Emil Alégroth

Exploring student use of generative AI in higher education: A dual-institutional study

Although a growing body of research has examined students’ attitudes toward generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in higher education, few studies have compared perceptions across contrasting institutional contexts or explored how students’ reported uses of GenAI relate to broader learning practices. This study addresses that gap by examining university students’ perceptions, self-reported competence, and use of GenAI at two Swedish universities with different academic profiles: a technology-oriented institution and a broader multidisciplinary institution. The study is based on an exploratory questionnaire survey administered to all enrolled students at both universities, yielding 1,097 responses (University A response rate: 11.27%, University B response rate: 14.06%) from students across diverse disciplines, including engineering, nursing, and criminology. Quantitative data were analyzed using reliability analysis, exploratory factor analysis, and non-parametric group comparisons, supplemented by thematic analysis of qualitative responses. The analysis identified three reliable constructs: perceived learning benefit, perceived institutional support and integration, and self-reported technical knowledge and competence. Across both institutions, students reported generally positive attitudes toward GenAI and described using it primarily for information retrieval, text refinement, and text analysis, but also as a discussion partner or personal tutor in ways that suggest both surface-level and more dialogic forms of engagement. Comparisons between the two universities showed broad similarity across most measures, with the only statistically significant difference relating to perceived institutional support and integration, which was rated higher by students at the technology-oriented university. Students at both institutions also viewed GenAI primarily as a complement to, rather than a replacement for, traditional teaching, while reporting only moderate trust in AI-generated outputs. These findings suggest that GenAI is already embedded in students’ study practices, but that its use is largely self-directed rather than strongly shaped by institutional context. The study thus contributes comparative empirical evidence on student engagement with GenAI across contrasting higher education settings and highlights the need for pedagogical and institutional strategies that support critical, reflective, and responsible use.

Appreciation to Empirical Software Engineering reviewers of 2020

A Framework for Evaluating GenAI Adoption and Use in Software Engineering

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly integrated into software products to enable new features and user capabilities, from early exploration to operational deployment. GenAI adoption as a component within a software system introduces quality risks because GenAI outputs are probabilistic, prompt-sensitive, and may drift after release. Organizations, therefore, need to decide what to evaluate, when to evaluate, and who owns quality evaluation activities across software design, development, and operations. ISO/IEC 25059 standard distinguishes between software product quality (e.g., usability) and quality-in-use (e.g., satisfaction) for AI-enabled software, yet it provides limited operational guidance for these evaluation activities. We therefore investigate how industrial software teams adopt and use GenAI models in the software systems they build and operate, and how they evaluate system qualities when deciding to adopt GenAI during development and after deployment. We do not benchmark the underlying GenAI model itself. In this study, we conducted 19 semi-structured interviews in two software development companies. We triangulated the interviews with archival data (15 internal documents and 184 internal wiki/web pages) to capture GenAI adoption steps, quality concerns, evaluation practices, and role responsibilities. Our findings describe a three-phase adoption process – Ideation, Development, and Operation – highlighting where quality evaluations occur, which criteria are used, and how evaluation responsibilities are distributed. Based on observed practices and using ISO/IEC 25059 as an organizing lens, we synthesize a process-oriented quality evaluation framework. This framework maps metrics to explicit gatekeeping, validation, and monitoring checkpoints, bridging abstract ISO quality characteristics with engineering workflows. We applied the framework in a GenAI-enabled software product (SE4AI) use case and reported how it supported structured evaluation activities. We also observed that quality evaluations span legal, security, development, QA, and operations, but ownership is fragmented across phases. We therefore propose a GenAI Quality Lead responsibility (often assignable to an existing senior role) to coordinate criteria, evidence, and traceability across quality evaluation activities. The results contribute to Software Engineering for AI (SE4AI) by clarifying how teams can measure qualities when building software that adopts and uses GenAI.