[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$f7bc55VdhMlwIdUQtNyZE3a3OXaMwIdNZbutTL9Lg_Mk":3},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},200,"操作成功",{"id":7,"title":8,"content":9,"digest":10,"source":10,"coverPath":11,"thumbsCoverPath":12,"isTop":13,"isShow":14,"baseClick":13,"clickCount":15,"createTime":16,"typeId":17,"isNewest":18,"newsInfoTypeRespVo":19,"voiceUrl":22,"voiceSize":23,"taskId":24,"releaseTime":25,"titleEn":26,"contentEn":27,"voiceUrlEn":28,"taskIdEn":29,"voiceSizeEn":30},1251,"最新研究显示：近八成师生陷“AI幻觉”陷阱","\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cstrong class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\" style=\"font-size: 18px; color: rgb(255, 153, 0);\">AI已深度渗透社会生活，重塑着人们的学习与工作方式。在高校校园，AI更是师生们日常不可或缺的“伙伴”。AI究竟给高校师生带来了哪些影响？麦可思研究院开展的“2025年高校师生AI应用及素养研究”，面向2971名在校大学生（含本科生2177名，研究生794名）及1073名高校教师展开研究，给出了最新洞察。\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong style=\"font-size: 18px; color: rgb(255, 153, 0);\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">78%师生遭遇AI幻觉，学生更倾向“以技术制技术”\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 18px;\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">当生成式AI在输出流畅答案的同时，也埋下了隐蔽的认知陷阱。麦可思数据显示，近八成高校师生（在校大学生：79.2%；教师：77.1%）遇到过看似合理但实际上存在错误或不符合事实的AI生成内容，即“AI幻觉”。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 18px;\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">面对“AI幻觉”问题，人工查阅权威资料是师生共同的首选应对方式（在校大学生：57.4%；教师：57.2%），彰显对专业信源的根本依赖；调整提问方式是第二大主流策略（在校大学生：51.2%；教师：52.0%），体现主动优化交互的普遍意识；超三成师生选择减少使用存在问题的AI工具（在校大学生：35.5%，教师：32.6%），反映AI信任机制尚不稳定。数据同时也显示出师生群体的差异——学生更依赖技术验证：交叉验证多个AI工具的比例（42.7%）显著高于教师（32.0%），反映出该群体更倾向“以技术制技术”。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cimg alt=\"undefined\" src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fimage.51xinwei.com\u002F2025\u002F08\u002F424e8ae4a53f4193998f1a304493e381\u002F8601a18b87d6277f0d1ff1f9124e4c20e824fc6d.webp\" width=\"undefined\" height=\"undefined\" style=\"display: block; margin: auto;\">\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong style=\"font-size: 18px; color: rgb(255, 153, 0);\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">超六成学生陷入生成式AI学术争议困局\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 18px;\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">麦可思进一步分析发现，生成式AI已对在校大学生的学习产生了深刻且多元化的影响。积极影响是主流，主要体现在深化知识理解（51.1%）、拓宽学习视野（48.5%）、增强学习主动性（43.2%）和提升学习效率（42.7%）等方面。然而潜在的负面影响也同时存在，尤其是技术依赖导致自主学习能力下降（37.3%）和学习质量下降的问题（24.4%）。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cimg alt=\"undefined\" src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fimage.51xinwei.com\u002F2025\u002F08\u002F5fac9c4c6f59417d8ba7e69093d9fb57\u002F3b87e950352ac65c3e55f742c084e10193138a31.webp\" width=\"undefined\" height=\"undefined\" style=\"display: block; margin: auto;\">\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 18px;\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">这种影响直接关联到学术诚信风险。麦可思数据显示，针对生成式AI使用不当可能引发的学术不端问题（如内容抄袭、数据造假等），85.5%的在校大学生表示存在担忧（其中“非常担心”17.1%、“比较担心”44.6%，“一般担心”23.8%）；仅14.6%的学生担忧程度较低（“不太担心”10.8%，“完全不担心”3.8%）。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 18px;\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">当下，争议风险已转化为现实困境：约2\u002F3的受访在校大学生（65.9%）直接或间接面临AI学术争议风险，其中42.0%亲身经历过因AI生成内容引发的学术纠纷（如抄袭判定、作业扣分等），23.9%明确知晓同学遭遇类似问题。仅30.6%的受访在校大学生表示未遇此类事件，而彻底规避风险的“未使用AI群体”仅占3.5%。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 18px;\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">面对生成式AI引发的学术风险，超六成受访的师生表示其所在学校有使用生成式AI的明文规定（在校大学生：67.8%；教师：60.4%），这些师生对AI使用规范的评价呈现高度相似：超四成师生（在校大学生：42.6%；教师：42.9%）认为规范仅能部分应对现实问题；约四成师生（在校大学生：43.3%；教师：38.1%）肯定规范基本能应对挑战；值得关注的是，逾一成群体（在校大学生：11.9%；教师：15.9%）认为标准滞后需更新。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 18px;\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">为防范学术不端，不少高校启用AI检测工具。43.4%的教师认可该做法，但强调需平衡检测准确性与师生权益；25.4%的教师明确支持，认为其能有效维护学术诚信；24.3%的教师表示担忧，主要顾虑是可能导致误判或侵犯隐私；6.1%的教师不支持，主张应通过教育引导解决问题；另有0.7%的教师暂时无想法。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong style=\"font-size: 18px; color: rgb(255, 153, 0);\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">超八成学生担忧AI重塑职业，约五成师生学习AI技能\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 18px;\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">AI技术重构就业市场的背景下，超八成（80.1%）受访在校大学生坦言生成式AI将影响其未来职业选择，仅16.0%认为暂时无影响，3.9%尚未考虑该问题。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 18px;\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">高校教师群体同样面临职业范式变革。超七成（73.6%）教师预判生成式AI将改变教师评价体系（如教学效果、教学方法、课堂管理、师德失范等）。面对生成式AI技术的袭来，受访教师明确将跨学科创新能力（57.9%）与学术伦理监督（56.9%）列为最亟须提升的两大核心能力。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cimg alt=\"undefined\" src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fimage.51xinwei.com\u002F2025\u002F08\u002F6bac54b3c6c94f2b89b2aa8c5ed98e4f\u002F9358d109b3de9c820bba8c8256f7d31a18d84362.webp\" width=\"undefined\" height=\"undefined\" style=\"display: block; margin: auto;\">\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 18px;\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">关于生成式AI对教师职业稳定性的影响，受访教师态度呈现出不同的看法：占比最高的群体持谨慎乐观态度（38.8%），强调需主动适应技术变革；超过1\u002F4的教师（27.0%）保持中立，认为影响尚不明确；另有16.2%的教师呈现非常乐观的倾向，聚焦于AI创造的发展机遇。与此同时，存在担忧的群体合计占比17.9%，其中13.9%持比较悲观立场（预见部分职能被替代），4.0%表示非常悲观（忧虑职业价值稀释）。另有教师在开放选项发出“教学内容早就该换”的革新呼声，折射出深层改革诉求。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 18px;\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">而这种主动适应意识正驱动师生同步进化：当前约五成高校师生已投入生成式AI技能学习（在校大学生：48.9%；教师：50.0%），超四成明确学习计划（在校大学生：40.2%；教师：41.1%），折射出教育主体应对技术洪流的集体行动力。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(187, 187, 187);\">【新闻来源】 \u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(187, 187, 187); background-color: rgb(56, 56, 56);\">深圳特区报 作者 李丽  通讯员 郭坤 \u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fbaijiahao.baidu.com\u002Fs?id=1840744668354062944&wfr=spider&for=pc\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\" style=\"color: rgb(187, 187, 187);\">https:\u002F\u002Fbaijiahao.baidu.com\u002Fs?id=1840744668354062944&wfr=spider&for=pc\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(187, 187, 187);\">（本网转发此文章，旨在为读者提供更多的信息资讯，所涉内容不构成投资、消费建议。文章事实如有疑问，请与有关方核实，文章观点非本网观点，仅供读者参考。）\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>","","https:\u002F\u002Fimage.51xinwei.com\u002F2025\u002F08\u002Fb8e20b43e341416284d6188388217c36\u002F教育生态.jpg","https:\u002F\u002Fimage.51xinwei.com\u002F2025\u002F08\u002Fthumbs\u002Fb8e20b43e341416284d6188388217c36\u002F教育生态.jpg",0,1,230,"2025-08-20 19:43",2,false,{"id":17,"name":20,"enName":21},"芯位视野","Xinwei Vision","https:\u002F\u002Fxinwei-dev-test.oss-cn-shenzhen.aliyuncs.com\u002Fintelligent\u002Faudio%3A2986d687-49e8-4419-b614-8a98378cedef%3A0.wav?Expires=1755695510&OSSAccessKeyId=LTAI5tNvY2RkKjZw4LLWsrPK&Signature=mmgdVrzKCXR70QHvKj4jxbIxFFM%3D",11330426,"2986d687-49e8-4419-b614-8a98378cedef","2025-08-20 19:28","Latest research shows: nearly 80% of teachers and students are trapped in the \"AI illusion\"","\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cstrong class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\" style=\"font-size: 18px; color: rgb(255, 153, 0);\">AI has deeply penetrated social life, reshaping people's ways of learning and working. In university campuses, AI is an indispensable \"companion\" for teachers and students. What impact has AI brought to university teachers and students? The Mecos Research Institute conducted the \"2025 Study on AI Application and Literacy among University Teachers and Students\", involving 2,971 college students (including 2,177 undergraduates and 794 postgraduates) and 1,073 university teachers, providing the latest insights.\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong style=\"font-size: 18px; color: rgb(255, 153, 0);\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">78% of teachers and students have encountered AI illusions, with students more inclined to \"use technology to counter technology\"\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 18px;\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">While generative AI provides smooth answers, it also plants hidden cognitive traps. According to Mecos data, nearly 80% of university teachers and students (undergraduates: 79.2%; teachers: 77.1%) have encountered AI-generated content that seems reasonable but actually contains errors or does not conform to facts, known as \"AI illusion\".\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 18px;\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">Faced with the issue of \"AI illusion\", consulting authoritative sources is the preferred way for both teachers and students (undergraduates: 57.4%; teachers: 57.2%), demonstrating a fundamental reliance on professional information sources; adjusting the way of questioning is the second most common strategy (undergraduates: 51.2%; teachers: 52.0%), reflecting a general awareness of actively optimizing interaction; over 30% of teachers and students choose to reduce the use of problematic AI tools (undergraduates: 35.5%, teachers: 32.6%), reflecting an unstable AI trust mechanism. Data also shows differences between the groups of teachers and students - students rely more on technological verification: the proportion of cross-verifying multiple AI tools (42.7%) is significantly higher than that of teachers (32.0%), reflecting this group's tendency to \"use technology to counter technology\".\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cimg alt=\"undefined\" src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fimage.51xinwei.com\u002F2025\u002F08\u002F424e8ae4a53f4193998f1a304493e381\u002F8601a18b87d6277f0d1ff1f9124e4c20e824fc6d.webp\" width=\"undefined\" height=\"undefined\" style=\"display: block; margin: auto;\">\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong style=\"font-size: 18px; color: rgb(255, 153, 0);\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">Over six in ten students fall into the dilemma of generative AI academic disputes\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 18px;\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">Mecos further found that generative AI has had a profound and diverse impact on the learning of current college students. Positive impacts are dominant, mainly reflected in deepening understanding of knowledge (51.1%), broadening learning horizons (48.5%), enhancing learning initiative (43.2%), and improving learning efficiency (42.7%). However, potential negative impacts also exist, especially issues such as decreased self-learning ability due to technology dependence (37.3%) and declining learning quality (24.4%).\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cimg alt=\"undefined\" src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fimage.51xinwei.com\u002F2025\u002F08\u002F5fac9c4c6f59417d8ba7e69093d9fb57\u002F3b87e950352ac65c3e55f742c084e10193138a31.webp\" width=\"undefined\" height=\"undefined\" style=\"display: block; margin: auto;\">\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 18px;\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">This impact directly relates to academic integrity risks. According to Mecos data, 85.5% of current college students expressed concerns about possible academic misconduct caused by improper use of generative AI (such as content plagiarism, data fabrication, etc.), with 17.1% being \"very concerned,\" 44.6% \"somewhat concerned,\" and 23.8% \"generally concerned.\" Only 14.6% of students had lower levels of concern (\"not very concerned\" 10.8%, \"completely unconcerned\" 3.8%).\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 18px;\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">Currently, the risk of controversy has turned into a real dilemma: approximately two-thirds of the surveyed college students (65.9%) have directly or indirectly faced AI academic dispute risks, with 42.0% having personally experienced academic disputes caused by AI-generated content (such as plagiarism determination, grade deductions, etc.), and 23.9% clearly knowing that classmates have encountered similar issues. Only 30.6% of the surveyed college students reported no such incidents, while the \"non-users\" who completely avoid the risk account for only 3.5%.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 18px;\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">In response to the academic risks caused by generative AI, more than six in ten respondents said their school has clear regulations on the use of generative AI (undergraduates: 67.8%; teachers: 60.4%). These teachers and students evaluate the AI usage regulations highly similarly: over 40% of teachers and students (undergraduates: 42.6%; teachers: 42.9%) believe the regulations can only partially address practical problems; about 40% of teachers and students (undergraduates: 43.3%; teachers: 38.1%) affirmed that the regulations can basically cope with challenges; notably, over 10% of the group (undergraduates: 11.9%; teachers: 15.9%) believe the standards are outdated and need updating.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 18px;\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">To prevent academic misconduct, many universities have adopted AI detection tools. 43.4% of teachers approve of this practice, but emphasize the need to balance detection accuracy with teachers' and students' rights; 25.4% of teachers explicitly support it, believing it effectively maintains academic integrity; 24.3% of teachers express concerns, mainly fearing false positives or privacy violations; 6.1% of teachers do not support it, advocating solving the problem through education guidance; another 0.7% of teachers have no immediate thoughts.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong style=\"font-size: 18px; color: rgb(255, 153, 0);\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">Over eight in ten students worry about AI reshaping careers, and about half of teachers and students are learning AI skills\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 18px;\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">With AI technology restructuring the job market, over 80% (80.1%) of the surveyed college students admitted that generative AI will affect their future career choices, with only 16.0% believing it has no impact temporarily, and 3.9% yet to consider this issue.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 18px;\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">The teacher group is also facing changes in the professional model. Over 70% (73.6%) of teachers predict that generative AI will change the teacher evaluation system (such as teaching effectiveness, teaching methods, classroom management, moral misconduct, etc.). Faced with the arrival of generative AI technology, the interviewed teachers clearly list interdisciplinary innovation capability (57.9%) and academic ethics supervision (56.9%) as the two core capabilities that must be improved urgently.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cimg alt=\"undefined\" src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fimage.51xinwei.com\u002F2025\u002F08\u002F6bac54b3c6c94f2b89b2aa8c5ed98e4f\u002F9358d109b3de9c820bba8c8256f7d31a18d84362.webp\" width=\"undefined\" height=\"undefined\" style=\"display: block; margin: auto;\">\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 18px;\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">Regarding the impact of generative AI on teachers' job stability, the interviewed teachers showed different attitudes: the largest group held a cautious optimistic attitude (38.8%), emphasizing the need to actively adapt to technological changes; over a quarter of teachers (27.0%) remained neutral, believing the impact is still unclear; another 16.2% of teachers showed a very optimistic tendency, focusing on the development opportunities created by AI. At the same time, there is a group of concerned individuals totaling 17.9%, among whom 13.9% held a relatively pessimistic view (expecting some functions to be replaced), and 4.0% were very pessimistic (worried about the dilution of occupational value). Some teachers also raised calls for reform in the open option, reflecting deeper demands for reform.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 18px;\" class=\"ql-lineHeight-1-75\">This proactive adaptation awareness is driving both teachers and students to evolve together: currently, about half of the university teachers and students have already started learning generative AI skills (undergraduates: 48.9%; teachers: 50.0%), and over 40% have clear learning plans (undergraduates: 40.2%; teachers: 41.1%), reflecting the collective action power of educational subjects in dealing with the tide of technology.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(187, 187, 187);\">[News Source] \u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(187, 187, 187); background-color: rgb(56, 56, 56);\">Shenzhen Special Zone Daily, Author Li Li, Communications Officer Guo Kun \u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fbaijiahao.baidu.com\u002Fs?id=1840744668354062944&wfr=spider&for=pc\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\" style=\"color: rgb(187, 187, 187);\">https:\u002F\u002Fbaijiahao.baidu.com\u002Fs?id=1840744668354062944&wfr=spider&for=pc\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(187, 187, 187);\">（This article is reprinted by this website to provide readers with more information and news. The content involved does not constitute investment or consumption advice. If there are any questions about the facts of the article, please verify with the relevant parties. The views of the article are not the views of this website, and are for reference only.)\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>","https:\u002F\u002Fxinwei-dev-test.oss-cn-shenzhen.aliyuncs.com\u002Fintelligent\u002Faudio%3Ac86491da-93f6-4330-8006-39c0cc219753%3A0.wav?Expires=1774838491&OSSAccessKeyId=LTAI5tNvY2RkKjZw4LLWsrPK&Signature=gh98SEPN%2B8EI2uQar1Eyu2HIXsE%3D","c86491da-93f6-4330-8006-39c0cc219753",15437390]