University of Illinois Urbana–ChampaignThis is an AI-generated visualization built for internal review, not an official University of Illinois publication. Descriptions are paraphrased summaries of each instructor's own submission, not verbatim excerpts. Compiled from thirty-four AI Integration Design Documents submitted to Summer AI Studio, July–August 2026, University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign.
AI Integration Strategies
Project index
Survey results
The CITL Summer AI Studio End-of-Studio Survey went to all 34 faculty members who took part in the 2026 Studio their answers are reported in full below.
This page is an AI-generated visualization built for internal review, not an official University of Illinois publication. Verbatim comments have been withheld throughout for respondents who did not wish to share them, even anonymously — see Sharing permissions below.
Prior AI experience, from the baseline (intake) survey
| Group | N | Percent |
|---|
No statistically significant differences were found among the three experience groups in ratings of workshop quality (Q11), the usefulness of the work accomplished (Q12), or the overall value of the workshop experience (Q13) — the Studio appears to have landed similarly well regardless of a participant's starting familiarity with AI.
Q2 – Q4
Support during the studio
How supported participants felt during the two halves of the program, and how much they were able to make use of their assigned graduate affiliates.
Q5 – Q7
AI Fluency Modules
Most participants accessed the self-paced AI Fluency Modules and found them helpful; among those who didn't, time was the most common reason.
Q8 – Q9
Achieving project goals
The large majority of participants reached or exceeded the project goals they set for themselves at the start of the Studio.
Q11 – Q13
Quality & value
Participants rated the overall quality of both halves of the Studio highly, and were confident the work they produced will be useful going forward.
Q10, Q14 – Q15
Challenges & recommendations
Time was, by a wide margin, the challenge participants named most. Their suggestions for the next cohort — and their views on whether the Studio could move to the academic year — are collected here in full.
Q16
Sharing permissions
At the close of the survey, participants were asked whether their verbatim open-ended comments could be shared in reporting or with the Provost's Office, which sponsors the Studio.
Two respondents asked that their verbatim comments not be shared at all, even anonymously; a further twenty asked to be quoted only without their name attached. In line with those wishes, this page never attaches a name to any comment, and any comment from one of the two respondents who declined to share has been withheld from every "show all" list above rather than published without their consent — noted, where it occurred, as a response withheld by request.