CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 53Artificial Intelligence in EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

The critique of AI as a foundation for judicious use in higher education

Open access
Popenici, Stefan·2023·Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching
DOI 10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.4
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into educational settings, especially after the launch of ChatGPT into the public space, created new challenges and massive disruption for schools and universities across the world. This paper aims to state and look beyond the hype on AI, marketing and myths that are obscuring some of the most significant challenges and analyse potential risks associated with the adoption of AI in education. It also aims to find practical ways of using AI for the benefit of students, teachers and institutions of education. The analysis is focused on the key ethical implications of AI, the impact on teachers, students, and the future of learning, as well as long-term societal implications.

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 · 10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.4

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • AI-generated text lacks creativity, critical thinking, and wisdom, producing plausible text without genuine intellectual depth.

    “Critics argue that despite AI-generated text's sophisticated syntax and grammar, it lacks creativity, critical thinking, and wisdom, producing plausible text without genuine intellectual depth (Popenici, 2023b).”

    From Higher Education's Generative Artificial Intelligence Paradox: The Meaning of Chatbot Mania (2024) · cites this paper as Popenici, 2023b

  • Institutional responses to AI in research remain underdeveloped, unlike the abundant research on AI in undergraduate teaching.

    “Unlike the abundant research on AI in undergraduate teaching (Crompton & Burke, 2023;Sullivan et al., 2023), institutional responses to AI in research remain underdeveloped (Popenici, 2023).”

    From A university framework for the responsible use of generative AI in research (2026) · cites this paper as Popenici, 2023

    The citation to Popenici attaches to the claim that institutional responses to AI in research remain underdeveloped, not to the comparison about undergraduate teaching. The 'AI and the aims of education' section discusses universities’ governance and changes to teaching and assessment, but not their responses to AI in research. Searches for research-specific institutional policies and responses found no passage addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. Broussard, M. (2023). More than a glitch: Confronting race, gender, and ability bias in tech. MIT Press.
  2. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press.
  3. Felten, E., Raj, M., & Seamans, R. (2023). How will language modelers like ChatGPT affect occupations and industries?. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.01157. · arXiv
  4. Isaak, R., Isaak, A., & Zybura, J. (2016). Replicating Silicon Valley: talent and techno-management in a culture of serendipity. In Entrepreneurship and talent management from a global perspective (pp. 149-187).
  5. Katz, Y. (2020). Artificial whiteness: Politics and ideology in artificial intelligence. Columbia University Press.
  6. Kilbourne, W., & Weeks, S. (1997). A socio-economic perspective on gender bias in technology. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 26(3), 243-260. https://doi.org/https://doi. org/10.1016/S1053-5357(97)90018-4 · DOI
  7. Kühl, S. (1994). The Nazi connection: Eugenics, American racism, and German national socialism. Oxford University Press.
  8. Marcuse, H., & Kellner, D. (1998). Collected papers of Herbert Marcuse. Routledge.
  9. Mills, A., Bali, M., & Eaton, L. (2023). How do we respond to generative AI in education? Open educational practices give us a framework for an ongoing process. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 16-30. https://doi.org/10.37074/ jalt.2023.6.1.34 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.
  11. O'Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: how big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Penguin.
  12. Popenici, S. A. D., & Kerr, S. (2017). Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on teaching and learning in higher education. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-017- 0062-8 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Popenici, S. (2022). Artificial Intelligence and learning futures: Critical narratives of technology and imagination in higher education. Routledge.
  14. Rudolph, J., & Tan, S. (2022). The war in Ukraine as an opportunity to teach critical thinking. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 165-173, https://doi. org/10.37074/jalt.2022.5.1.24 · DOI
  15. Sussman, R. W. (2014). The myth of race: The troubling persistence of an unscientific idea. Harvard University Press
  16. Watters, A. (2023). Teaching machines: The history of personalized learning. MIT Press.
  17. Stefan Popenici. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Popenici, S.
Venue
Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching
Publisher
Open Access Publishing Association
Published
2023-07-04
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
378-384
ISSN
2591-801X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.4
OpenAlex
W4383100710
Cited by
53
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 6
FWCI
12.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
artificial intelligence in education, ChatGPT, AI ethics, risks of AI adoption, impact on students, future of learning, societal impact of AI, higher education

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