As artificial intelligence (AI) tools rapidly enter classrooms, colleges and universities are faced with a pressing question: how can AI be integrated in ways that support learning without undermining fairness, academic integrity, or skill development? To better understand student perspectives, a survey was conducted with 299 composition students at De Anza College during the Fall 2025 and Winter 2026 quarters.

The results challenge simplistic narratives that frame students as either enthusiastic adopters or resistant skeptics. Instead, De Anza students articulate a nuanced, values-driven position: they are open to AI as a learning aid, but not as a replacement for thinking, effort, or human judgment. 

AI in Daily Life: Common, but Purposeful 

AI use is widespread among De Anza composition students, with 73% reporting regular or occasional use outside of school. Students most commonly reported using AI for writing assistance (such as drafting messages or emails), planning and organization, translation, and media recommendations.  Image generation and more creative uses were far less common. 

Students consistently described AI as a tool of convenience, not authority. As one student explained, “I mostly use AI for help wording things or organizing my thoughts, not to replace my ideas.” This distinction between assistance and substitution becomes even more pronounced when students discuss academic work. 

AI and Academic Work: Clear Ethical Boundaries 

Ninety percent of surveyed students reported using AI in some form, yet 32% intentionally avoid AI for graded assignments. Students identified brainstorming ideas, clarifying confusing concepts or instructions, revising grammar, and reviewing material as areas where AI can be helpful. By contrast, they preferred not to use AI for final drafts of essays, exams, quizzes, or personal reflections. 

Across responses, students articulated clear ethical boundaries. One student noted, “Using AI to understand something is fine, but using it to do the assignment crosses a line.” Many also expressed concern that overreliance on AI could weaken core skills, particularly writing and critical thinking.

AI in the Course Context: Openness with Conditions 

Nearly all students (97%) could imagine AI being used in their composition courses, but a majority (58%) preferred its use to be selective or limited. Students were most comfortable with AI supporting pre-writing activities, study guides, clarification of expectations, and low-stakes practice. They were far less comfortable with AI being used for major graded assignments or assessments intended to demonstrate individual voice and learning. 

Students strongly emphasized the need for clarity. As one student wrote, “It really depends on the assignment. Clear rules would help a lot.” Uncertainty about AI expectations emerged as a significant source of stress, suggesting that assignment-specific guidance is more effective than blanket policies. 

Instructor Use of AI: Supportive, Not Automated 

Students were generally comfortable with instructors' use of AI under defined conditions. Eighty-three percent supported AI-assisted feedback, 70% supported AI-assisted grading with human review, and 87% supported AI use in creating or adapting course materials. However, students consistently rejected the idea of fully automated grading or decision-making. 

Human oversight was described as essential for trust. One student summarized this view succinctly: “AI is fine as long as a real person is still making the decisions.” Concerns about bias, misinterpretation, and loss of personalized feedback were common across responses. Students still value the personal connection and feedback they receive from their professors.

Student Values: Learning, Fairness, and Equity 

Across the dataset, 90% of students explicitly referenced learning quality, fairness, or equity, emphasizing that AI should enhance learning rather than simply increase efficiency. They also raised concerns about unequal access to AI tools, particularly when advanced features require payment. As one student observed, “If some students can afford better AI tools than others, that’s not fair.” 

Implications for Policy and Practice 

The perspectives of De Anza College composition students point toward a clear path forward. Students are not asking institutions to ban AI, nor are they seeking unrestricted use. Instead, they are calling for intentional, transparent, and ethically grounded integration that prioritizes learning, fairness, and human judgment.

For administrators and policy makers, these findings underscore the importance of clear, context-sensitive AI policies. As AI continues to shape higher education, student voices offer a critical reminder: responsible AI use is not about whether AI is allowed, but about how, when, and why it is used, and who remains accountable. 

FACCC blog posts are written independently by FACCC members and encompass their experiences and recommendations. FACCC neither condemns nor endorses the recommendations herein.