ChatGPT in higher education, teachers' attitudes and use

Abstract

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), particularly tools like ChatGPT, is increasingly influencing teaching and research practices in higher education (HE). These developments raise practical and ethical questions relating to academic integrity, assessment, and professional responsibility. This study explores how university teachers perceive and use ChatGPT, focusing on how perceived usefulness and ease of use influence its adoption. The research was conducted at the University of Akureyri in Iceland using a mixed-methods design. Data were collected through an online survey with both closed- and open-ended questions, answered by 23 teachers from two academic departments. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was used to interpret the findings, with attention to core components: perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU), attitude toward use (ATU), behavioral intention to use (BIU), and actual use (AU) (Davis, 1989).
Most participants had used or were familiar with ChatGPT and described it as useful for academic tasks such as preparing lectures, assignments, feedback, and research-related writing. Perceived usefulness emerged as the strongest predictor of both current and intended use. Ease of use, however, was more unevenly reported. While many found the tool inspiring, others experienced challenges associated with lack of training, vague institutional guidelines, uncertainty about appropriate application and data protection. Teachers with access to support reported more positive experiences and expressed stronger intentions to integrate ChatGPT into their practice. By contrast, the absence of support limited adoption, even among those who saw its potential. Attitudes toward student use were more divided. Concerns were raised about academic integrity, possible
overreliance on AI-generated content, and the risk of undermining students’ critical thinking and independent learning. Teachers also expressed uncertainty in the absence of clear policies and expectations. Despite these concerns, ChatGPT was already being used in various ways, particularly for brainstorming, summarising, and drafting content. Many teachers appreciated its time-saving potential and the support it offered in shaping
and organising ideas, although they also stressed the importance of critically reviewing its outputs. A recurring theme was the importance of institutional guidance, professional development, and spaces for open discussion. Teachers called for clear expectations, ethical frameworks, and collaborative dialogue as to how GenAI should be integrated into academic practice. This aligns with previous studies emphasising the need to strengthen AI literacy in HE (Francis et al., 2025; Tillmanns et al., 2025). AI literacy was understood not simply as tool but as the ability to engage critically with GenAI, assess the reliability of outputs, and reflect on ethical implications. Without such competencies, there is a risk of shallow adoption that fails to support deep learning or academic integrity. This is in line with UNESCO’s guidance (2024), which emphasises human agency, ethical awareness, and social responsibility in AI integration. In conclusion, the study highlights that while
university teachers generally acknowledge the value of ChatGPT, its successful integration depends on more than technical access. Perceived usefulness drives adoption, but meaningful and responsible use is shaped by ethical concerns, institutional context, and professional dialogue. There are many opportunities for further research on the use of ChatGPT and other GenAI tools in higher education. It would be interesting to explore how these tools are used in learning and teaching, whether they support traditional practices or introduce innovations. Furthermore, understanding how teaching methods and assessment can evolve with ChatGPT is important to support student learning and reduce dishonest practices. The evolution of learning and teaching with GenAI depends on collective decisions about the purpose and value of education. Teachers play a crucial role in developing guidelines for GenAI use, providing student support, and leading discussions on GenAI in education.