Queen’s is asking students, faculty, and staff for feedback on generative AI for the second year as the University continues developing guidance around the technology.
In an email sent to the Queen’s community, the University invited students, faculty, instructors, librarians, archivists, and staff to complete an anonymous follow-up survey on generative AI. The survey asks about the community’s needs, opportunities presented by AI, and concerns surrounding its use.
Last year’s assessment received more than 2,200 responses, according to the 2025 Generative AI Needs Assessment Community Shareback. The responses included 1,242 students, 562 staff, and 381 faculty and librarians. The survey ran between July and October 2025.
READ MORE: Published Queen’s survey results will inform AI integration in teaching
The report found 55 per cent of student respondents used AI tools. Students also reported concerns about inaccuracies and misinformation in AI-generated content, reduced critical thinking, academic integrity, bias, environmental impact, and data privacy and security.
In a statement to The Journal, Terry Soleas, special advisor to the provost on generative AI, said repeating the survey will allow the University to track how AI use and attitudes are changing.
“A one-time survey was never going to give us all the answers we need to be there for our community,” Soleas said. “AI is changing fast, and we want to make sure we are up-to-date with the needs of the community.”
The previous survey found respondents were interested in AI while remaining cautious about its use. Its findings identified demand for AI literacy and training, concerns about authenticity and academic integrity, and calls for AI to supplement instead of replacing human expertise.
According to Soleas, those findings have already influenced the University’s approach. Resources developed since last year include a refreshed Academics 101 module for students and Foundational AI Literacy modules being piloted for staff. He said faculty-focused resources are also expected to undergo consultation with campus groups.
“What people tell us they need in order to make good decisions about AI goes straight into the guidelines and resources we build,” he said. “The goal is not to push anyone toward AI. It is to help people make informed choices for their work and study, and that sometimes, the right choice is not to use it.”
Students who spoke with The Journal differed in how they use AI and whether they believe the University’s current guidance is sufficient.
Harshina Cheema, LifeSci ’28, said she uses AI for tasks including fact-checking and organizing her workload.
Cheema said guidance from her professors has generally made expectations surrounding AI clear, though those expectations differ between courses.
“A lot of professors do say ‘don’t use AI at all,’ but I’ve come across professors that say that fact-checking or using it appropriately is fine,” she said. “And they do provide a lot of information on how to do so.”
Lisa Han, HealthSci ’28, said having AI available has changed how she approaches her work, but she avoids relying on it for assignments and tests.
“I think it’s important to develop that skill and not depend on something,” Han said.
She said professors in her courses have been clear about whether AI can be used and, when permitted, to what extent.
For Monica Dimitrov, LifeSci ’28, the level of guidance varies between instructors.
“I think it really just comes down to the professor,” she said. “I feel some professors are a lot stricter and a lot more clear-cut in their decision and the way they outline what can and can’t be used.”
Connor Campbell, ArtSci ’27, said he deliberately avoids using generative AI because he doesn’t support the technology or the companies behind it.
He said he finds Queen’s approach unclear because expectations can vary between courses.
“I feel like it’s a little bit murky. Some of my classes say like, it’s okay to use AI for certain models, but then other times, it says no use at all,” he said.
Soleas said Queen’s currently plans to continue administering the needs assessment annually.
“AI is changing and lots of folks are depending on us to be there for them with resources, guidance, use-cases, and clear go and no-go zones that help them makes good decisions for themselves, their peers, and the community as a whole,” he said.
Tags
AI policy, Generative AI, misinformation
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to eic@queensjournal.ca.