CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 198Artificial Intelligence in EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

University teachers' perceptions of responsibility and artificial intelligence in higher education - An experimental philosophical study

Open access
McGrath, Cormac, Cerratto Pargman, Teresa, Juth, Niklas, Palmgren, Per J.·2023·Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
DOI 10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100139
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study investigates university teachers’ relationships with emerging technologies by focusing on the uptake of artificial intelligence in higher education practices. We utilise an experimental philosophy approach to i) determine university teachers’ intuitions around universities’ responsibilities to adopt new artificial intelligence technologies, ii) understand the conditions under which university teachers consider artificial intelligence defensible and, hence, would be willing to introduce such tools and services into their daily practice and iii) specify teachers’ self-reported knowledge of artificial intelligence. An online survey, where participants were sent one of three different cases (Case A related to first-generation students, Case B, an archetypical student, Case C, students with a learning disability), and 18 identical questions across all three cases. The survey was distributed among 1773 teachers. Based on the responses of 194 university teachers, we identify differences related to responsibility, equity, and knowledge about artificial intelligence. Our quantitative data exhibited that in Case A and Case C, the respondents ranked to a higher degree that universities should use artificial intelligence tools and systems to achieve equitable outcomes. Data revealed no statistically significant associations among the respondents with regard to background variables in Case A. However, Case B and Case C disclosed statistically significant associations concerning gender, age, faculty, and academic position among the participants. Moreover, we identify teachers’ fears and scepticism about artificial intelligence in higher education, concerns about fairness and responsibility, and lack of knowledge about artificial intelligence and resources to engage with artificial intelligence in teaching practices.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100139

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 50 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Cerratto Pargman, 2023, New vistas on responsible learning analytics: A data feminist perspective, Journal of Learning Analytics, 1
  2. Tomczak, 2014, The need to report effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some recommended measures of effect size, Trends in Sport Sciences, 1, 19
  3. Tronto, 1998, An ethic of care. Generations, Journal of the American Society on Aging, 22, 15
  4. Williamson, 2022, A review of learning analytics dashboard research in higher education: Implications for justice, equite, diversity, and inclusion, 260

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
McGrath, C., Cerratto Pargman, T., Juth, N., & Palmgren, P. J.
Affiliations
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • Uppsala University (SE)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Corresponding author
McGrath, Cormac
ORCID
Venue
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023
Volume
4
Pages
100139
ISSN
2666-920X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100139
OpenAlex
W4367048490
Semantic Scholar
abbd9b701038e2951540158928025808e8b32a3c
Cited by
195
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 51 · 2025: 80 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 9
FWCI
45.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Uppsala University Publications (Uppsala University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
artificial intelligence in higher education, university faculty perceptions, university responsibility, artificial intelligence adoption, equity, AI knowledge, teacher attitudes toward AI, first-generation college students, students with learning disabilities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review