QMSU’s Student Voice team explored how Queen Mary students are using GenAI.
Artificial intelligence has become one of the biggest topics of conversation across the world, and higher education is no exception. Generative AI (GenAI) is changing how students learn, communicate, access support and prepare for employment – often faster than universities can respond.
For this year’s Student Experience Forum, QMSU’s Student Voice team explored how Queen Mary students are using GenAI, why some choose not to use it and what support they need. We heard from 508 students through our survey and spoke to a further 15 students in one-to-one interviews.
Here is a summary of what we found:
- GenAI has arrived and is being used widely by students.
- Students approach GenAI with scepticism and an awareness of its limitations.
- Students report a lack of clear guidance and practical training.
- Access to GenAI is not equal among students.
- GenAI can help break down barriers for international students.
- GenAI is being used for accessible, non-judgemental wellbeing support.
- GenAI is becoming part of careers and employability preparation.
Speaking with students, it quickly became clear to me that they are using AI extensively. As reflected in both the survey and the interviews, AI is already a normal part of many students’ lives.
More than 80% of survey respondents said they use GenAI for some purpose. Students most commonly use it to understand difficult concepts, summarise readings and make complicated material easier to engage with.
The students I interviewed were generally very open about their use. Most did not describe using AI to replace their learning. Instead, they used it to support what they were already doing: explaining a topic in another way, helping them organise their thoughts or working through large amounts of information.
Students are also using AI well beyond their academic work. They told us they use it for life admin, travel planning, health questions, emotional support and job applications. This was an important reminder that discussions about student AI use cannot be limited to assignments and academic misconduct.
At the same time, widespread use does not mean students are accepting AI uncritically. Many raised concerns about inaccurate information, privacy, environmental impact, academic integrity and the risk of becoming too dependent on it. Some students had made a conscious decision not to use GenAI because they felt that reading, writing and struggling through difficult ideas were essential parts of education.
What stood out most strongly, however, was the lack of clear and consistent guidance. Students overwhelmingly reported that they do not feel there is sufficient clarity around policies governing the use of AI. In interviews, many students also expressed the view that their schools may be underestimating both the extent to which AI is already being used and the need for clearer guidance and support.
Students described very different approaches between different modules and schools. Where one lecturer encourages GenAI, another might ban it, while some do not mention it at all. More than a quarter of respondents said they had received no guidance about academic GenAI use, while 70.3% had avoided using it because they were unsure of the rules.
Students wanted practical answers to questions such as: When is AI use appropriate? How should AI be acknowledge? How can they check whether AI output is reliable? How might expectations differ between subjects and assessments?
There was also a clear stigma around disclosing AI use. Some students worried that being honest about using it (even appropriately) could affect how their work was viewed. This means staff may not be getting the full picture of both how widely GenAI is used and the different ways students are using it.
Another concern was unequal access. Around a quarter of GenAI users pay for premium tools, which students often described as faster, more reliable and better able to handle complex work. Students who cannot afford subscriptions may therefore have a different learning experience from classmates who can. Numerous students also called for the university to provide access to paid AI tools through institutional licenses, or to develop QM-specific, controlled tools, so that students with limited financial means are not disadvantaged.
Another interesting finding was how GenAI currently supports students who were non-native English speakers. Students described using it to translate their own ideas, improve grammar, adjust the tone of emails and participate more confidently in seminars. One example involved students translating their thoughts into English in real time before contributing to a classroom discussion. However, this also highlights the need for universities to strengthen support for students writing in English as an additional language, so they can build confidence, vocabulary and academic writing skills without becoming reliant on AI.
Perhaps the most striking finding was the use of GenAI for wellbeing. Some students use it to help organise their time or to create meal plans and exercise routines. While other students used it to manage stress or talk through something that felt too personal to raise with friends but not serious enough for counselling. They valued its convenience, privacy, sense of being non-judgmental, and ability to communicate in multiple languages, which for some made it easier to share how they were feeling.
It is concerning to see how common the use of AI for wellbeing purposes, and particularly for emotional support, appears to be. AI should never be treated as a replacement for professional medical or crisis support. But rather than simply dismissing this use, we should ask why some students find AI easier to turn to in the first place. Understanding those reasons could help us identify the barriers that keep students from accessing human support and make that support more approachable and accessible.
Students are also using GenAI to prepare for employment. Students use it for tasks such as reviewing CVs, practising interview questions, researching vacancies and navigating recruitment processes they believe are increasingly automated. They recognised that AI could help with routine tasks, but coud not replace the personalised advice and confidence-building that come from mock interviews and one-to-one careers support.
My biggest takeaway from this research is that institutions cannot respond to GenAI through silence, stigma or academic-integrity warnings alone. If we want to keep up with the times, we need to respond to students and meet them where they are. That means having real conversations about the use of AI and taking seriously the very real concerns many students have about its proliferation across higher education.
Queen Mary has already begun important work through its Centre for Excellence in AI in Education. Our findings show why this work must continue, with students involved in shaping it. GenAI is already part of the student experience. The challenge now is to ensure that it supports learning, inclusion and wellbeing rather than undermining them.
By Vandy Widyalankara, Student Voice and Feedback Assistant at QMSU