Sumu Sirén, a member of the TREY board, spoke at the Educational Leadership Forum on June 11 about students’ relationship with the use of AI in teaching. Here you will find the speech that was presented, as well as highlights from the discussion.
AI from the Students’ Perspective
Good afternoon everyone, and thank you for the invitation to speak!
My name is Sumu Sirén, and I am a member of the board of the Student Union of Tampere University. I am responsible for local education policy and tutoring at TREY, and outside of that I am a soon-to-graduate fifth-year student of Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering.
I was invited today to speak from the students’ perspective on AI in our university. AI as a topic is constantly evolving and is something of a hot potato in our society. From the students’ perspective, its impacts have not yet been systematically collected or studied, so my speech is based on discussions around me—from student communities, our office, last week’s Pedaforum in Kuopio, and by examining gaps in our university’s AI guidelines.
AI has become part of our everyday lives, both in working life and in our studies. Its role in society can no longer be prevented, so it is time to adopt the mindset that critical and appropriate use of AI is an important generic skill both in working life and at university, and it must be learned here. Teaching the proper use of AI is therefore increasingly important.
Related to these skills, Tampere University has a project called Meaningful Digital Evolution (MDE), which examines AI as a working life skill and the course offerings universities provide related to such skills. This research maps universities’ course offerings related to generative AI and whether they match the skills companies currently see as relevant in working life.
These skills include:
- using AI
- prompting
- quality assurance of AI
- content creation for AI
- process and workflow automation
- technical skills
- AI-assisted research
- content creation and UX writing
- project and change management
- AI literacy and security
At Tampere University, a search currently yields 25 courses containing AI, but only 12 matched the desired keywords related to AI skills, and of these, only 11 actually included practical AI skills. These courses are highly specialized, in-depth courses specific to certain fields. However, general AI skills should be learned at all stages of studies across all disciplines. The most visible finding of the research has been the rapid development of AI and the fact that higher education institutions are not keeping up. Therefore, AI teaching cannot be fully predefined; instead, teaching staff and the university must continuously follow developments and adapt accordingly to understand and use AI appropriately.
In studying, AI is also an important tool. It allows us to better accommodate diverse learners than before. Course materials can be transformed into summaries, podcasts, or exercises. AI can act as a tutor, enabling dialogue about the subject being studied, using the provided material to support and challenge the student. AI also enables faster interpretation of information and understanding than before, which increases the importance of critical thinking and literacy skills among students.
AI therefore offers more accessible studying for everyone. Each student can adapt teaching materials into a format that works best for them. Listening to materials and summarizing them is easier than ever. It is also easier to overcome language barriers, as AI can translate materials into needed languages. These accessibility tools should also be clearly listed for students on the intranet. However, the use of accessibility-enhancing tools is not always possible. The university has strict criteria regarding sharing teaching materials with AI, which is justified from a copyright perspective. Students should therefore be educated on how—and whether—teaching materials can be fed into AI at all. Likewise, it should be discussed whether students’ own work can be input into AI. From an accessibility standpoint, it would also be important to explore whether the available AI tools could be expanded so that, for example, materials could be made into more listenable formats, which is currently not possible.
The use of AI in teaching itself should also be examined. The university’s current regulations mainly concern students. However, AI use in teaching should also be treated with appropriate seriousness. Is it purposeful and pedagogically justified to create teaching materials using AI or to generate images with AI? We students do not want to see AI-generated images—rather leave slides blank, draw them yourself, or employ a student instead. We have many talented students in this community who would gladly create graphics for you. The world is already full of generated content, so let us keep our university free of it.
Communication about AI use must also be clear to students. Just like citing sources, it is equally important to indicate the use of AI in presentation materials. Additionally, the use of AI for transcription, recording, or captioning in events must be communicated in advance. It should also be considered whether students have the right to refuse having their speech processed by AI.
Our university clearly needs an AI policy document that defines what is allowed, prohibited, or required regarding AI use in teaching. This document should go through an official and democratic preparation process and should be updated at least once a year as needed. It should also address whether students or staff have the right to refuse the use of AI, for example in a course or lecture recordings.
AI ethics is also widely discussed among students. Information about AI and its impacts is coming from all directions, and its origin is not always checked. This makes it important to educate our community with accurate information, but also about responsibility regarding AI—for example in terms of natural resources, sustainability, and copyright. In addition, teaching staff have an obligation to justify their use of AI if asked by students. Open discussion is essential, and feedback should be listened to.
I have prepared general guidelines for communicating about AI use for courses:
- Can AI be used in the course or assignment? The traffic light model by Arene can be used to indicate levels. Can teaching materials be fed into AI?
- What AI applications can be used? Is there a permitted tool particularly useful for the subject?
- How can AI be used? For information retrieval, writing, studying?
- Are there any topic-specific limitations? For example, some legal texts do not work well with AI.
- How should AI use be reported in the course? In a document, as a mention in the text, or separately at the end of the course?
What I want you to remember is that we students want to do things right. We have chosen to be in higher education and may even be taking on debt, so we are not here to cheat our way through, we are here to learn professional skills and expertise. So speak openly to students about your expectations regarding AI use and provide clear guidelines. Engage in ethical discussions in teaching situations, which otherwise remain too limited.
Thank you!
The forum’s aftermath
The introductory speech at the event was given by postdoctoral researcher Antti Koskinen, who discussed the transformation brought by AI in our university. He reflected on how education should respond to a world where knowledge work is being automated, job roles are changing, and the sense of true ownership of ideas is fading. According to Koskinen, the future requires valuing the human-added value in society and allowing mistakes to create space for creativity. Our task as students is to grow into informed and morally responsible actors who can critically evaluate AI and the material it produces.
Susanna Kaitera from the Education and Learning Unit acted as an opponent to Koskinen. She continued the discussion on whether AI truly has an important place in human communication, how its spread may increase inequality among learners, and how it may narrow the scope of research. The event concluded with a discussion highlighting the significant return of ethics and morality as central general skills in university education. As AI develops, the moral responsibility of individuals increases. As a community, we have a duty to openly discuss how and why we use AI—so let’s stop the whispering! Open discussion about AI use among both researchers and students reduces stigma and provides an opportunity to develop our teaching in line with our skill levels. As a community, we have the opportunity to decide the direction we take with AI.