‘This hidden work is now part of how AI is changing classroom life,' say Canadian researchers
Canadian academics are now dealing with additional workload – assessing whether their students used artificial intelligence (AI) in their work – and this is causing stress on these educators, with potential impact to the skills development of the youth.
According to a Mount Saint Vincent University (MSVU) study, university faculty are being left to enforce AI rules in their classrooms with little institutional guidance, and this points to inconsistent AI literacy among graduates entering the workforce.
The study – co-authored by Johanathan Woodworth, assistant professor of education at MSVU, and Emily Ballantyne, the university's acting director of teaching and learning – surveyed 53 faculty members and held three focus groups involving 12 additional participants. It found that AI guidance across institutions "remains uneven," ranging from outright restrictions to open faculty discretion, Woodworth wrote.
Institutional principles were frequently left for individual instructors to interpret on their own, the study found.
"We heard that faculty need practical ways to decide when AI belongs in learning, when it does not and how it changes trust, assessment and student agency," Woodworth wrote in a piece for The Conversation. "AI has changed the conditions under which trust, learning and assessment now happen," he added.
About a third (64.7%) of grades 6–12 teachers have not been provided training or tools to identify when students are using AI to complete their work, and 63.6% say their school or board has not given them guidance on how to instruct students to use AI appropriately, according to a previous report from the Fraser Institute.
Faculty accounts
Faculty reported having to judge whether student work was AI-assisted, often "through suspicion rather than evidence," according to the study from MSVU, as Woodworth shared via The Conversation. One faculty member said: "I feel like a detective, not a teacher."
Another participant said declining trust in student work "undermines the development of relational skills," Woodworth wrote, citing study responses. Faculty also described added, often unrecognized work tied to interpreting unclear AI policies.
Woodworth wrote that policies relying mainly on surveillance risk undermining trust between instructors and students. "This hidden work is now part of how AI is changing classroom life," he wrote.
Proposed framework
Woodworth and Ballantyne propose a framework, called CARE, built around four commitments: critical AI literacy, accountable governance, relational-affective pedagogy and ethical orientation, Woodworth shared via The Conversation.
- Critical AI literacy: Policies should support educators in designing meaningful learning and making student thinking visible. Faculty and students need support to understand AI, evaluate tools and outputs, and use it in ways that develop skill, judgment and agency.
- Accountable governance: Institutions need clear rules, fair processes and principled leadership for AI use. They also need accessible professional learning, technical support and regular policy review.
- Relational-affective pedagogy: Policies must recognize that unclear enforcement, repeated suspicion and declining trust create additional work and strain for faculty and students.
- Ethical orientation: Decisions about AI should remain grounded in equity, privacy, cultural responsiveness, student well-being and the human purposes of education.
The first three "operate as mutually supporting pillars, while ethical orientation binds them together," Woodworth wrote.
The framework calls on universities to recognize the added workload AI creates for faculty, establish shared classroom agreements on AI use at the start of each course, and invest in structured professional learning rather than one-off policy directives.
Woodworth also linked the findings to teacher education programs, writing that faculty who train future kindergarten-to-Grade-12 teachers are themselves undertrained on modelling responsible AI use.
Ottawa released its Guide on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence for federal institutions in 2023, built on the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat's FASTER framework — Fair, Accountable, Secure, Transparent, Educated and Relevant. Ontario's Responsible Use of AI Directive echoes similar principles, and the province's Bill 194, in effect since July 1, 2025, now requires public institutions, including universities, to disclose their use of AI systems and establish accountability frameworks, according to a Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) brief.
Both levels of government align with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, the first global standard on AI ethics, the HEQCO brief said.
A research team from the University of Toronto, Western University and McMaster University, writing as part of the HEQCO Consortium on GenAI, found that AI policies across institutions are increasingly treated as "living documents" that must evolve alongside the technology.
According to a previous survey, 90% of C-suite executives say life skills still matter for hiring, and 75% said they would choose a candidate strong in those skills over one who only brought AI technical ability.
