Aim/Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to (1) examine if higher education institutions’ (HEIs) generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) literacy policy will impact educators’ and students’ attitudes and actions in educational settings and (2) explore educators and students’ attitudes towards Gen AI and academic behavior with or without institutional support.

Background
Since OpenAI launched ChatGPT in November 2022, AI has attracted significant attention in both research and practice across various institutions. Although the use of Gen AI is still in the preliminary phase, it has been adopted in educational contexts, including administrative tasks, instructions, and learning (e.g., Chen, Chen & Lin, 2020; Popenici & Kerr, 2017). However, considerable debates remain in the use of the Gen AI in teaching and learning, with the major concerns of academic integrity (Territory Education Quality and Standards Agency of Australian Government, 2024). In June 2024, the Australian Territory Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) asked all registered HEI providers for an institutional action plan addressing the challenges gen AI poses to the integrity of their awards. TEQSA received a 100% response rate, revealing notable distinction across HEIs in Australia. These differences emerged across three key areas: process (including strategic planning, risk management, and quality assurance measures), people (involving staff, students, and external partners), and practice (covering teaching, learning, and assessment approaches) (Territory Education Quality and Standards Agency of Australian Government, 2024).

Methodology
A qualitative approach is adopted to examine institutional Gen AI literacy policy, educators (i.e., lecturers) and students’ attitudes and behaviours towards Gen AI in educational settings. We start by content analysis via QSR NVIVO 15 of Gen AI literacy policies published on the websites of three Australian HEIs. Using NVivo, we will examine the language used in these policies to (1) generate school’s AI literacy policy in teaching and learning respectively and to (2) know their attitudes towards Gen AI in educational settings – support or restrain? We will then interview three lecturers in each institute and nine coursework students who enrolled in their subjects. Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) is employed to analyse and interpret the interview transcripts.
Contribution Prior research predominantly used a singular perspective, focusing either on students, educators or HEI policies. The study incorporates three key stake-holders (i.e., policy documents, educators and students) in examining the application of Gen AI in educational settings.

Findings
The study explores how educators and their students use Gen AI in teaching and learning. This study also explores whether educators and students are aware of Gen AI literacy policies when such policies exist in schools, and how they implement them. The study further examines if institutional attitudes (i.e., support or restrain) the use of Gen AI will influence educators and students’ attitudes (i.e., optimism and pessimism).

Recommendations for Practitioners
(1) For policymakers: The study highlights the need for HEIs to provide clear guidance on responsible and ethical use of Gen AI within educational contexts and communicate the institutional policies to key stakeholders (e.g., educators and students). (2) For educators: The study will inform educators an approach to design their educational activities in accordance with schools’ AI literacy policy while addressing the major concerns, such as security and ethical consideration and academic integrity.

Recommendations for Researchers
The study encourages future researchers to view the application of Gen AI in a more holistic approach rather than viewing it in an isolated manner. For example, several researchers examined the application of Gen AI from a singular perspective – either from the perspectives of educators or students. Besides, the discussion of Gen AI in educational settings should incorporate the relevant policies implemented in the institutions.

Impact on Society
HEIs’ AI literacy policy will potentially influence both educators and students’ attitudes and behaviour towards Gen AI in professional settings. The responsible and ethical use of Gen AI is likely to be reflected in students’ work values once they step outside the schools. More importantly, HEIs’ AI literacy policy should align with societal progress, not lag behind it.

Future Research
We pinpoint some challenges of inconsistent institutional Gen AI policy implementation and encourage further researchers to incorporate multiple perspectives from key stakeholders, including policymakers, professional staff, academic staff, educators, research students and coursework students, to the study.