
- Gen X, Gen Y, and Gen Z differ in familiarity with technology and in how they may adopt emerging AI tools in education and other areas of life.
- Gen X may draw on professional experience while adapting from analog to digital technologies, whereas Millennials value flexibility, efficiency, and innovation.
- Gen Z’s digital-first background and constant access to online technologies may support affinity for AI, rapid information access, multitasking, and adaptive problem-solving.
- Traditional teaching methods and educational technology should be used together because they complement each other’s strengths.
- Higher education institutions should foster critical thinking and digital literacy so students can evaluate information credibility and use GenAI responsibly and ethically.
- The study’s supporting materials include data available from the corresponding author on reasonable request and report no study funding.