Zawacki-Richter et al.

International Journal of
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2024) 21:32
[Link] Educational Technology in
Higher Education

E D I TO R I A L Open Access

New advances in artificial intelligence

applications in higher education?
Olaf Zawacki-Richter1*, John Y. H. Bai1, Kyungmee Lee2, Patricia J. Slagter van Tryon3 and Paul Prinsloo4

*Correspondence:
Olaf Zawacki-Richter
[Link]@[Link]
1
University of Oldenburg, Introduction
Oldenburg, Germany
2
Seoul National University, Seoul,
There has been growing interest in the educational potential of Artificial Intelligence
Korea, Republic of (South Korea) (AI) applications in higher education (HE) for the past decade. Despite the recent peak
3
East Carolina University, Greenville,
NC, USA of excitement towards advanced features and techniques of AI-driven large language
4
University of South Africa, Pretoria, models (LLMs) such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, their actual impact on HE institutions and
South Africa
participants has been largely unknown. Thus, many discussions in the field have involved
overstated hype and untested hypotheses, whether optimistic or pessimistic, about the
impact of AI in education (AIEd).
In the not-so-distant past, the editors of the ETHE article collection “Can artificial
intelligence transform higher education?” concluded that the reality is disappointing and
little has been achieved (Bates et al., 2020). In that special issue, Zawacki-Richter et al.
(2019) published a systematic literature review of primary research articles on AIEd that
identified four key areas of AI applications for teaching and learning (profiling and pre-
diction, assessment and evaluation, intelligent tutoring systems, and adaptive systems
and personalization). That review found low participation of educators and educational
scientists in the included studies. Furthermore, the articles pointing to newly developed
applications often focused on technological and methodological issues while neglecting
pedagogical and ethical aspects of application in educational contexts.
Much has transpired in the development of artificial intelligence since then. Following
the 2019 systematic review, the team of authors (with the additions of John Y. H. Bai,
Berrin Cefa, and Frank Loglo) was commissioned by the Office of Technology Assess-
ment at the German Parliament (Bundestag) to carry out an updated review. The report
has not yet been published, but it can already be revealed that in the five years following
the review in 2019 (with 146 included studies), eight times as many studies (N = 1,167)
on AIEd were published as in the decade before. The field is growing rapidly and is much
broader than the current discussion about LLMs would suggest.
In view of the rapid development of AIEd, the aim of this special issue was to revisit
the realities of AIEd in the realm of higher education in the post-Covid-19 era. The call
for papers was intended to invite contributions that address the recent development of

© The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use,
sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to
obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit [Link]
Zawacki-Richter et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2024) 21:32 Page 2 of 4

AI in higher education and to provide more comprehensive and collective answers to the
following questions:

•  What is the actual impact of AI on different aspects of HE institutions (e.g., student

support systems, administration, professional development, and infrastructure)?
•  What is the actual impact of AI on different aspects of learning and teaching in HE
(e.g., assessment, data literacy, design of learning activities)?
•  What is the actual impact of AI on different stakeholders in HE (e.g., students,
teachers, administrators, causal workers)?

We were particularly interested in making sense of the impact of AI on educational

accessibility and (in-)equity regarding the cost, quality, and access in HE.
However, the responses to our call for papers were mixed. Although we received a
high number of submissions (125– whereas Bates et al., 2020, only received 23 articles
for review), we had hoped for more precisely directed submissions showing the various
impacts of AI on higher education. The six articles represented here were selected for
their scholarly address of the call while meeting the high standards of this journal.

Brief overview of accepted articles

Readers are recommended to start with Bond et al.’s meta-review of articles synthesizing
research on AIEd published between 2018 and July 2023. Following a rigorous search
strategy, they retrieved 66 publications from seven databases that met their inclusion
criteria, which again highlights the rapid growth of the AIEd research field. Two-thirds
of the included articles or conference papers were systematic reviews. A very interesting
analysis of the meta-review is an overview of the benefits and challenges mentioned in
the reviews of AIEd. Opportunities for personalized learning are stated as the top ben-
efit, while the greatest challenges are ethical concerns, curriculum development issues,
infrastructural problems, a lack of teacher technical knowledge, and a potential shift
in authority moving to AI systems. Bond et al. also distilled the research gaps identi-
fied in the reviews. These include ethical issues, and more research focusing on educa-
tional applications with a wider range of stakeholders, requiring more interdisciplinary
approaches and longitudinal studies. In this way, the meta-review provides an excellent
basis for further work on key topics in AIEd research.
Given the emergent awareness and interest in LLMs, it is not surprising that they, and
ChatGPT in particular, feature dominantly in this issue. LLMs are mentioned in all six
articles in this collection and many of these articles demonstrate efforts to assess the
implications of, and develop appropriate responses to, the widespread availability of
these tools.
Walter’s article addresses the influence of generative AI on institutional policies and
presents the institutional responses to these new developments based on a case study
of a university of applied sciences in Switzerland. A central issue addressed here is the
competencies and skills of teachers and students to understand and deal with AI systems
in order to establish a new “culture of AI” for academic integrity. Furthermore, the arti-
cle offers a detailed analysis of strategies for embedding skills such as “prompt engineer-
ing” within curricula and pedagogical practices. Walter’s discussion is rounded out with
a narrative literature review that summarizes some key challenges and practical sugges-
tions for implementing AI in education.
Zawacki-Richter et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2024) 21:32 Page 3 of 4

From the students’ perspective, Sun et al. considered the impact of ChatGPT on stu-
dents’ programming behaviors, performances, and perceptions. In an empirical mixed-
methods study with 82 students enrolled at a Chinese university, they compared a class
that employed ChatGPT facilitated programming with another class without ChatGPT
support (i.e., self-directed programming). Using a combination of log data, computer
screen recordings, questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews, Sun et al. elaborated
on the activities for which the students use the tool for programming, how useful the
tool was perceived to be, and whether its use impacted students’ programming perfor-
mance in their final assignment. While no significant difference was found between the
two classes in terms of their academic performance, the data revealed distinct learning
strategies across the two groups. Furthermore, the qualitative data gathered from the
post-course interviews provide insight on both positive and negative aspects of the user
experience from the perspective of the students themselves.
Also centering student perceptions, Escalante et al.’s study compared the impact of
human- and ChatGPT-generated feedback on students’ writing during two, six-week
courses of English as a new language (ENL). Study 1 found no difference in academic
performance between groups, and weekly surveys in Study 2 showed that perceptions
of the two types of feedback were almost balanced. About half of the ENL students pre-
ferred the feedback from the human tutor, while the other half were more satisfied with
the ChatGPT-generated feedback. Those who appreciated the dialogue with the tutor
stated that they were more engaged and improved their communication skills. The other
group found the AI feedback more readable and detailed.
Abbas et al. examined whether university students’ self-reported use of generative AI
is harmful or helpful for their learning. The general conclusion of this study on intensive
ChatGPT use is rather negative. Among other findings, the authors noted that students
who self-reported frequently using ChatGPT tended to have poor CGPAs and were
more likely to procrastinate; self-reported levels of workload and time pressure were also
positively related with students’ reported use of ChatGPT, whereas students who were
more sensitive to rewards (i.e., feared lower grades) were less likely to use the tool. The
authors concluded by taking an institutional perspective and emphasizing the impor-
tance of providing support, especially for efficient time management and workload dis-
tribution. Along with other papers in this issue, Abbas et al. suggested that it is essential
to develop skills in dealing with generative AI in order to empower students to use these
tools critically and creatively.
These considerations also inform the last article in our collection by Delcker et al.,
which deals with the AI competence of first-year students as a predictor for the use of
AI tools for learning in higher education. They found that attitudes toward AI as well as
perceived benefits significantly predict the intended use of AI tools. The authors empha-
sized the need to facilitate students’ AI competencies and integrate AI applications in
the instructional design to create safe learning environments that foster possibilities to
actively engage with AI.

Conclusion
The articles that are represented here are strongly influenced by the current develop-
ment around generative AI tools with a view to teaching and learning processes at the
micro level. While these efforts are indeed necessary to evaluate the capabilities of these
Zawacki-Richter et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2024) 21:32 Page 4 of 4

tools and their potential impacts, our aims of focusing in particular on the system, orga-
nizational, and administrative levels; and exploring the effects and implications for dif-
ferent stakeholders in higher education could not be achieved.
We must now be careful about making premature conclusions. Perhaps we have sim-
ply not reached the relevant research groups with our call. However, as the aforemen-
tioned systematic reviews and the meta-review by Bond et al. in this volume show, AIEd
research continues to focus primarily on students as research objects at the micro level
and the research is often not primarily pedagogical in nature.
Even four years after the last special issue on AIEd in this journal, educational research
still seems to be lagging behind the dynamic technical and methodological development
of AI algorithms and applications. There is still a lot to be done from an educational per-
spective in this rapidly growing field of educational technology.

Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References
Bates, T., Cobo, C., Mariño, O., & Wheeler, S. (2020). Can artificial intelligence transform higher education? International Journal of
Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 42–s41239. [Link]
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applica-
tions in higher education– where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education,
16(1), 39. [Link]

Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.