Cited by 9Artificial Intelligence in EducationDigital Education and SocietyArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Editorial: Framing the Future with a Research Agenda for Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education

Open access
Fitzgerald, Rachel, Amantha Kumar, Jeya, Roe, Jasper, Roehrer, Erin, Yang, Jianhua·2025·Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is transforming higher education, reshaping assessment, curriculum, pedagogical relationships, and the broader dynamics of teaching and learning. While research on AI in education (AIEd) is expanding, it remains fragmented and often dominated by tool-centric use cases and techno-determinist narratives. In this Editorial, we argue for a new phase of meaningful AI research in higher education, research that is pedagogically grounded, ethically aware, and theoretically informed. We critique the limitations of traditional reflective practice, which, like large language models, can mirror existing assumptions without producing genuinely new insights. Instead, we call for a reframing of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) that acknowledges complexity, examines power, and embraces the entangled nature of human and non-human collaboration. Meaningful research must engage with the long-term consequences of AI for teaching, learning, and academic work and not just its immediate functionality. Drawing on interdisciplinary perspectives across pedagogy, trust, ethics, and institutional change, we outline an agenda for AI research that centres on criticality, sustainability, and inclusion. We contend that meaningful research must go beyond short-term efficiency gains to examine long-term impact, support educator and student agency, and address the structural values shaping AI’s integration in higher education. This agenda is urgent: the foundations laid now will determine how we as educators lead the transformation of academic work, student experience, and the future of knowledge in an AI enhanced era.

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 · 10.53761/jwt7ra63

Cites

0 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?

  • Such dialogues facilitate making purposeful, responsible, ethical and sustainable decisions about genAI (non)use.

    “They facilitate making”

    From Toward Partnership Ethics for Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Fitzgerald et al., 2025

    In “What Counts as ‘Meaningful’?” (page not provided), the paper calls for supporting students’ capacity to question when AI use is appropriate, ethical, or sustainable. This supports the decision-making aim, but the passage does not say that dialogues facilitate those decisions. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Decision-making about genAI (non)use in higher education entails ethical deliberation.

    “Decision-making about genAI (non)use in higher education entails ethical deliberation (Carrigan, 2024;Fitzgerald et al., 2025;Rana et al., 2025).”

    From Toward Partnership Ethics for Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Fitzgerald et al., 2025

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

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Aladi, M., Ahmed, A., & Obaid, Q. (2024). Determinants of cognitive trust in AI-enabled educational technologies: Evidence from IT faculty. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-11926-3 · DOI
  2. Ashton-Hay, S., Coleman, B., Sullivan, M., & Toquero, C. M. (2025). The difference in practice papers and scholarship: We publish the latter. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.53761/2qgq0714 · DOI
  3. Crawford, J. (2025). Systematic literature reviews -Why I rejected your review. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.53761/10vb5076 · DOI
  4. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford University Press.
  5. Newstead, T., Eager, B., & Wilson, S. (2023). How AI can perpetuate-or help mitigate-gender bias in leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 52(4), 100998.
  6. Roehrer, E. (2023). Generative AI is here: Time for transnational higher education to step up and embrace the opportunity. In Proceedings of the 26th ANZAM Conference 2023 (p. 707).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fitzgerald, R., Amantha Kumar, J., Roe, J., Roehrer, E., & Yang, J.
Affiliations
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Durham University (GB)
  • University of Tasmania (AU)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
Venue
Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice
Published
2025-09-08
Volume
22
Issue
4
ISSN
1449-9789 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4414076959
Cited by
8
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital Education and Society
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
generative AI, artificial intelligence in higher education, research agenda, scholarship of teaching and learning, AI ethics, human-AI collaboration, teacher agency, student agency, institutional change, inclusion, sustainability, pedagogy

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