The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The impact of generative AI on higher education learning and teaching: A study of educators’ perspectives
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Among university teachers, academic integrity and cheating are major concerns (Bozkurt, 2024;Johnston et al., 2024;Lee et al., 2024;Newell et al., 2024;Overono & Ditta, 2025;Perkins et al., 2024;Xia et al., 2024;Yusuf et al., 2024).”
From Toward Partnership Ethics for Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2024
In the citing paper
“As in other empirical contexts (e.g., Bozkurt, 2024;Johnston et al., 2024;Lee et al., 2024;Newell et al., 2024;Yusuf et al., 2024), academic integrity was a focus, especially for teachers.”
From Toward Partnership Ethics for Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2024
In the citing paper
“Research participants' concerns included and extended beyond academic integrity, the topic that dominates much academic research on genAI in higher education (Bozkurt, 2024;Johnston et al., 2024;Lee et al., 2024;Newell et al., 2024;Overono & Ditta, 2025;Perkins et al., 2024;Xia et al., 2024;Yusuf et al., 2024).”
From Toward Partnership Ethics for Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2024
In the citing paper
“Environments with abundant resources more readily establish stable training programs, clear procedural guidelines, and sustainable teaching support, thereby enhancing students’ trust in institutional legitimacy and reducing uncertainty-related anxiety (Lee et al., 2024).”
From Multidimensional responses to generative AI in higher education: an integrative framework linking institutional governance, teaching practice, and student psychological adaptation (2026) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2024
In the citing paper
“studies where AI-assisted journaling reduced writing anxiety”
From Enhancing Student Success through AI-Assisted Reflective Learning in Entrepreneurship Education: An Empirical Study (2026) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2024
In the citing paper
“Additional concerns such as bias in AI outputs (Lee et al., 2024) and lack of transparency in model decisions (Wang et al., 2024) further compound this hesitancy.”
From Educators’ perceptions of generative AI: Investigating attitudes, barriers and learning needs in higher education (2025) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2024
In the citing paper
“Lim et al. (2023) and Lee et al. (2024) note that generative AI in the education sphere provides an incredible opportunity for educators to reimagine what learning looks like, despite the notable fears of cheating, academic integrity, and plagiarism that accompany it.”
From Effects of Generative AI on Engagement and Performance Within Asynchronous Online Courses (2026) · cites this paper as Lee et al. (2024)
In the citing paper
“Many educators and academic institutions are currently facing challenges in determining how best to incorporate these tools into their teaching methods without compromising educational values [4].”
From Engineering Educators' Perspectives on the Impact of Generative AI in Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [4]
Citations
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414
S., N. L. (2017) · doi:10.1177/1609406917733847 · Cited by 14,051
Kung, T. H., Cheatham, M., Medenilla, A., Sillos, C., De Leon, L., Elepaño, C., Madriaga, M., Aggabao, R., Diaz-Candido, G., Maningo, J., et al. (2023) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198 · Cited by 4,115
Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: implications in scientific writing
Alkaissi, H., & McFarlane, S. I. (2023) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.35179 · Cited by 1,540
A Review of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education from 2010 to 2020
Zhai, X., Chu, X., Chai, C. S., Jong, M. S. Y., Istenic, A., Spector, M., Liu, J.-B., Yuan, J., & Li, Y. (2021) · Complexity · doi:10.1155/2021/8812542 · Cited by 1,364
Examining Science Education in ChatGPT: An Exploratory Study of Generative Artificial Intelligence
Cooper, G. (2023) · Journal of Science Education and Technology · doi:10.1007/s10956-023-10039-y · Cited by 1,263
What ChatGPT and generative AI mean for science
Stokel-Walker, C., & Van Noorden, R. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00340-6 · Cited by 828
Dergaa, I., Chamari, K., Zmijewski, P., & Ben Saad, H. (2023) · Biology of Sport · doi:10.5114/biolsport.2023.125623 · Cited by 796
A Conversation on Artificial Intelligence, Chatbots, and Plagiarism in Higher Education
King, M. R., & chatGPT (2023) · Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering · doi:10.1007/s12195-022-00754-8 · Cited by 602
ChatGPT Goes to Law SchoolPreprint
Choi, J. H., Hickman, K. E., Monahan, A., & Schwarcz, D. B. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4335905 · Cited by 565
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Nawaz, 2020, Artificial intelligence (AI) applications for library services and resources in COVID-19 pandemic, Journal of Critical Reviews, 7, 1951
- Ryznar, 2023, Exams in the time of ChatGPT, Washington and Lee Law Review Online, 80, 305
- Southern, 2023, Is ChatGPT getting “dumber”? Usage drops as users complain, Search Engine Journal
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–409 of 409
Zagami, J. (2026) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2026.2746168
Patrissia, R. U. (2026) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/s2050-206020260000030002
Suárez, G. G. D. R., & Favotto, S. R. (2026) · Conferência Latino-Americana de Tecnologias de Aprendizagem (LACLO) · doi:10.5753/laclo_estendido.2026.46032
“Higher education teachers recognize opportunities in generative AI, but also express concerns related to quality, ethics, and the redefinition of teaching work [Lee et al. 2024].”
Dual effects of AI on academic work performance: A job demands-resources theory systematic review
Gogsido, S., Refera, M. K., Seman, A. A., & Al-Hadrawi, B. K. (2026) · Work · doi:10.1177/10519815261493099
Yang, J., Gorbatchev, N., Zhou, W., Memon, B. A., Zhang, P., & Gancheryonok, I. (2026) · World sustainability series · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-34574-5_6
From Automation to Augmentation
Khafaga, D. S. (2026) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394486120.ch1
Integrating Generative AI in CSD Education: A Practical Tutorial for Faculty and Students
Walker, B. B., & Meyerowitz, E. (2026) · Communication Disorders Quarterly · doi:10.1177/15257401261498030
Using Chatgpt “Teacher Mode” To Teach: A Design-Based Research Protocol and Implementation Framework
Khushalani, B. (2026) · JURNAL PENA EDUKASI · doi:10.54314/6grqdk88
Untitled work
Chan, C. K. Y., Lo, N., & Wong, G. (2024)
Metadata
- 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
- ORCID
- Venue
- Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-06
- Volume
- 6
- Pages
- 100221
- ISSN
- 2666-920X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4394934695
- Semantic Scholar
- 1517ab19bd54ff13f1431562c12955cc0e27ab83
- Cited by
- 402
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 195 · 2025: 165 · 2024: 42
- FWCI
- 151.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- Locations
- Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Digital Transformation of Higher Education
- 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
