A study by researchers at the University of Phoenix's Center for Educational and Instructional Technology Research (CEITR) has found that nontraditional undergraduate students who use generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools more often tend to perform better academically and feel more confident in their technology skills. The study, titled "Strategic Integration or Skill Compensation? Understanding GenAI Use in Online Higher Education," was published in the journal Artificial Intelligence in Education on June 30. It surveyed 491 nontraditional students taking online general education courses, with about 43.2%—or 212 students—reporting that they used GenAI tools like ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, or Gemini in their coursework. The study found that two factors were strongly linked to how often students used GenAI: higher grade point averages (GPAs) and greater confidence in using technology. Other factors, such as confidence in reading, writing, and math, or the time demands from work, study, or family, did not significantly influence GenAI use. Among those who used GenAI, 91.1% had a GPA of 3.0 or higher, and 68.9% received a perfect score of 4.0 in the course where they used the tools. Students who used GenAI in their studies described several benefits, including better understanding of complex topics, using AI as a "thinking partner" to help brainstorm and organize ideas, and increased efficiency in completing academic tasks. However, they also raised concerns about the accuracy and originality of AI-generated content, the challenge of maintaining their own academic voice, and uncertainty about how to use GenAI without violating academic integrity rules. The researchers argue that rather than focusing on limiting AI use, educational institutions should focus on helping students develop the skills needed to use GenAI effectively and ethically. They recommend integrating AI literacy into various disciplines, designing assignments that encourage students to critically evaluate AI-generated information, and providing clear guidelines on appropriate use. However, the researchers caution that because the study used a cross-sectional design and data from a single university, the results do not prove that GenAI use directly causes improved academic performance. They suggest that future research should be longitudinal and involve multiple institutions to better understand how GenAI use evolves and its long-term impact on learning outcomes.