Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 191 references

What is Ethical: AIHED Driving Humans or Human-Driven AIHED? A Conceptual Framework enabling the Ethos of AI-driven Higher education

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that ethical AI in higher education requires human intelligence embedded in every phase of the AI lifecycle, and proposes the HD-AIHED framework to do that.

desk verdict A coherent five-phase governance framework undermined by a circular validation and a direct contradiction between deferred testing and claimed empirical success. read the letter →

arxiv 2503.04751 v1 pith:5SSGO3O6 submitted 2025-02-07 cs.CY cs.AIcs.HC

Prashant Mahajan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.HC
keywords AIethicshighereducationhuman-centeredlifecyclegovernanceparticipatorydesignSWOCanalysisethicalframeworks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the right answer to whether AI should drive higher education is neither full automation nor avoidance: human intelligence should steer AI at every step. It proposes the Human-Driven AI in Higher Education (HD-AIHED) framework, a five-phase model covering adoption, design, deployment, evaluation, and exploration, with human decision points and feedback loops built into each phase. The claim is that this structure, combined with SWOC readiness analysis and university AI ethics review boards, prevents the bias, privacy, and governance failures that have accompanied AI tools in universities. If correct, institutions get a concrete governance blueprint that aligns AI with global ethics guidance while keeping the technology adaptable to local capacity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the HD-AIHED (Human-Driven AI in Higher Education) framework. It is a governance workflow in which five Human Intelligence layers (HI1–HI5) correspond to the AI lifecycle phases of adoption, design, deployment, evaluation, and exploration; decision-making points (DM) set strategic direction, and feedback loops (FB1–FB12) carry continuous corrections between layers. The framework also embeds a SWOC (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Challenges) analysis at the adoption and exploration phases and assigns the AI Ethical Review Board, students, faculty, administrators, and external stakeholders specific governance roles.

What would settle it

An empirical falsifier would be a comparative pilot in which institutions using the framework show no reduction in documented algorithmic bias incidents, privacy complaints, or stakeholder trust gaps relative to matched institutions using standard AI procurement over a two-to-three-year period. A simpler check: if the mapping of university AI applications into the five phases can be reproduced by independent coders only when they are told the phase names, the framework may be imposing its categories rather than explaining the cases.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that ethical AI in higher education is not achieved by choosing better algorithms alone but by embedding human oversight into the entire AI lifecycle. The HD-AIHED framework maps five 'phased human intelligences' onto the five AI lifecycle phases—critical evaluation at adoption, resource selection at design, barrier removal at deployment, outcome evaluation, and future-scope planning—and connects them with feedback loops and decision-making checkpoints. The author maintains that this arrangement ensures accountability, inclusivity, transparency, and ethical compliance, and that it can be adapted to both well-resourced and under-resourced institutions.

Load-bearing premise

The framework's validity rests on the assumption that a non-systematic synthesis of English-language secondary sources, plus the author's mapping of university AI tools into the five phases, is enough evidence that the model works across diverse institutional contexts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A university adopting HD-AIHED would run a structured readiness and SWOC review before buying or building any AI tool, rather than piloting tools first.
  • Bias and privacy risks would be checked at each phase, with designated humans—not the AI system—holding final approval through decision-making checkpoints.
  • Feedback loops would make AI systems continuously revised by student and faculty input, so the framework is designed to adapt as institutional needs change.
  • The same five-phase structure could be used by institutions in different regions, with each phase's criteria adjusted to local infrastructure and regulatory context.
  • Establishing AI ethical review boards would become a standard governance requirement, giving students a formal role in AI oversight.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The framework's five phases are general enough that they could be applied outside higher education, for example to AI adoption in schools or public-sector agencies, though the paper does not make that claim.
  • A natural test of the model would compare two otherwise similar universities, one using HD-AIHED and one using standard AI procurement, across several semesters; the paper does not report such data.
  • The model's heavy reliance on stakeholder participation may be easier to implement in institutions with strong administrative capacity than in underfunded ones, so the scalability claim may depend on institutional readiness rather than on the framework itself.
  • The quantitative SEM validation proposed in the paper could serve as the empirical check: if the hypothesized paths between the five phases and ethical outcomes do not hold in survey data, the framework's causal logic would need revision.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes the Human-Driven AI in Higher Education (HD-AIHED) framework, a conceptual five-phase model for integrating human oversight into AI adoption, design, deployment, evaluation, and exploration in higher education. The framework includes stakeholder participation, SWOC analysis, AI ethical review boards, feedback loops, and alignment with UNESCO/OECD/GDPR standards. The paper synthesizes secondary literature and a set of institutional examples to argue that the framework can address algorithmic bias, privacy risks, governance gaps, and scalability challenges. It claims in the abstract and in Section 5.3 to ensure ethical AI governance and institutional sustainability, and Section 7.3 asserts that all research objectives, including empirical validation, have been met.

Significance. The conceptual contribution is potentially useful: the five-phase structure is coherent, the stakeholder taxonomy is comprehensive, and the emphasis on human oversight, dynamic feedback, and alignment with global ethical frameworks addresses recognized gaps in AI governance in higher education. The paper also provides a concrete future research agenda, including a structural equation modeling design. However, these strengths are undermined by a direct internal contradiction concerning validation: the manuscript simultaneously states that empirical testing is future work and that empirical validation has been successfully completed. The only evidence offered for validation is a mapping exercise that uses the framework's own categories, which cannot provide independent confirmation. If the overclaims are removed and the framework is repositioned as an untested conceptual proposal, the paper could make a modest but useful contribution. As it stands, the central claims of empirical support and guaranteed ethical outcomes are unsupported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.6, §2.7, §7.3] There is a direct internal contradiction regarding empirical validation. Section 2.6 states that 'future empirical testing is required to evaluate the HD-AIHED model’s applicability,' and Section 2.7 concedes reliance on secondary data and the need for longitudinal and experimental studies. Yet Section 7.3 asserts 'This study successfully meets its research objectives,' which include RQ3's mandate to 'develop and empirically validate' the framework. No empirical data are reported anywhere in the manuscript. This contradiction matters because the abstract's claim that the model 'bridges AI research gaps, addresses global real-time challenges, and provides tailored, scalable, and ethical strategies' depends on the validation claim.
  2. [§2.5, §6.2, Table 8] The purported validation is circular. Section 2.5 lists 'Testing Real-World AI Applications' and 'Analyzing Case Studies of Real-World Challenges' as validation activities, but the only concrete artifact is Table 8, which maps AI applications at named universities into the framework's own five phase columns (Adoption, Design, Deployment, Evaluation, Exploration). Because the columns are the framework's categories, the exercise cannot fail: every application can be assigned to a phase. There are no outcome metrics, no baseline comparisons, no counterfactual cases, and no inter-rater protocol. Section 6.2 therefore overstates the evidence when it says the mapping 'offers a validated framework.'
  3. [§6.2, Table 8] Table 8 presents institution-specific AI applications (e.g., 'University of Cambridge – AI-Powered Campus Energy Optimization,' 'Oxford University – AI-Powered Emotional Intelligence Analysis') without any citations or sources. These entries are presented as empirical cases, but the reader cannot verify that the named institutions deployed these specific tools or that the described inputs and phases correspond to reality. Without verifiable sources, the mapping cannot serve as evidence for the framework's applicability or effectiveness.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6.2, §7.2.1] There are two tables numbered 'Table 8' in the manuscript: one in Section 6.2 and one in Section 7.2.1. Renumber the second table.
  2. [§7.1] Section 7.1 refers to 'The AIED-HDMFB model,' an acronym that appears nowhere else in the paper. This is presumably a typo for HD-AIHED and should be corrected.
  3. [§3.4.1, §5.2.5] The text contains repeated passages: Section 3.4.1 has three near-identical paragraphs starting 'Global platforms like Coursera and edX...', and Section 5.2.5 repeats the same sentence about Institutional AI Ethical Review Boards twice. These should be consolidated.
  4. [Throughout] Citation style is inconsistent: some citations use bracketed numbers, others use author–year (e.g., 'Singh, 2024', '(Bond et al., 2024)'), and some are phrased awkwardly like 'as [35] notes.' Standardize the citation format.
  5. [§5.2, §5.2.7] Figure callouts are confusing: Section 5.2 refers to 'the accompanying Figure 2' when describing the integrated system, but Figure 2 is titled 'Structural Components of Framework'; Section 5.2.7 refers to Figure 4 in a way that seems to describe Figure 5. Check all figure cross-references.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The central validation claim is self-definitional: Table 8 labels known university AI applications with the framework's own five phases and then calls this mapping a validated framework; the promised empirical testing is deferred to future work.

  1. self definitional [Section 6.2, Table 8]
    "By applying the HD-AIHED Model, this strategic mapping offers a validated framework to navigate AI adoption complexities... Each AI application is evaluated through five key phases—Adoption, Design, Deployment, Evaluation, and Exploration—providing a structured approach to overcoming institutional barriers and ethical challenges."

    The phases used to 'evaluate' each case are the framework's own structural components, and Table 8's columns are exactly Adoption, Design, Deployment, Evaluation, and Exploration. Sorting institutions into those categories is a relabeling exercise, not a test: the exercise cannot fail because any AI application can be described in these terms. No success criteria, outcome metrics, baseline comparisons, or counterfactual cases are specified. Consequently the statement that the mapping 'offers a validated framework' is entailed by the classification procedure itself rather than by independent evidence, making the validation self-definitional.

full rationale

HD-AIHED is a conceptual synthesis rather than a model with fitted parameters, and I found no load-bearing self-citation chain: the cited UNESCO/OECD/NIST/EU materials are external standards, not prior work by this author. The framework's internal design is therefore not circular in the derivation sense. The circularity burden is concentrated in the validation step: Section 6.2 and Table 8 claim a 'validated framework' by mapping universities' AI tools into the framework's own five phases, which is a guaranteed-success relabeling rather than an empirical check. The paper itself acknowledges in Section 2.6 that 'future empirical testing is required to evaluate the HD-AIHED model’s applicability' and in Section 2.7 that reliance on secondary data introduces 'limitations regarding empirical validation,' yet Section 7.3 states 'This study successfully meets its research objectives,' including RQ3's 'develop and empirically validate' mandate. I treat that as an evidentiary gap and internal inconsistency, not a further circular reduction. Since no equations or fitted parameters are involved and the framework does have independent conceptual content from the literature synthesis, the overall circularity score is moderate rather than severe.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical free parameters or invented physical entities appear. The framework is conceptual and rests on qualitative assumptions about literature representativeness and the effectiveness of human oversight.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A qualitative meta-synthesis of selected secondary sources can generate a valid conceptual framework for AI governance in higher education.
    Invoked in Sections 2.1 and 2.2; no explicit systematic review protocol or inter-coder reliability is provided.
  • domain assumption English-language academic literature, policy reports, and case studies are representative of global AIHED challenges.
    Section 2.2 limits sources to English; the framework then claims global adaptability, which may not follow.
  • domain assumption Human oversight at each AI lifecycle phase is sufficient to prevent or mitigate algorithmic bias, privacy violations, and ethical failures.
    Sections 5.2.2 through 5.3 rely on this premise; the paper offers no empirical evidence for it.
  • domain assumption Existing global ethics frameworks such as UNESCO, OECD, and GDPR are appropriate benchmarks for evaluating institutional AI adoption.
    Section 3.5 and Section 5.3.1 use these frameworks as normative baselines; the paper does not defend this choice against alternative frameworks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of What is Ethical: AIHED Driving Humans or Human-Driven AIHED? A Conceptual Framework enabling the Ethos of AI-driven Higher education." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5SSGO3O6

@misc{pith2026250304751,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: What is Ethical: AIHED Driving Humans or Human-Driven AIHED? A Conceptual Framework enabling the Ethos of AI-driven Higher education},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5SSGO3O6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2503.04751}
}
read the original abstract

The rapid integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Higher Education (HE) is transforming personalized learning, administrative automation, and decision-making. However, this progress presents a duality, as AI adoption also introduces ethical and institutional challenges, including algorithmic bias, data privacy risks, and governance inconsistencies. To address these concerns, this study introduces the Human-Driven AI in Higher Education (HD-AIHED) Framework, ensuring compliance with UNESCO and OECD ethical standards. This conceptual research employs a qualitative meta-synthesis approach, integrating qualitative and quantitative studies to identify patterns, contradictions, and gaps in AI adoption within HE. It reinterprets existing datasets through theoretical and ethical lenses to develop governance frameworks. The study applies a participatory integrated co-system, Phased Human Intelligence, SWOC analysis, and AI ethical review boards to assess AI readiness and governance strategies for universities and HE institutions. The HD-AIHED model bridges AI research gaps, addresses global real-time challenges, and provides tailored, scalable, and ethical strategies for diverse educational contexts. By emphasizing interdisciplinary collaboration among stakeholders, this study envisions AIHED as a transparent and equitable force for innovation. The HD-AIHED framework ensures AI acts as a collaborative and ethical enabler rather than a disruptive replacement for human intelligence while advocating for responsible AI implementation in HE.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2503.04751 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Research Methodology for developing a Conceptual Framework (Own Source) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Structural Components of Framework and Potential Solutions for Addressing Research Gaps and Global [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. HD-AIHED as an Integrated System 5.2.1 AI System Input At the foundation of the system is the system input, which consists of structured institutional data, including student records, administrative policies, resource allocation, and regulatory frameworks. This phase ensures that human oversight is embedded in data selection, curation, and pre-processing 27 of 63 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Unified Human Intelligence: Collaborative Decision-making and Feedback Mechanism for AI Governance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Phased Human Intelligence corresponding to AI Lifecycle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Human-Driven AIHED Model 5.3.1 Phase 1: Critical Evaluation (AI Adoption) Phase 1 of the AI adoption evaluation is spearheaded by Human Intelligence 1 (HI1), comprising the institution’s top management and governing body. This phase is designed to critically assess the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

191 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Life 3.0: Being human in the age of artificial intelligence

    Tegmark M. Life 3.0: Being human in the age of artificial intelligence. Vintage; 2018

    2018

  2. [2]

    Being human in the age of artificial intelligence

    Tegmark M. Being human in the age of artificial intelligence. 2019

    2019

  3. [3]

    Artificial intelligence for real

    Brynjolfsson BYE, McAfee A. Artificial intelligence for real. Harv Bus Rev. 2017;July: 1 –31. Available: https://starlab-alliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/AI-Article.pdf

    2017

  4. [4]

    Intelligence Unleashed: An argument for AI in Education

    Luckin R, Holmes W. Intelligence Unleashed: An argument for AI in Education. UCL Knowledge Lab: London, UK. . 2016. Available: https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/corporate/global/pearson- dot- com/files/innovation/Intelligence-Unleashed-Publication.pdf

    2016

  5. [5]

    Artificial intelligence in education promises and implications for teaching and learning

    Holmes W, Bialik M, Fadel C. Artificial intelligence in education promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign; 2019

    2019

  6. [6]

    Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the educators? Int J Educ Technol High Educ

    Zawacki-Richter O, Marín VI, Bond M, Gouverneur F. Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the educators? Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2019;16: 1–27

    2019

  7. [8]

    A unified framework of five principles for AI in society

    Floridi L, Cowls J. A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Mach Learn city Appl Archit urban Des. 2022; 535–545

    2022

  8. [9]

    AI Governance in Higher Education: Case Studies of Guidance at Big Ten Universities

    Wu C, Zhang H, Carroll JM. AI Governance in Higher Education: Case Studies of Guidance at Big Ten Universities. Futur Internet. 2024;16. doi:10.3390/fi16100354

    work page doi:10.3390/fi16100354 2024

Show all 191 references
  1. [10]

    A meta systematic review of artificial intelligence in higher education: a call for increased ethics, collaboration, and rigour

    Bond M, Khosravi H, De Laat M, Bergdahl N, Negrea V, Oxley E, et al. A meta systematic review of artificial intelligence in higher education: a call for increased ethics, collaboration, and rigour. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2024;21. doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00436-z

    2024 doi

  2. [11]

    Artificial intelligence in higher education: the state of the field

    Crompton H, Burke D. Artificial intelligence in higher education: the state of the field. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2023;20. doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8

    2023 doi

  3. [12]

    Artificial intelligence in intelligent tutoring systems toward sustainable education: a systematic review

    Lin CC, Huang AYQ, Lu OHT. Artificial intelligence in intelligent tutoring systems toward sustainable education: a systematic review. Smart Learn Environ. 2023;10. doi:10.1186/s40561-023-00260-y

    2023 doi

  4. [13]

    AI in education: A review of personalized learning and educational technology

    Oyebola Olusola Ayeni, Nancy Mohd Al Hamad, Onyebuchi Nneamaka Chisom, Blessing Osawaru, Ololade Elizabeth Adewusi. AI in education: A review of personalized learning and educational technology. GSC Adv Res Rev. 2024;18: 261–271. doi:10.30574/gscarr.2024.18.2.0062

    2024 doi

  5. [14]

    Challenges for the future of educational data mining: The Baker learning analytics prizes

    Baker RS. Challenges for the future of educational data mining: The Baker learning analytics prizes. J Educ data Min. 2019;11: 1–17

    2019

  6. [15]

    Exploring the Potential Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on International Students in Higher Education: Generative AI, Chatbots, Analytics, and International Student Success

    Wang T, Lund BD, Marengo A, Pagano A, Mannuru NR, Teel ZA, et al. Exploring the Potential Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on International Students in Higher Education: Generative AI, Chatbots, Analytics, and International Student Success. Appl Sci. 2023;13. doi:10.3390...

    2023 doi

  7. [16]

    Sizing the prize: What’s the real value of AI for your business and how can you capitalise? PwC; 2019

    PwC. Sizing the prize: What’s the real value of AI for your business and how can you capitalise? PwC; 2019. Available: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/analytics/assets/pwc-ai-analysis-sizing-the-prize-report.pdf

    2019

  8. [17]

    The Impact of AI and LMS Integration on the Future of Higher Education: Opportunities, Challenges, and Strategies for Transformation

    Alotaibi NS. The Impact of AI and LMS Integration on the Future of Higher Education: Opportunities, Challenges, and Strategies for Transformation. Sustain. 2024;16. doi:10.3390/su162310357

    2024 doi

  9. [18]

    What’s Next in Higher Education: The AI Revolution 2030

    Lytras MD, Serban AC, Alkhaldi A, Aldosemani T, Malik S. What’s Next in Higher Education: The AI Revolution 2030. In: Lytras MD, Serban AC, Alkhaldi A, Malik S, Aldosemani T, editors. Digital Transformation in Higher Education, Part A. Emerald Publishing Limited; 2024. pp. 155...

    2024 doi

  10. [19]

    Digital Education Council Global AI Student Survey 2024 AI or Not AI : What Students Want

    Digital Education Council. Digital Education Council Global AI Student Survey 2024 AI or Not AI : What Students Want. 2024. Available: https://www.digitaleducationcouncil.com/post/digital-education-council- global-ai-student-survey-2024

    2024

  11. [20]

    Fairness, Accountability, Transparency, and Ethics (FATE) in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and higher education: A systematic review

    Memarian B, Doleck T. Fairness, Accountability, Transparency, and Ethics (FATE) in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and higher education: A systematic review. Comput Educ Artif Intell. 2023;5: 100152. doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100152

    2023

  12. [21]

    Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Higher Education: Growing Academic Integrity and Ethical Concerns

    Khatri BB, Karki PD. Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Higher Education: Growing Academic Integrity and Ethical Concerns. Nepal J Dev Rural Stud. 2023;20: 1–7. doi:10.3126/njdrs.v20i01.64134

    2023 doi

  13. [22]

    Generative AI and Higher Education: Trends, Challenges, and Future Directions from a Systematic Literature Review

    Batista J, Mesquita A, Carnaz G. Generative AI and Higher Education: Trends, Challenges, and Future Directions from a Systematic Literature Review. Inf. 2024;15. doi:10.3390/info15110676

    2024 doi

  14. [23]

    Ethical artificial intelligence for teaching-learning in higher education

    Airaj M. Ethical artificial intelligence for teaching-learning in higher education. Educ Inf Technol. 2024;29: 17145–17167. doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12545 -x

    2024 doi

  15. [24]

    Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on higher education: The dynamics of ethical, social, and educational implications

    Al-Zahrani AM, Alasmari TM. Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on higher education: The dynamics of ethical, social, and educational implications. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2024;11: 1 –12. doi:10.1057/s41599-024-03432-4 56 of 63

    2024 doi

  16. [25]

    Human -centred learning analytics and AI in education: A systematic literature review

    Alfredo R, Echeverria V, Jin Y, Yan L, Swiecki Z, Gašević D, et al. Human -centred learning analytics and AI in education: A systematic literature review. Comput Educ Artif Intell. 2024;6. doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100215

    2024

  17. [26]

    Guidance for generative AI in education and research

    Holmes W, Miao F. Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO Publishing; 2023. Available: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386693.locale=en

    2023

  18. [27]

    Artificial intelligence index report 2023

    Maslej N, Fattorini L, Brynjolfsson E, Etchemendy J, Ligett K, Lyons T, et al. Artificial intelligence index report 2023. arXiv Prepr arXiv231003715. 2023

    2023

  19. [28]

    Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Addressing Students at-Risk Challenges in Higher Education (HE)

    Hamid OH. Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Addressing Students at-Risk Challenges in Higher Education (HE). The Evolution of Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Challenges, Risks, and Ethical Considerations. Emerald Publishing Limited; 2024. pp. 183–194

    2024

  20. [29]

    AI Index Report 2023: Measuring trends in Artificial Intelligence

    Stanford University. AI Index Report 2023: Measuring trends in Artificial Intelligence. AI Index Rep. 2023. Available: https://aiindex.stanford.edu/report/

    2023

  21. [30]

    The educational value of artificial intelligence in higher education: a 10-year systematic literature review

    Marengo A, Pagano A, Pange J, Soomro KA. The educational value of artificial intelligence in higher education: a 10-year systematic literature review. Interact Technol Smart Educ. 2024

    2024

  22. [31]

    Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence

    UNESCO. Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Paris: UNESCO; 2021

    2021

  23. [32]

    Everyone wants to do the model work, not the data work

    Sambasivan N, Kapania S, Highfill H, Akrong D, Paritosh P, Aroyo LM. “Everyone wants to do the model work, not the data work”: Data Cascades in High-Stakes AI. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY, USA: Association for Comp...

    2021

  24. [33]

    Six Human- Centered Artificial Intelligence Grand Challenges

    Ozmen Garibay O, Winslow B, Andolina S, Antona M, Bodenschatz A, Coursaris C, et al. Six Human- Centered Artificial Intelligence Grand Challenges. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2023;39: 391 –437. doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2153320

    2023

  25. [34]

    Ethical Aspects of the Impact of AI: the Status of Humans in the Era of Artificial Intelligence

    Rakowski R, Polak P, Kowalikova P. Ethical Aspects of the Impact of AI: the Status of Humans in the Era of Artificial Intelligence. Society. 2021;58: 196–203. doi:10.1007/s12115-021 -00586-8

    2021 doi

  26. [35]

    Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology

    Postman N. Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. Vintage; 2011

    2011

  27. [36]

    More than tools? Making sense of the ongoing digitizations of higher education

    Castañeda L, Selwyn N. More than tools? Making sense of the ongoing digitizations of higher education. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2018;15. doi:10.1186/s41239-018-0109-y

    2018 doi

  28. [37]

    A systematic review of literature reviews on artificial intelligence in education (AIED): a roadmap to a future research agenda

    Mustafa MY, Tlili A, Lampropoulos G, Huang R, Jandrić P, Zhao J, et al. A systematic review of literature reviews on artificial intelligence in education (AIED): a roadmap to a future research agenda. Smart Learning Environments. Springer Nature Singapore; 2024. doi:10.1186/s4...

    2024 doi

  29. [38]

    Artificial Intelligence Integration: Pedagogical Strategies and Policies at Leading Universities

    Alqahtani N, Wafula Z. Artificial Intelligence Integration: Pedagogical Strategies and Policies at Leading Universities. Innov High Educ. 2024. doi:10.1007/s10755-024-09749-x

    2024 doi

  30. [40]

    Ethics of AI in Education: Towards a Community-Wide Framework

    Holmes W, Porayska-Pomsta K, Holstein K, Sutherland E, Baker T, Shum SB, et al. Ethics of AI in Education: Towards a Community-Wide Framework. Int J Artif Intell Educ. 2022;32: 504 –526. doi:10.1007/s40593-021-00239-1

    2022 doi

  31. [41]

    Educause Horizon report: 2019 Higher Education edition

    Alexander B, Ashford-Rowe K, Barajas-Murphy N, Dobbin G, Knott J, McCormack M, et al. Educause Horizon report: 2019 Higher Education edition. 2019

    2019

  32. [42]

    The question concerning technology

    Heidegger M. The question concerning technology. 1977

    1977

  33. [43]

    The question concerning technology

    Heidegger M. The question concerning technology. Readings Philos Technol. 2009; 9 –24

    2009

  34. [44]

    AI ethics as a complex and multifaceted challenge: decoding educators’ AI ethics alignment through the lens of activity theory

    Kamali J, Alpat MF, Bozkurt A. AI ethics as a complex and multifaceted challenge: decoding educators’ AI ethics alignment through the lens of activity theory. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2024;21: 1 –20

    2024

  35. [45]

    A Social Perspective on AI in the Higher Education System: A Semisystematic Literature Review

    Alshahrani BT, Pileggi SF, Karimi F. A Social Perspective on AI in the Higher Education System: A Semisystematic Literature Review. Electron. 2024;13: 1–27. doi:10.3390/electronics13081572

    2024 doi

  36. [46]

    Meta‐synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review

    Walsh D, Downe S. Meta‐synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. J Adv Nurs. 2005;50: 204–211

    2005

  37. [47]

    Introduction To Theorygenerating Meta- Synthesis Research

    Finfgeld-Connett D. Introduction To Theorygenerating Meta- Synthesis Research. A Guid to Qual Meta- Synthesis. 2018; 1–12. doi:10.4324/9781351212793-1

    2018 doi

  38. [48]

    Secondary analysis of qualitative data: An overview

    Heaton J. Secondary analysis of qualitative data: An overview. Hist Soc Res Sozialforsch. 2008; 33 –45

    2008

  39. [49]

    Qualitative meta‐synthesis: a question of dialoguing with texts

    Zimmer L. Qualitative meta‐synthesis: a question of dialoguing with texts. J Adv Nurs. 2006;53: 311– 318

    2006

  40. [50]

    OECD principles on artificial intelligence

    OECD. OECD principles on artificial intelligence. OECD Paris, France; 2019

    2019

  41. [51]

    Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems

    IEEE. Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. New York: IEEE; 2020

    2020

  42. [52]

    Technology acceptance model

    Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. Technology acceptance model. J Manag Sci. 1989;35: 982 –1003

    1989

  43. [53]

    Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn London

    Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn London. UK Free Press. 2003. 57 of 63

    2003

  44. [54]

    Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions

    Venkatesh V, Bala H. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis Sci. 2008;39: 273–315

    2008

  45. [55]

    Reflections on the transition from elite to mass to universal access: Forms and phases of higher education in modern societies since WWII

    Trow M. Reflections on the transition from elite to mass to universal access: Forms and phases of higher education in modern societies since WWII. International handbook of higher education. Springer; 2007. pp. 243–280

    2007

  46. [56]

    The forms of capital.(1986)

    Bourdieu P. The forms of capital.(1986). Cult theory An Anthol. 2011;1: 949

    1986

  47. [57]

    Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research

    Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. springer publishing company; 2006

    2006

  48. [58]

    Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies

    Noblit GW. Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Stage Publ. 1988

    1988

  49. [59]

    Synthesizing qualitative research: choosing the right approach

    Hannes K, Lockwood C. Synthesizing qualitative research: choosing the right approach. John Wiley & Sons; 2011

    2011

  50. [60]

    Algorithmic bias: review, synthesis, and future research directions

    Kordzadeh N, Ghasemaghaei M. Algorithmic bias: review, synthesis, and future research directions. Eur J Inf Syst. 2022;31: 388–409

    2022

  51. [61]

    SDG 4, Academic In tegrity and Artificial Intelligence: Clash or Win-Win Cooperation? Sustainability

    Artyukhov A, Wołowiec T, Artyukhova N, Bogacki S, Vasylieva T. SDG 4, Academic In tegrity and Artificial Intelligence: Clash or Win-Win Cooperation? Sustainability. 2024;16: 8483

    2024

  52. [62]

    ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DUALITY

    Heintz F. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DUALITY. Comput Think Educ K-12 Artif Intell Lit Phys Comput. 2022;143

    2022

  53. [63]

    AI Risk Management Framework

    NIST. AI Risk Management Framework. Gaithersburg: National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2023

    2023

  54. [64]

    Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews

    Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8: 1–10

    2008

  55. [65]

    Overlooking the conceptual framework

    Leshem S, Trafford V. Overlooking the conceptual framework. Innov Educ Teach Int. 2007;44: 93 –105

    2007

  56. [66]

    Academic and Administrative Role of Artificial Intelligence in Education

    Ahmad SF, Alam MM, Rahmat MK, Mubarik MS, Hyder SI. Academic and Administrative Role of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Sustain. 2022;14: 1–11. doi:10.3390/su14031101

    2022 doi

  57. [67]

    Hu S, Ke F, Vyo rtkina D, Hu P, Luby S, O’Shea J. Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Applications, Challenges, and Policy Development and Further Considerations BT - Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research: Volume 40. In: Perna LW, editor. Cham: Springer Na...

    2025 doi

  58. [68]

    Algorithmic bias in education

    Baker RS, Hawn A. Algorithmic bias in education. Int J Artif Intell Educ. 2022; 1 –41

    2022

  59. [69]

    Keeping artificial intelligence real: The importance of AI governance

    Singh N. Keeping artificial intelligence real: The importance of AI governance. McKinsey & Company

  60. [71]

    A Definition of Artificial Intelligence

    Dobrev D. A Definition of Artificial Intelligence. 2012; 1 –7. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1568

    2012 arXiv

  61. [72]

    Artificial intelligence: a modern approach

    Russell SJ, Norvig P. Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. Pearson; 2016

    2016

  62. [74]

    Evolution and Revolution in Artificial Intelligence in Education

    Roll I, Wylie R. Evolution and Revolution in Artificial Intelligence in Education. Int J Artif Intell Educ. 2016;26: 582–599. doi:10.1007/s40593-016-0110-3

    2016 doi

  63. [75]

    Application and theory gaps during the rise of Artificial Intelligence in Education

    Chen X, Xie H, Zou D, Hwang GJ. Application and theory gaps during the rise of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Comput Educ Artif Intell. 2020;1: 100002. doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100002

    2020

  64. [76]

    A Retrospective Analysis of Artificial Intelligence in Education ( AIEd ) Studies : Perspectives , Learning Theories , Challenges , and Emerging Oppor tunities

    Mohammed AT, Velander J, Milrad M. A Retrospective Analysis of Artificial Intelligence in Education ( AIEd ) Studies : Perspectives , Learning Theories , Challenges , and Emerging Oppor tunities. Springer Nature Singapore; 2024. doi:10.1007/978-981 -97-8638-1

    2024 doi

  65. [77]

    How technology is shaping learning in higher education

    Claudio S, Sirois J, Owen K, Marya V, Krishnan C, Brasca C. How technology is shaping learning in higher education. McKinsey Co. 2022; 1–9. Available: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/education/our- insights/how-technology-is-shaping-learning-in-higher-education

    2022

  66. [78]

    Artificial Intelligence Adoption in the Post COVID-19 New-Normal and Role of Smart Technologies in Transforming Business: a Review

    Agarwal P, Swami S, Malhotra SK. Artificial Intelligence Adoption in the Post COVID-19 New-Normal and Role of Smart Technologies in Transforming Business: a Review. J Sci Technol Policy Manag. 2024;15: 506–529. doi:10.1108/JSTPM-08-2021-0122

    2024 doi

  67. [79]

    Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education

    Luckin R, Holmes W. Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. 2016

    2016

  68. [80]

    Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2024

    Perrault R, Clark J. Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2024. 2024

    2024

  69. [81]

    Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education Market Report

    Grand View Research. Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education Market Report. 2025. Available: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/artificial-intelligence- ai-education-market-report 58 of 63

    2025

  70. [82]

    Pearson 2024 End of Year AI Report for Higher Education

    Anon. Pearson 2024 End of Year AI Report for Higher Education. Pearson; 2024

    2024

  71. [83]

    Marques-Cobeta N. Artificial Intelligence in Education: Unveiling Opportunities and Challenges BT - Innovation and Technologies for the Digital Transformation of Education: European and Latin American Perspectives. In: García-Peñalvo FJ, Sein-Echaluce ML, Fidalgo-Blanco Á, edi...

    2024 doi

  72. [84]

    Artificial intelligence in education: Opportunities and challenges for a new era

    Luckin R, Holmes W, Griffiths M, Forcier LB. Artificial intelligence in education: Opportunities and challenges for a new era. Educ Technol. 2021;61: 16–22

    2021

  73. [85]

    A conceptual framework for human –AI hybrid adaptivity in education

    Holstein K, Aleven V, Rummel N. A conceptual framework for human –AI hybrid adaptivity in education. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lectur e Notes in Bioinformatics). Springer International Publishing; 2020. ...

    2020 doi

  74. [86]

    Managing the Strategic Transformation of Higher Education through Artificial Intelligence

    George B, Wooden O. Managing the Strategic Transformation of Higher Education through Artificial Intelligence. Adm Sci. 2023;13. doi:10.3390/admsci13090196

    2023 doi

  75. [87]

    Institutional Policies on Artificial Intelligence in University Learning, Teaching and Research

    Spivakovsky O V., Omelchuk SA, Kobets V V., Valko N V., Malchykova DS. Institutional Policies on Artificial Intelligence in University Learning, Teaching and Research. Inf Technol Learn Tools. 2023;97: 181–202. doi:10.33407/itlt.v97i5.5395

    2023 doi

  76. [88]

    A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning

    Chan CKY. A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2023;20: 38

    2023

  77. [89]

    Being a university

    Barnett R. Being a university. Routledge; 2010

    2010

  78. [90]

    2021 AI Index Report

    Zhang D, Mishra S, Brynjolfsson E, Etchemendy J, Ganguli D, Grosz B, et al. 2021 AI Index Report. AI Index Steer Committee, Stanford Univ Human-Centered Artif Intell Institute, Stanford Univ. 2021; 1 –222. Available: https://aiindex.stanford.edu/report/

    2021

  79. [91]

    Diffusion of innovations

    Rogers EM, Singhal A, Quinlan MM. Diffusion of innovations. An integrated approach to communication theory and research. Routledge; 2014. pp. 432–448

    2014

  80. [92]

    Constructive evolution: Origins and development of Piaget’s thought

    Chapman M. Constructive evolution: Origins and development of Piaget’s thought. Cambridge University Press; 1988

    1988

  81. [93]

    Humon Development Celebrating Divergence: Piaget and Vygotsky1

    Bruner J. Humon Development Celebrating Divergence: Piaget and Vygotsky1. Hum Dev. 1997;40: 63 –73

    1997

  82. [94]

    The AI index 2021 annual report

    Zhang D, Mishra S, Brynjolfsson E, Etchemendy J, Ganguli D, Grosz B, et al. The AI index 2021 annual report. arXiv Prepr arXiv210306312. 2021

    2021

  83. [95]

    Creative Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Education

    Urmeneta A, Romero M. Creative Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer Nature; 2024

    2024

  84. [96]

    Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education

    Arsen’eva N V, Putyatina LM, Tarasova N V, Tikhonov G V. Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education. Russ Eng Res. 2024;44: 1687 –1690. doi:10.3103/S1068798X24702794

    2024 doi

  85. [97]

    Enhancing accessibility to analytics courses in higher education through AI, simulation, and e-collaborative tools

    Osorio C, Fuster N, Chen W, Men Y, Juan AA. Enhancing accessibility to analytics courses in higher education through AI, simulation, and e-collaborative tools. Information. 2024;15: 430

    2024

  86. [98]

    Integration of AI Training in the Field of Higher Education in the Republic of Bulgaria: An Overview

    Simeonov S, Feradov F, Marinov A, Abu-Alam T. Integration of AI Training in the Field of Higher Education in the Republic of Bulgaria: An Overview. Educ Sci. 2024;14. doi:10.3390/educsci14101063

    2024 doi

  87. [99]

    Leveraging ICT and Generative AI in Higher Education for Sustainable Development: The Case of a Lebanese Private University

    Boustani NM, Sidani D, Boustany Z. Leveraging ICT and Generative AI in Higher Education for Sustainable Development: The Case of a Lebanese Private University. Adm Sci. 2024;14. doi:10.3390/admsci14100251

    2024 doi

  88. [100]

    Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: A Predictive Model for Academic Performance

    Pacheco-Mendoza S, Guevara C, Mayorga-Albán A, Fernández-Escobar J. Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: A Predictive Model for Academic Performance. Educ Sci. 2023;13. doi:10.3390/educsci13100990

    2023 doi

  89. [101]

    Applicability of ChatGPT in Assisting to Solve Higher Order Problems in Pathology

    Sinha RK, Deb Roy A, Kumar N, Mondal H. Applicability of ChatGPT in Assisting to Solve Higher Order Problems in Pathology. Cureus. 2023;15. doi:10.7759/cureus.35237

    2023 doi

  90. [102]

    Artificial Intelligence in Africa: Emerging Challenges

    Ade-Ibijola A, Okonkwo C. Artificial Intelligence in Africa: Emerging Challenges. Responsible AI in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities. Springer; 2023. pp. 101–117. Available: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-08215-3_5#citeas

    2023 doi

  91. [103]

    Artificial intelligence in education: A systematic literature review

    Wang S, Wang F, Zhu Z, Wang J, Tran T, Du Z. Artificial intelligence in education: A systematic literature review. Expert Syst Appl. 2024;252: 124167. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124167

    2024

  92. [104]

    Intelligent educational technologies in individual learning: a systematic literature review

    Kerimbayev N, Adamova K, Shadiev R, Altinay Z. Intelligent educational technologies in individual learning: a systematic literature review. Smart Learn Environ. 2025;12: 1 –30. doi:10.1186/s40561-024- 00360-3

    2025 doi

  93. [105]

    Artificial Intelligence Tool Adoption in Higher Education : A Structural Equation Modeling Approach to Understanding Impact Factors among Economics Students

    Sova R, Tudor C, Tartavulea CV, Dieaconescu RI. Artificial Intelligence Tool Adoption in Higher Education : A Structural Equation Modeling Approach to Understanding Impact Factors among Economics Students. Electronics. 2024;13: 3632

    2024

  94. [106]

    The Evolution of Administrative Information Systems: Assessing the Revolutionary Impact of Artificial Intelligence

    Mahmood NZ, Ahmed SR, Al-Hayaly AF, Algburi S, Rasheed J. The Evolution of Administrative Information Systems: Assessing the Revolutionary Impact of Artificial Intelligence. 2023 7th International Symposium on Multidisciplinary Studies and Innovative Technologies (ISMSIT). 202...

    2023

  95. [107]

    University of Melbourne saves 10,000 hours annually with Automation Anywhere

    Automation Anywhere. University of Melbourne saves 10,000 hours annually with Automation Anywhere

  96. [108]

    AI-Driven Intelligent Data Analytics and Predictive Analysis in Industry 4.0: Transforming Knowledge, Innovation, and Efficiency

    Zong Z, Guan Y. AI-Driven Intelligent Data Analytics and Predictive Analysis in Industry 4.0: Transforming Knowledge, Innovation, and Efficiency. J Knowl Econ. 2024; 1–40

    2024

  97. [109]

    Available: https://www.automationanywhere.com/resources/customer-stories/university- of-melbourne- aau

  98. [110]

    The Role of AI Implementation in Higher Education in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: A Case Study from Slovenia

    Ferk Savec V, Jedrinović S. The Role of AI Implementation in Higher Education in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: A Case Study from Slovenia. Sustain. 2025;17: 1 –22. doi:10.3390/su17010183

    2025 doi

  99. [111]

    Artificial intelligence in innovation research: A systematic review, conceptual framework, and future research directions

    Mariani MM, Machado I, Magrelli V, Dwivedi YK. Artificial intelligence in innovation research: A systematic review, conceptual framework, and future research directions. Technovation. 2023;122: 102623. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102623

    2023

  100. [112]

    Inclusion and equity as a paradigm shift for artificial intelligence in education

    Roscoe RD, Salehi S, Nixon N, Worsley M, Piech C, Luckin R. Inclusion and equity as a paradigm shift for artificial intelligence in education. Artificial Intelligence in STEM Education. CRC Press; 2022. pp. 359 –374

    2022

  101. [113]

    A review of the application of artificial intelligence in South African Higher Education

    Funda V, Piderit R. A review of the application of artificial intelligence in South African Higher Education. 2024 Conf Inf Commun Technol Soc ICTAS 2024 - Proc. 2024; 44 –50. doi:10.1109/ICTAS59620.2024.10507113

    2024

  102. [114]

    The fourth industrial revolution

    Schwab K. The fourth industrial revolution. Crown Currency; 2017

    2017

  103. [115]

    Inclusivity and Accessibility in Digital Communication Tools: Case Study of AI- Enhanced Platforms in INDONESIA

    Gemiharto I, CMS S. Inclusivity and Accessibility in Digital Communication Tools: Case Study of AI- Enhanced Platforms in INDONESIA. J Pewarta Indones. 2024;6: 78–88. doi:10.25008/jpi.v6i1.154

    2024 doi

  104. [116]

    Higher education strategy in digital transformation

    Mohamed Hashim MA, Tlemsani I, Matthews R. Higher education strategy in digital transformation. Educ Inf Technol. 2022;27: 3171–3195. doi:10.1007/s10639-021 -10739-1

    2022 doi

  105. [117]

    Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Intelligent Assistant for Personalized and Adaptive Learning in Higher Education

    Sajja R, Sermet Y, Cikmaz M, Cwiertny D, Demir I. Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Intelligent Assistant for Personalized and Adaptive Learning in Higher Education. 2023; 1–23. doi:10.3390/info15100596

    2023 doi

  106. [118]

    Opportunities and Challenges for Artificial Intelligence in India

    Kalyanakrishnan S, Panicker RA, Natarajan S, Rao S. Opportunities and Challenges for Artificial Intelligence in India. Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery; 2018. pp. 164–170. doi:10.1145...

    2018

  107. [119]

    Artificial intelligence and education in China

    Knox J. Artificial intelligence and education in China. Learn Media Technol. 2020;45: 298 –311. doi:10.1080/17439884.2020.1754236

    2020

  108. [120]

    State of the education report for India, 2022: artificial intelligence in education; here, there and everywhere

    World Economic Forum. State of the education report for India, 2022: artificial intelligence in education; here, there and everywhere. World Economic Forum; 2022. Available: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000382661

    2022

  109. [121]

    Artificial intelligence in Indian higher education institutions: a quantitative study on adoption and perceptions

    Sharma S, Singh G, Sharma CS, Kapoor S. Artificial intelligence in Indian higher education institutions: a quantitative study on adoption and perceptions. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag. 2024. doi:10.1007/s13198-023- 02193-8

    2024 doi

  110. [124]

    Universities and Artificial Intelligence

    Rios-Campos C, Zambrano EOG, Cantos MFM, Anchundia-Gómez O, León MEC, Moya GEM, et al. Universities and Artificial Intelligence. South Florida J Dev. 2024;5: e4016. doi:10.46932/sfjdv5n6- 010

    2024 doi

  111. [125]

    Artificial intelligence applications in Latin American higher education: a systematic review

    Salas-Pilco SZ, Yang Y. Artificial intelligence applications in Latin American higher education: a systematic review. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2022;19: 21. doi:10.1186/s41239-0 22-00326-w

    2022 doi

  112. [126]

    Recommendation on the Ethics of AI

    UNESCO. Recommendation on the Ethics of AI. Unesco. 2021; 1 –21. Available: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380455

    2021

  113. [127]

    The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence

    Thagard P. The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Bots Beasts. 2021; 225 –248. doi:10.7551/mitpress/14102.003.0010

    2021 doi

  114. [128]

    National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence

    Aayog N. National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence. New Delhi: NITI Aayog; 2018

    2018

  115. [129]

    Responsible AI: Principles and Practices

    NASSCOM. Responsible AI: Principles and Practices. New Delhi: National Association of Software and Service Companies; 2021

    2021

  116. [130]

    Artificial intelligence and the transformation of higher education institutions: A systems approach

    Katsamakas E, Pavlov O V, Saklad R. Artificial intelligence and the transformation of higher education institutions: A systems approach. Sustainability. 2024;16: 6118

    2024

  117. [131]

    Department of Education

    U.S. Department of Education. Guidelines for AI in Education. Washington, D.C.: Department of Education; 2021

    2021

  118. [132]

    EU Artificial Intelligence Act

    European Commission. EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Brussels: European Commission; 2021

    2021

  119. [133]

    Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI

    European Commission. Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. Brussels: European Commission; 2019

    2019

  120. [134]

    Notes from the AI frontier : Tackling bias in AI ( and in humans )

    Silberg J, Ma nyika J. Notes from the AI frontier : Tackling bias in AI ( and in humans ). Mckinsey Glob Inst. 2019; 1–8. Available: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured insights/artificial intelligence/tackling bias in artificial intelligence and in humans/mgi-t...

    2019

  121. [135]

    Ethical AI in Practice

    GPAI. Ethical AI in Practice. Montreal: Global Partnership on AI; 2020. 60 of 63

    2020

  122. [136]

    Artificial intelligence in education: Challenges and opportunities for sustainable development

    Pedro F, Subosa M, Rivas A, Valverde P. Artificial intelligence in education: Challenges and opportunities for sustainable development. 2019

    2019

  123. [137]

    From ethical AI frameworks to tools: a review of approaches

    Prem E. From ethical AI frameworks to tools: a review of approaches. AI Ethics. 2023;3: 699 –716. doi:10.1007/s43681-023-00258-9

    2023 doi

  124. [138]

    The influence of AI text generators on critical thinking skills in UK business schools

    Essien A, Bukoye OT, O’Dea X, Kremantzis M. The influence of AI text generators on critical thinking skills in UK business schools. Stud High Educ. 2024;49: 865–882. doi:10.1080/03075079.2024.2316881

    2024

  125. [139]

    Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence

    Kaplan A, Haenlein M. Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Bus Horiz. 2019;62: 15 –25. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004

    2019 doi

  126. [140]

    Automated feedback is nice and human presence makes it better: Teachers’ perceptions of feedback by means of an e-portfolio enhanced with learning analytics

    Hunt P, Leijen Ä, van der Schaaf M. Automated feedback is nice and human presence makes it better: Teachers’ perceptions of feedback by means of an e-portfolio enhanced with learning analytics. Educ Sci. 2021;11. doi:10.3390/educsci11060278

    2021 doi

  127. [141]

    Digital technologies in support of students learning in higher education: Literature review

    Pinto M, Leite C. Digital technologies in support of students learning in higher education: Literature review. Digit Educ Rev. 2020; 343–360. doi:10.1344/DER.2020.37.343-360

    2020 doi

  128. [142]

    The optimistic future of Artificial Intelligence in higher education

    Escotet MÁ. The optimistic future of Artificial Intelligence in higher education. Prospects. 2023. doi:10.1007/s11125-023 -09642-z

    2023 doi

  129. [143]

    Foundation models such as ChatGPT through the prism of the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence

    UNESCO. Foundation models such as ChatGPT through the prism of the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. 2023; 13

    2023

  130. [144]

    Introduction to the AI Index Report 2024

    Stanford University. Introduction to the AI Index Report 2024. 2024

    2024

  131. [145]

    Adaptive learning using artificial intelligence in e-learning: a literature review

    Gligorea I, Cioca M, Oancea R, Gorski A-T, Gorski H, Tudorache P. Adaptive learning using artificial intelligence in e-learning: a literature review. Educ Sci. 2023;13: 1216

    2023

  132. [146]

    Evolution, topics and relevant research methodologies in Business Intelligence and Data Analysis in the Academic Management of Higher Education Institutions

    Correa-Peralta M, Vinueza-Martínez J, Castillo-Heredia L. Evolution, topics and relevant research methodologies in Business Intelligence and Data Analysis in the Academic Management of Higher Education Institutions. A literature review. Results Eng. 2024; 103782. doi:https://d...

    2024

  133. [147]

    Proliferation of Artificial Intelligence Tools: Adaptation Strategies in the Higher Education Sector

    Alordiah CO. Proliferation of Artificial Intelligence Tools: Adaptation Strategies in the Higher Education Sector. Propellers J Educ. 2023;2: 53–65. Available: https://ijvocter.com/pjed/article/view/68

    2023

  134. [148]

    No person is an island: Unpacking the work and after-work consequences of interacting with artificial intelligence

    Tang PM, Koopman J, Mai KM, De Cremer D, Zhang JH, Reynders P, et al. No person is an island: Unpacking the work and after-work consequences of interacting with artificial intelligence. J Appl Psychol. 2023

    2023

  135. [149]

    Adoption of artificial intelligence in higher education: an empirical study of the UTAUT model in Indian universities

    Sharma S, Singh G. Adoption of artificial intelligence in higher education: an empirical study of the UTAUT model in Indian universities. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag. 2024. doi:10.1007/s13198- 024-02558-7

    2024 doi

  136. [150]

    Ethical Questions Raised by AI-Supported Mentoring in Higher Education

    Köbis L, Mehner C. Ethical Questions Raised by AI-Supported Mentoring in Higher Education. Front Artif Intell. 2021;4: 1–9. doi:10.3389/frai.2021.624050

    2021

  137. [151]

    The who, why, and how of ai-based chatbots for learning and teaching in higher education: A systematic review

    MA W, MA W, HU Y, BI X. The who, why, and how of ai-based chatbots for learning and teaching in higher education: A systematic review. Educ Inf Technol. 2024. doi:10.1007/s10639- 024-13128-6

    2024 doi

  138. [152]

    Lopez M, Gonzalez I. Artificial Intelligence Is Not Human: The Legal Determination of Inventorship and Co- Inventorship, the Intellectual Property of AI Inventions, and the Development of Risk Management Guidelines. J Pat Trademark Off Soc’y. 2024;104: 135

    2024

  139. [153]

    Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Work: Job Shifting Not Job Loss

    George AS. Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Work: Job Shifting Not Job Loss. Partners Univers Innov Res Publ. 2024;2: 17–37

    2024

  140. [154]

    Automation, work and the achievement gap

    Danaher J, Nyholm S. Automation, work and the achievement gap. AI Ethics. 2021;1: 227 –237. doi:10.1007/s43681-020 -00028-x

    2021 doi

  141. [155]

    Using AI at Work Makes Us Lonelier and Less Healthy

    Cremer D De, Koopman J. Using AI at Work Makes Us Lonelier and Less Healthy. In: Havard Business Review [Internet]. 2024 [cited 26 Dec 2024]. Available: https://hbr.org/2024/06/research-using- ai-at-work- makes-us-lonelier-and-less-healthy

    2024

  142. [156]

    A panoramic view and swot analysis of artificial intelligence for achieving the sustainable development goals by 2030: progress and prospects

    Palomares I, Martínez-Cámara E, Montes R, García-Moral P, Chiachio M, Chiachio J, et al. A panoramic view and swot analysis of artificial intelligence for achieving the sustainable development goals by 2030: progress and prospects. Applied Intelligence. 2021. doi:10.1007/s1048...

    2021 doi

  143. [157]

    AI hyped? A horizon scan of discourse on artificial intelligence in education (AIED) and development

    Nemorin S, Vlachidis A, Ayerakwa HM, Andriotis P. AI hyped? A horizon scan of discourse on artificial intelligence in education (AIED) and development. Learn Media Technol. 2023;48: 38 –51. doi:10.1080/17439884.2022.2095568

    2023

  144. [158]

    Embedding Values in Artificial Intelligence (AI) Systems

    van de Poel I. Embedding Values in Artificial Intelligence (AI) Systems. Minds Mach. 2020;30: 385 –409. 61 of 63 doi:10.1007/s11023-020-09537-4

    2020 doi

  145. [159]

    Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development Education Sector

    UNESCO. Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development Education Sector. UNESCO Work Pap Educ Policy, No 7 Fr Pedró (Ed) . 2019; 1–48. Available: https://en.unesco.org/themes/education-policy-

    2019

  146. [160]

    Human-centered artificial intelligence in education: Seeing the invisible through the visible

    Yang SJH, Ogata H, Matsui T, Chen NS. Human-centered artificial intelligence in education: Seeing the invisible through the visible. Comput Educ Artif Intell. 2021;2: 100008. doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100008

    2021

  147. [161]

    Conceptual and theoretical frameworks in research

    Crawford LM. Conceptual and theoretical frameworks in research. Research Design and Methods: An Applied Guide for the Scholar-Practitioner. 2019. pp. 35–48. Available: https://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/105274_ch03_14.pdf

    2019

  148. [162]

    Artificial Intelligence in Education: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development Education Sector United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

    Pedro F, Subosa M, Rivas A, Valverde P. Artificial Intelligence in Education: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development Education Sector United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Minist Educ. 2019; 1–46. Available: https://en.unesco.org/t...

    2019

  149. [163]

    Human centered artificial intelligence: Weaving UX into algorithmic decision making

    Bond RR, Mulvenna M, Wang H. Human centered artificial intelligence: Weaving UX into algorithmic decision making. RoCHI 2019 Int Conf Human-Computer Interact. 2019; 2 –9. Available: https://pure.ulster.ac.uk/en/publications/human-centered-artificial-intelligence-weaving- ux-in...

    2019

  150. [164]

    Students as customers in higher education: The (controversial) debate needs to end

    Guilbault M. Students as customers in higher education: The (controversial) debate needs to end. J Retail Consum Serv. 2016; 0–1. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.03.006

    2016 doi

  151. [165]

    Prolegomena to a white paper on an ethical framework for a good AI society

    Cowls J, Floridi L. Prolegomena to a white paper on an ethical framework for a good AI society. 2018

    2018

  152. [166]

    Towards a Code of Ethics for Artificial Intelligence

    Boddington P. Towards a Code of Ethics for Artificial Intelligence. Springer; 2017

    2017

  153. [167]

    Customer Satisfaction and the Services Marketing Mix

    Yelkur R. Customer Satisfaction and the Services Marketing Mix. J Prof Serv Mark. 2000;21: 105 –115. doi:10.1300/J090v21n01

    2000 doi

  154. [168]

    The Ethical Dimensions of AI Development in the Future of Higher Education: Balancing Innovation with Responsibility

    Ojha M, kumar Mishra A, Kandpal V, Singh A. The Ethical Dimensions of AI Development in the Future of Higher Education: Balancing Innovation with Responsibility. Ethical Dimensions of AI Development. IGI Global; 2025. pp. 401–436

    2025

  155. [169]

    Artificial intelligence for education: Knowledge and its assessment in AI- enabled learning ecologies

    Cope B, Kalantzis M, Searsmith D. Artificial intelligence for education: Knowledge and its assessment in AI- enabled learning ecologies. Educ Philos Theory. 2021;53: 1229–1245. doi:10.1080/00131857.2020.1728732

    2021

  156. [170]

    Artificial Intelligence Potential in Higher Education Institutions Enhanced Learning Environment in Romania and Serbia

    Bucea-Manea- țoniş R, Kuleto V, Gudei SCD, Lianu C, Lianu C, Ilić MP, et al. Artificial Intelligence Potential in Higher Education Institutions Enhanced Learning Environment in Romania and Serbia. Sustain. 2022;14: 1–18. doi:10.3390/su14105842

    2022 doi

  157. [171]

    The Fourth Education Revolution Reconsidered: Will Artificial Intelligence Enrich Or Diminish Humanity? Legend Press Ltd; 2020

    Seldon A, Abidoye O, Metcalf T. The Fourth Education Revolution Reconsidered: Will Artificial Intelligence Enrich Or Diminish Humanity? Legend Press Ltd; 2020

    2020

  158. [172]

    Integration of Artificial Intelligence for educational excellence and innovation in higher education institutions

    Murdan AP, Halkhoree R. Integration of Artificial Intelligence for educational excellence and innovation in higher education institutions. 2024 1st International Conference on Smart Energy Systems and Artificial Intelligence (SESAI). IEEE; 2024. pp. 1–6

    2024

  159. [173]

    Unveiling the Potential: Experts’ Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence Integration in Higher Education

    Slimi Z, Villarejo- Carballido B. Unveiling the Potential: Experts’ Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence Integration in Higher Education. Eur J Educ Res. 2024;13

    2024

  160. [174]

    Artificial intelligence in higher education

    Lukichyov PM, Chekmarev OP. Artificial intelligence in higher education. Russ J Innov Econ. 2023;13: 485 – 502

    2023

  161. [175]

    Perceptions about the future of integrating emerging technologies into higher education—the case of robotics with artificial intelligence

    Leoste J, Jõgi L, Õun T, Pastor L, San Martín López J, Grauberg I. Perceptions about the future of integrating emerging technologies into higher education—the case of robotics with artificial intelligence. Computers. 2021;10. doi:10.3390/computers10090110

    2021 doi

  162. [176]

    Designing for complementarity: Teacher and student needs for orchestration support in AI-enhanced classrooms

    Holstein K, McLaren BM, Aleven V. Designing for complementarity: Teacher and student needs for orchestration support in AI-enhanced classrooms. Artificial Intelligence in Education: 20th International Conference, AIED 2019, Chicago, IL, USA, June 25-29, 2019, Proceedings, Part...

    2019

  163. [177]

    Machine Learning and Human Intelligence

    Luckin R. Machine Learning and Human Intelligence. The future of education for the 21st century. UCL institute of education press; 2018

    2018

  164. [178]

    Investigating the adoption of AI in higher education: a study of public universities in Indonesia

    Helmiatin, Hidayat A, Kahar MR. Investigating the adoption of AI in higher education: a study of public universities in Indonesia. Cogent Educ. 2024;11: 2380175

    2024

  165. [179]

    The dark side of artificial intelligence in higher education

    Ivanov S. The dark side of artificial intelligence in higher education. Serv Ind J. 2023;43: 1055 –1082

    2023

  166. [180]

    Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy

    Dwivedi YK, Hughes L, Ismagilova E, Aarts G, Coombs C, Crick T, et al. Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. Int J Inf Manage. 2021;57. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002

    2021 doi

  167. [181]

    Machine Learning and Human Intelligence: The Future of Education for the 21st Century

    Luckin R. Machine Learning and Human Intelligence: The Future of Education for the 21st Century. UCL IOE Press. 2018. Available: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED584840

    2018

  168. [182]

    An HCAI Methodological Framework: Putting It Into Action to Enable Human-Centered AI

    Xu W, Member IEEE S, Gao Z, Dainoff M. An HCAI Methodological Framework: Putting It Into Action to Enable Human-Centered AI. arXiv Prepr arXiv231116027. 2023. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.16027v3 62 of 63

    2023 arXiv

  169. [183]

    Artificial Intelligence-New Horizon in Indian Higher Education

    Bhatnagar H. Artificial Intelligence-New Horizon in Indian Higher Education. J Learn Teach Digit Age. 2020;2020: 30–34

    2020

  170. [184]

    A unified framework of five principles for AI in society

    Floridi L, Cowls J. A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Mach Learn City Appl Archit Urban Des. 2022; 535–545. doi:10.1002/9781119815075.ch45

    2022 doi

  171. [185]

    Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy

    Dwivedi YK, Hughes L, Ismagilova E, Aarts G, Coombs C, Crick T, et al. Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. Int J Inf Manage. 2021;57: 101994

    2021

  172. [186]

    A systematic review of AI role in the educational system based on a proposed conceptual framework

    Xu W, Ouyang F. A systematic review of AI role in the educational system based on a proposed conceptual framework. Educ Inf Technol. 2022;27: 4195–4223. doi:10.1007/s10639-021-10774-y

    2022 doi

  173. [187]

    Strategies for Integrating Generative AI into Higher Education: Navigating Challenges and Leveraging Opportunities

    Kurtz G, Amzalag M, Shaked N, Zaguri Y, Kohen-Vacs D, Gal E, et al. Strategies for Integrating Generative AI into Higher Education: Navigating Challenges and Leveraging Opportunities. Educ Sci. 2024;14. doi:10.3390/educsci14050503

    2024 doi

  174. [188]

    Artificial Intelligence in Critical Infrastructure Systems

    Laplante P, Amaba B. Artificial Intelligence in Critical Infrastructure Systems. Computer (Long Beach Calif) . 2021;54: 14–24. doi:10.1109/MC.2021.3055892

    2021

  175. [189]

    Explainable AI: from black box to glass box

    Rai A. Explainable AI: from black box to glass box. J Acad Mark Sci. 2020;48: 137 –141. doi:10.1007/s11747-019 -00710-5

    2020 doi

  176. [190]

    Multivariate data analysis

    Hair JF. Multivariate data analysis. 2009

    2009

  177. [191]

    Threats to critical infrastructure from AI and human intelligence

    Chaudhry J, Pathan ASK, Rehmani MH, Bashir AK. Threats to critical infrastructure from AI and human intelligence. J Supercomput. 2018;74: 4865–4866. doi:10.1007/s11227-018-2614-0

    2018 doi

  178. [192]

    Handbook of quantitative methods for educational research

    Teo T. Handbook of quantitative methods for educational research. Springer Science & Business Media; 2014

    2014

  179. [193]

    A methodological review of structural equation modelling in higher education research

    Green T. A methodological review of structural equation modelling in higher education research. Stud High Educ. 2016;41: 2125–2155. doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1021670

    2016

  180. [194]

    Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (4th ed.)

    Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (4th ed.). Methodol Soc Sci. 2015; 1 –554

    2015

  181. [195]

    Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS

    Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS. Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS. 2013. doi:10.4324/9781410600219

    2013 doi

  182. [197]

    Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives

    Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model a Multidiscip J. 1999;6: 1–55. 63 of 63

    1999

  183. [2024]

    Available: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/keeping-artificial- intelligence-real

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.