Cited by 409Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEducational Innovations and Challenges

The impact of generative AI on higher education learning and teaching: A study of educators’ perspectives

Open access
Lee, Daniel, Arnold, Matthew, Srivastava, Amit, Plastow, Katrina, Strelan, Peter, Ploeckl, Florian, Lekkas, Dimitra, Palmer, Edward·2024·Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

In recent months, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has had, and will continue to have, a dramatic impact on Higher Education (HE). A study conducted by researchers at a leading university in Australia surveyed 30 of their teaching staff, drawn predominantly from their teaching academy, and interviewed eight of them regarding the impact of AI on HE. Data were analyzed using the procedures of Inductive Thematic Analysis and revealed a lack of any homogenous sentiment around AI in HE and much ambiguity regarding best practice regarding recent technological developments. The results indicate concerns exist around concepts relating to academic integrity, however, these concerns may be exaggerated. Almost half of the participants indicated they were using AI within their teaching roles with the most common design change being modifications to assessments. Less than a quarter of staff agreed the university has adequately equipped them for AI, and more than three quarters indicated they would like support. They unanimously assumed the technology will improve. Keeping in mind universities’ obligation to serve students by preparing them for industry, it is vitally important that the HE sector stays informed of developments in AI and commit to ongoing research and discussions regarding best practice in response to AI. However, anything regarding AI and future developments will be extremely difficult to predict.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100221

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Nawaz, 2020, Artificial intelligence (AI) applications for library services and resources in COVID-19 pandemic, Journal of Critical Reviews, 7, 1951
  2. Ryznar, 2023, Exams in the time of ChatGPT, Washington and Lee Law Review Online, 80, 305
  3. Southern, 2023, Is ChatGPT getting “dumber”? Usage drops as users complain, Search Engine Journal

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, D., Arnold, M., Srivastava, A., Plastow, K., Strelan, P., Ploeckl, F., Lekkas, D., & Palmer, E.
Affiliations
The University of Adelaide (AU)
Corresponding author
Lee, Daniel
Venue
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-06
Volume
6
Pages
100221
ISSN
2666-920X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4394934695
Cited by
402
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 195 · 2025: 165 · 2024: 42
FWCI
151.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Innovations and Challenges
Keywords
generative AI, higher education, teacher perceptions, academic integrity, AI in teaching, assessment design, faculty readiness

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