In part one of this series, How UBC Faculty Are Using Generative AI, we looked at UBC faculty responses to closed-ended survey questions asking about their use of Generative AI and their motivations for either using or not using GenAI tools. In part two, Faculty Perceptions of Generative AI, we explored faculty perceptions of their own capabilities, the proficiency of their students, and the role of the university in supporting GenAI applications.
In this, the third and final article in our series about the 2026 UBC Faculty AI Survey, we look at faculty recommendations for UBC regarding GenAI and what faculty shared in a general open response question. Many of the faculty responses to these two questions were not limited to GenAI and addressed artificial intelligence more broadly.
Faculty Recommendations for UBC Support
The final open-ended question asked faculty “How can UBC best support your needs related to GenAI?” The 339 faculty members who responded to this question used it as an opportunity to provide insights as to what institutional supports and actions are needed. They also used the open-ended format of the question to share their experiences with and concerns about the rapid emergence of generative AI technologies in academic settings, student use/misuse, pressures associated with workload and lack of support to adapt to this fast-changing landscape.
Recommendations include:
- Provide regularly updated resources and training opportunities. This should include both general training and resources as well as training on new and emerging tools and applications. It should also include practical advice and recommendations for the integration of AI in teaching as well as other workplace applications and examples with both formal and informal opportunities to learn from colleagues.
- Support all faculty, regardless of their stance on GenAI. Both faculty who are trying to integrate AI into their teaching and those who are trying to make their courses more resilient to AI use requested support and infrastructure from academic leaders, noting the workload and time required to do this work well. Both sides noted the need to address concerns about assessment practices and to provide access to paid, institutionally approved tools (or UBC developed ones) for both faculty and students.
- Develop a clear and up-to-date policy on GenAI use and academic integrity. Faculty called for more clarity on what is or is not permitted along with discipline-specific approaches and examples. They also requested the academic integrity policy and process be revised to address student misuse, feeling the current process was time consuming and ineffective. Some faculty requested UBC implement tools to detect student AI use.
- Create space for more conversations about AI. Faculty requested more opportunities to discuss with one another and with students the risks, benefits, and impacts of the technology noting widespread concerns about impacts on society, the environment, student cognition, and more. They recommended the university undertake a critical examination of the technology.
- Provide training and education for students. As noted earlier in this series, faculty felt students both did not have sufficient GenAI knowledge and skills to support their learning and that they lacked the ability to critically evaluate AI generated content. Faculty suggested general student training needed to be available outside the discipline specific courses they teach.
In addition, a number of faculty suggested AI did not belong in the university and it should be banned and/or faculty should not be forced to use it. Several also recommended UBC not invest in AI due to a number of concerns with the environmental and societal impacts of the technology.
Additional Thoughts
The final question of the survey asked “Are there any other thoughts you’d like to share with us about GenAI?” A total of 234 faculty used this space to reiterate their thoughts around GenAI and UBC’s stance on GenAI application in higher education. Same as students, faculty have contrasting and passionate views about GenAI in general and particularly about its presence in higher education. While some chose to use this space to share strategies they found effective in addressing student use of GenAI, others highlighted systemic and instructional challenges.
Faculty expressed concerns related to student misuse, over-reliance, and the resulting negative impact on their learning, as well as limited available resources to handle misconduct. Many respondents noted workload concerns related to managing, addressing, and incorporating GenAI into teaching, alongside a sense of hopelessness stemming from things evolving too fast to be able to cope. Furthermore, respondents raised equity concerns around wealthier students being able to afford licenses for more powerful tools than their less affluent peers. Faculty also urged UBC to resist the pressure to invest heavily and focus on AI and to instead stand for human-centered education.
Faculty also shared constructive pathways forward and practical classroom strategies. A key sentiment was that GenAI is here and is moving fast, requiring instructors to consider its potential, adapt, and teach students how to us it appropriately. Faculty suggest that the integration of GenAI in the mission of the university must be done through a careful and critical lens, with attention to risks and pitfalls. Finally, instructors outlined successful strategies to deal with GenAI in the classroom, including focusing on the social aspects of learning rather than the individual, trusting students as most do not blindly embrace AI, and returning back to in-person assessments.
Conclusion
This concludes our series on the 2026 UBC Faculty AI Survey. In this final article, faculty feedback highlighted a demand for clear institutional guidance, practical training and resources, and updated policies. Faculty suggest that, moving forward, successfully navigation of GenAI at UBC will require a human-centered approach that supports both instructors and students, addresses workload and academic integrity concerns, and critically evaluates the technology’s broader impacts on education.
If you didn’t see the 2026 series on the UBC Student AI survey, you may find the three articles in that series interesting: