Tyton Partners’ latest research found that despite a large number of higher education stakeholders using generated AI tools, they still demonstrate a preference for face-to-face coaching, support for human leadership, and skill-based learning rather than other trends.
“It’s a re-rule,” said Catherine Shaw, managing director of Tyton Partners. People are figuring out how to adapt to this innovation that supports all stakeholders in the ecosystem. [Generative AI] It can be beneficial to learners, it can be beneficial to teachers, and it can be beneficial to solution providers. ”
Tyton’s annual report on digital tools and student success, “Study Time” evaluates surveys on students, administrators and faculty who generate AI and higher education innovations over the past three years.
This year’s report highlights the value of face-to-face learning and face-to-face engagement to student success, and the ways in which teachers and staff can leverage technical tools to enhance student experience.
Methodology
“Class time” is a longitudinal study of digital learning in American higher education. This year’s survey was conducted in the spring of 2025 and included responses from 1,500 students, more than 1,500 lecturers and more than 300 administrators. Students surveyed attended two and four years of college, including on-the-job students, parenting students and dual recruitment high school students.
In addition to asking about the use of generative AI, the survey also collected data on digital courses, e-books, and inclusive access, as well as changes to digital accessibility compliance requirements.
Grab AI: The rise of generative AI tools has made students and faculty feel aches about education, and each group accuses the other of cheating using AI. Despite the growing market for digital tools and AI-assisted alternatives, the research found that students and lecturers enjoy engaging with people and other humans.
Less than two-thirds of teachers and students surveyed indicated that in-person courses were their preferred teaching method, respectively. Compared with the 2023 data, 16% of teachers indicated that they prefer in-person teaching, while 32% of students said they wanted to learn in person.
Meanwhile, the preference for fully online courses fell to 14% in 2025 out of 16% in 2023; for students, it dropped from 30% in 2023 to 12% in 2025.
Tyton Partners
The likelihood of generating AI tools that they mainly struggle with in the courses is also slim. Most (84%) said they turned to people when they needed help, while 17% said using AI tools, a 13% decrease from the respondents in spring 2024.
Researchers theorized this may be due to difficulties students encounter in motivating AI tools to help explain classroom concepts.
“Understanding concepts, AI may not be the best choice,” said Shaw. “Get the answer? AI may be able to help you. There is a very obvious difference there, and I think our learners show us that they are starting to understand that.”
About one-third of faculty members think students are turning to AI tools for support. 29% of coaches believe students prioritize help in generating AI, while 86% of teachers say they seek help from people. About two-thirds of students said they used independent-generated AI tools like chatgpt, while 30% said they used embedded courseware tools that embedded generative AI.
Instructors still lag behind regular use of AI, with 30% of professors saying they use generated AI tools at least weekly, while 42% of students and 40% of administrators use it.
Increased access to generate AI tools has not reduced the workload of teachers; half of the faculty respondents said their workload had not changed, and 38% said AI is actually creating more work for them. Additional work included monitoring cheating (71%) and conducting assessments to combat student AI usage (61%). The only exception is that in teachers say they use generated AI tools frequently or daily: one-third of respondents say they have reduced their workload.
After Chatgpt was launched, teachers and administrators at many institutions rushed to develop policies regarding students’ use of generative AI and academic dishonesty. Survey in May 2024 Internal Advanced ED 31% of students found said when they allowed them to use generative AI in their classrooms. According to Tyton’s report, as of spring 2025, only 28% of institutions had formal policies on AI, while 32% said they were still developing a policy.
“Institutions may be reluctant to develop central policies because there are many ways to use for students’ strengths and weaknesses, depending on the field of study and the specific class,” said Shaw. “You want your guidance to be strong enough to be understood by everyone, but there is also enough room for people to feel free and have agents to modify because it makes sense to them.”
While only 4% of administrators agree that students literacy that generates AI is currently viewed as learning outcomes in their institutions, 39% say it will be done within the next three years.
Human Factors: Despite students’ reported interest in working with others, teachers surveyed showed that student engagement was low and academic dishonesty was rising.
Among the lecturers who teach introduction or development courses, 45% said their main classroom challenge was to prevent students from cheating. Another 44% say student attendance is their biggest concern.
When asked what hinders students’ success in the classroom, 70% of lecturers said their learning skills were ineffective and 47% of teachers said they lacked prerequisites for the course. Teachers also view students’ personal challenges such as anxiety or overwhelming (48%) or lack of motivation (38%) as barriers to their success. Many students agree with the professor’s assessment; 32% and 28% of first-year students continue to say they lack motivation in the classroom.
Shaw said the lack of motivation may be related to their scholars’ lack of career connections, especially for students in introductory or general education programs. But the challenge may also inspire students to enter the classroom and interact with others so they don’t have to struggle alone, she added.
“Maybe some students want more face-to-face interactions with their peers or coaches, and that’s the feeling…is that frustration or lack of confidence…it’s easier when you’re in person and you can see someone struggling.”
Tyton’s survey asked teachers to rank different types of data they wish to have in the classroom to improve student performance, while the highest response was “emotional data” of students’ frustration or confidence level (35%) and then learn about students’ popularity in other courses during the semester (23%). For Shaw, these responses indicate that teachers are interested in seeing their students as a whole so that they can better support them.
Seek campus leaders, faculty and staff stories to focus on our student success. Share here.
