For many Open University students, that moment arrives after a busy day at work, caring responsibilities, family commitments or community activities. Unlike the stereotypical full-time campus student, OU learners often study alongside the realities of adult life. So when generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools such as ChatGPT, Copilot and Gemini appeared, an important question emerged: how are students actually using them when preparing assignments? What academic skills and knowledge are at play in their use of GenAI?

To find out, a small project team from The Open University invited students in the School of Education, Childhood, Youth and Sport to share their personal stories about GenAI and their use of it in assignments, known at The Open University as Tutor Marked Assignments (or TMAs). Ninety-two students responded, offering remarkably honest reflections about their learning practices, hopes, concerns and ethical dilemmas. 

The results challenge many popular assumptions. Read on to find out!

Not a story of AI doing the work

Perhaps the biggest surprise is that most students were not using GenAI to write assignments for them. Instead, many described using it as a learning companion, study coach or proofreading assistant. Students reported using AI to:

• simplify complex concepts
• explain assignment questions in clearer language
• help create study plans and essay structures
• improve grammar, spelling and punctuation
• check referencing and citations
• identify gaps, repetition or unclear arguments
• manage word counts and organise ideas. 

One student compared AI to ‘someone you can bounce ideas off,’ while another described it as a tool that helps turn confusion into understanding. Others used it to gain feedback on draft work without asking it to rewrite their assignments. 

These accounts suggest that, for many learners, GenAI is less about replacing thinking and more about supporting their academic thinking skills.

The confidence factor 

A recurring theme throughout the responses was confidence. Several students explained that AI helped them overcome uncertainty, particularly when returning to education after a long break. Others said it helped them understand academic language, create essay plans or express ideas more clearly.

For students with disabilities, learning differences or English as an additional language, AI appeared to provide valuable support. One student with ADHD and fibromyalgia described using speech-to-text and AI-assisted organisation tools to manage studying during challenging circumstances. Another student said GenAI helped them achieve a more polished academic writing style while ensuring the ideas remained their own. 

In these examples, AI functioned less as a shortcut and more as an accessibility aid.

Not everyone is convinced

Yet the survey also revealed strong resistance. Many respondents stated that they never use GenAI and have no intention of doing so. Their reasons varied, but common concerns included trust, accuracy, environmental impact and the fear that AI undermines genuine learning. 

Some students worried that AI-generated information can be inaccurate or fabricated. Others felt that relying on AI would prevent them from developing their own skills and understanding.

One respondent summed-up a widely shared concern: ‘If education is about learning, what happens when technology begins to do too much of the thinking?’ How’s that for insightful and reflective critical thinking, you might ask!

For these students, avoiding AI was not a technological issue but a values-based choice. They viewed independent study, critical thinking and personal effort as central to the university experience. 

Walking the ethical tightrope

Perhaps the most fascinating finding was how many students occupied the middle ground. These learners were neither enthusiastic adopters nor outright opponents. Instead, they described carefully negotiated boundaries.

Many said they were comfortable using AI for proofreading but not content generation. Others used it to locate research papers more efficiently but insisted on reading and evaluating sources themselves. Several students openly admitted feeling uncertain about what constitutes acceptable use. Perhaps, therein lies a big challenge for universities worldwide as this uncertainty points to an important reality. The challenge is no longer simply whether students use AI. The real question is how they use it, and where they draw the line between support and substitution.

A new learning partner?

The survey responses paint a picture that is far more nuanced than the headlines often suggest. Among these Open University students, GenAI was rarely portrayed as an academic ghostwriter. Instead, it appeared as a tool used for clarification, organisation, feedback and confidence-building. At the same time, many students remained deeply cautious, questioning its reliability and its impact on learning, creativity and academic integrity. 

What emerges is a portrait of thoughtful learners actively grappling with a rapidly changing educational landscape.

As AI becomes increasingly embedded in everyday life, students are not simply accepting or rejecting it. They are experimenting, questioning, adapting and defining their own ethical boundaries. The conversations captured in these 92 stories remind us that the future of education will not be shaped by technology alone. It will be shaped by the choices learners make about how they use it.

And perhaps that is the most important lesson of all. In a world of increasingly powerful AI, learning remains a deeply human endeavour.