Cited by 15Artificial Intelligence in EducationDigital Education and SocietyEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Editorial: There's an AI for that: Rhetoric, reality, and reflections on EdTech in the dawn of GenAI

Open access
Concannon, Fiona, Costello, Eamon, Farrell, Orna, Farrelly, Tom, Graves Wolf, Leigh·2023·Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning

Abstract

In recent months, the educators and higher education institutions have responded with concern, critique, and hope, to the rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI)’s unregulated and mounting influence. Following the period of emergency remote teaching, and the great ‘snapback’ (Jandrić et al., 2022), yet another new concern has emerged, promising to revolutionise education, or threaten its existence. The gravity of the situation has reverberated across the system, as wizardry of predictive pattern recognition fundamentally threatens the validity of long-held practices of summative assessments including essays, and online quizzes. This latest quandary/crisis shows no sign of abating, as venture capitalist funding and language modelling datasets grow. The technology becomes more deeply integrated into word processing, and cloud-based applications through which much of our academic labour is conducted. Understanding and conceptualising new technology within education has long been a necessity, as we wrestle with wrangling tools into our human interactions. Higher education’s relationship with edtech has always been characterised by a cyclical response to disruptive external influences of evolving technology, whose recent developments are often underpinned by neoliberal values of competition, efficiency, market-based solutions, and the privatisation of software platforms. Recent large language model developments are proving no different, with deregulation and the free market serving as the impetus to design and create such tools. Across higher education, educators scramble to decode the GenAI black box, deciphering hallucinations, confabulations, and smooth outputs indistinguishable from original student work. Policy responses range along a continuum of ban or embrace. New AI literacies are being woven into curricula, as change continues apace. 2023 marks a year of existential crisis precipitated by a global pandemic, followed by geopolitical events and a fatigue from the continual adaptation to a new normal. Even within, we are constantly shaping our educational systems. That pull is in many different directions – to accredit, to certify, to help learners become, to socialise, to emancipate, to measure - to meet very diverse purposes and aims. The politics and power structures inherent in our system further affect our response (Kuhn et al., 2023). While the potential of AI chatbots based on natural language processing models is undeniable, it is crucial to discern the reality from the hype and to better understand how our actions and responses are shaping our educational systems in this evolving domain. This editorial examines this dilemma further, to consider the impact on our scholarship of teaching and learning and how we as a community of researchers and educators respond.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.22554/ijtel.v7i1.116

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Existing policies vary widely, with some institutions enthusiastically adopting GenAI technologies and integrating GenAI literacy into their curricula, while others are more cautious, focusing on potential risks and ethical dilemmas.

    “Existing policies vary widely, with some institutions enthusiastically adopting GenAI technologies and integrating GenAI literacy into their curricula. In contrast, others are more cautious, focusing on the potential risks and ethical dilemmas.”

    From Generative AI in Higher Education: Balancing Innovation and Integrity (2025) · cites this paper as Farrelly, Farrell [58]

  • Educators face numerous complexities and constraints in adapting new digital tools into their practices and cite a need for GenAI literacy within the staff base.

    “Farrelly, Farrell [58] in their reflections on EdTech and GenAI observed that educators are facing numerous complexities and constraints in adapting these new digital tools into their practices and cite a need for GenAI literacy within the staff base [58].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 20 · Cited by 15

Authors
Concannon, F., Costello, E., Farrell, O., Farrelly, T., & Graves Wolf, L.
Affiliations
  • Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
  • Dublin City University (IE)
  • Munster Technological University (IE)
Venue
Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning
Published
2023-08-15
Volume
7
Issue
1
ISSN
2009-972X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4385875090
Cited by
15
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital Education and Society
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
generative AI, large language models, higher education, academic integrity, summative assessment, AI literacy, artificial intelligence in education, EdTech, neoliberalism in higher education, scholarship of teaching and learning, AI hallucination

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