aceWhy university lecturers are turning to AI in classes | Letters
I disagree with the decision of lecturers to use artificial intelligence to create teaching materials (‘We could have asked ChatGPT’: students fight back over course taught by AI, 20 November), though I understand the pressures and incentives that they are responding to. As a recent doctoral graduate, I can only get fixed or zero-hours teaching contracts. Each taught hour may take days of preparation that is not accounted for in the pay formula. I have developed material including work plans, assessments, readin…
A Guardian letters page publishes a response to a 20 November story about students fighting back over a course taught by AI. The writer, a recent doctoral graduate on fixed or zero-hours contracts, says each taught hour may take days of unpaid preparation and describes creating work plans, assessments, reading lists and tutorial tasks for three modules, while disagreeing with lecturers' decision to use artificial intelligence to create teaching materials but understanding the incentives.
The case illustrates how AI tools are being adopted as a coping mechanism for under-resourced teaching labor, not just as a pedagogical innovation. That matters for debates about academic employment, teaching quality, and student trust, but the letter alone does not show how effective or prevalent AI-generated materials are, whether they violate university policy, or what alternatives would address the unpaid preparation burden.
- Writer is a recent doctoral graduate who can only get fixed or zero-hours teaching contracts.
- Each taught hour may take days of preparation that is not accounted for in the pay formula.
- Writer developed work plans, assessments, reading lists and tutorial tasks for three different modules requiring more time than paid for.
- Letter references prior reporting: 'We could have asked ChatGPT': students fight back over course taught by AI, 20 November.
Lecturers using artificial intelligence to create teaching materials risks degrading teaching quality and prompting student backlash.
The rundown
A letter in response to reporting on 20 November describes a recent doctoral graduate on fixed or zero-hours contracts who says each taught hour may take days of preparation not accounted for in pay, having developed work plans, assessments, reading lists and tutorial tasks for three modules, and who disagrees with lecturers' decision to use artificial intelligence to create teaching materials while noting the pressures behind it.
The exchange matters because it links AI adoption in higher education to structural underfunding and precarious academic labor rather than just pedagogical choice, raising questions about who bears the cost of quality teaching and whether AI substitution will be accepted by students; it remains uncertain how much time AI actually saves, whether institutions endorse its use, and what impact it has on learning outcomes.
Sources
- JournalismThe Guardian2025-11-25
How should this claim be treated?
The debate