Dr Thai Son Chu, Lincoln Institute of Higher Education, jason.chu@lincolnau.nsw.edu.au

Prof Mahfuz Ashraf, Lincoln Institute of Higher Education, dean@lincolnau.nsw.edu.au

Dr Nader Khalifa, Victoria University, nader.khalifa@vu.edu.au

Abstract

The integration of generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT and DALL·E, into higher education has rapidly transformed teaching and learning dynamics, particularly in Australian universities. This study investigates the ethical and pedagogical implications of generative AI usage among students, faculty, and institutional leaders across diverse academic disciplines. Employing a mixed-methods approach, the research collected quantitative data through structured surveys (n=330) and qualitative insights via interviews and focus groups. Results reveal high usage rates among postgraduate and technology faculty students, alongside significant ethical concerns voiced predominantly by academic staff. Statistical analyses showed strong positive correlations between AI usage, digital literacy, and academic performance, while ethical awareness was negatively correlated. The study also identified faculty-specific variations in perceived risk and AI engagement. These findings suggest the urgent need for comprehensive institutional strategies, including AI literacy training and discipline-sensitive ethical guidelines. By bridging the perception gap between students and educators, universities can responsibly harness the potential of generative AI to enhance educational outcomes while preserving academic integrity.

Keywords:

Generative AI, higher education, academic integrity, digital literacy, ethical awareness, Australian universities, pedagogy.

Introduction

Contextualizing Generative AI in Higher Education

The rapid evolution of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) tools, including models like ChatGPT, DALL·E, and similar language-image generation systems, has profoundly transformed the educational landscape on a global scale (Trigka & Dritsas, 2025). Within Australia, universities have begun integrating these technologies into teaching and learning practices (Aljawarneh, 2020). On one hand, such tools enable personalized learning, foster creativity, and provide support for assessment and research; on the other, they introduce complex ethical and pedagogical challenges that test longstanding principles of academic integrity and the educator’s role in knowledge formation. As the sector strives to adapt to a post-digital paradigm, the rise of Gen AI raises fundamental questions about how students engage with knowledge, how instructors facilitate learning, and how universities protect the values underpinning higher education (Yadav, 2025).

Synthesizing Educational Applications and Pedagogical Shifts

Gen AI’s impact extends well beyond automating academic tasks. It is now embedded in core instructional processes in ways that’s actively reshape pedagogical paradigms. Students draw on these tools not merely for expedience in essay writing or literature reviews, but to navigate complexity in their studies, personalize their learning, and engage in new forms of creative expression (Batista et al., 2024). For university educators, Gen AI offers automated feedback, scaffolding for complex concepts, and innovative avenues for redesigning instruction for diverse student cohorts (Kumar et al., 2021).

Yet, the integration of these applications signals deeper shifts: traditional models of direct knowledge transmission are increasingly giving way to AI-augmented practices that demand new forms of critical analysis, academic authorship, and assessment design (Creely & Carabott, 2025). These transformations raise urgent questions about the efficacy of AI in truly enhancing student learning versus simply reproducing information, and about the risks of over-reliance that may come at the expense of critical thinking, ethical awareness, and disciplinary depth. Crucially, while Gen AI is enthusiastically adopted throughout the sector, universities lack consistent guidelines or shared policies leading to confusion and uneven expectations between students and staff regarding what constitutes responsible and effective AI use (Walther, 2024).

Thus, despite the rapidly mounting array of applications, there remains a critical knowledge gap: there is limited synthesis and little empirical understanding of how these tools are fundamentally reshaping teaching strategies, assessment methods, and the learner-instructor relationship. It is this deficit in both policy and analytical scrutiny that the present study seeks to address.

Ethical Considerations and Institutional Responsibilities

With the advance of Gen AI comes a multiplicity of ethical challenges, involving authorship, plagiarism, algorithmic bias, digital inclusivity, and the surveillance potential of AI-powered analytics (Mauti & Ayieko, 2024). The risk of perpetuating stereotypes from biased training data and widening inequalities among students with differing access to these tools are genuine concerns Australian universities (Rasheed et al., 2025), along with broad faculty development and student support are therefore critical institutional responsibilities (Chan, 2023).

Rationale for Study

Given these urgent, intertwined pedagogical and ethical dilemmas, this research investigates the adoption, perception, and regulation of Gen AI in Australian university classrooms, drawing on the voices of students, educators, and institutional leaders. Through a mixed-methods approach, the study aims to bridge the gap between practice and evidence, offering recommendations for ethical guidelines, discipline-sensitive policies, and pedagogical innovations that protect both academic integrity and equitable access to digital opportunities.

In doing so, it contributes a much-needed synthesis of how innovation, policy, and academic values intersect in an era when responsible and intentional use of AI will define the future of higher education in Australia.

Literature Review

Theoretical Foundations

The integration of Gen AI in higher education can be critically examined through two major educational theories: constructivism and self-determination theory (SDT). Constructivism posits that learners actively construct knowledge through interaction, reflection, and problem solving within social contexts, emphasizing the importance of personalized and meaningful engagement. SDT, developed by Deci and Ryan, asserts that optimal learning occurs when students experience autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The three basic psychological needs are essential for intrinsic motivation and academic growth.

Constructivist Perspectives in Gen AI Use

Research demonstrates that Gen AI tools, such as ChatGPT and DALL-E are increasingly used to support student-centered learning practices, facilitating exploration, iterative feedback, and collaboration problem solving. Studies show that students use AI to brainstorm ideas, clarify difficult concepts, and personalize academic tasks, aligning with constructivist principles that value active, contextual construction of understanding. AI integration in blended learning and digital assessment platforms encourages differentiated learning experiences and conversional theorists (Kumar et al., 2021). However, critiques in the literature warn that, unless thoughtfully embedded, AI may lead to shallow engagement and over-reliance on automation, potentially bypassing the deep cognitive processing central to constructivist learning.

Seft-Determination Theory and AI-Enhanced Motivation

From an SDT perspective, literature indicates Gen AI’s dual potential to strengthen or undermine learner motivation and autonomy. When employed to support personalized feedback, adaptive learning, and creative inquiry, AI can bolster student’s sense of competence and autonomy fulfilling two critical SDT principles. AI-supported assignments promote engagement and perceived learning gains, particularly when students retain meaningful control over tool use (Lin and Chen, 2024). Other cautions that excessive dependence on AI-generated output risks eroding autonomy and internalization of learning goals, particularly when institutional policies are ambiguous or fail to establish clear ethical standards.

Gaps and Directions

Despite a rapidly expanding body of literature, major knowledge gaps persist. Few studies have deeply synthesized how theoretical frameworks can be operationalized in discipline-specific settings, or how Gen AI genuinely transforms, not merely supplements, pedagogy and learning outcomes. There is a lack of longitudinal research on the impact of AI on academic integrity and digital equity concerns. These gaps highlight the need for ongoing empirical, theoretical and policy-oriented inquiry in the Australian higher education context.

Methodology

Research design

This study adopts a mixed-methods research design, combining both qualitative and quantitative approaches to comprehensively explore the ethical and pedagogical implications of Gen AI tools in Australian university settings. The rationale for using this design lies in its ability to triangulate data sources—capturing measurable trends and statistical correlations, while also providing deeper insights into perceptions, experiences, and contextual nuances. The study was conducted over a six-month period across five major universities in Australia, each representing a mix of metropolitan, regional, and technology-focused institutions.

Target population and sampling strategy

The population for this study includes university students, academic staff (lecturers, tutors, designers), and institutional decision-makers (deans, ethics committee members, and digital learning strategists). A stratified sampling technique was employed to ensure representation across different faculties—Arts, Sciences, Business, and Technology. In total, 250 students and 80 academic staff members participated in the quantitative survey component, while 30 stakeholders were selected for in-depth interviews and focus group discussions using purposive sampling.

Data collection methods

Data was collected through three primary sources:

Online Surveys

Structured questionnaires were administered to students and staff via Qualtrics. These included both Likert-scale and open-ended questions. Key variables examined included:

• Frequency of Gen AI tool usage (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, GitHub Copilot)
• Purpose of use (e.g., content generation, idea brainstorming, assignment drafting)
• Perceived learning enhancement or hindrance
• Ethical awareness and concern
• Familiarity with institutional guidelines on AI usage

Semi-structured interviews and focus groups

Interviews with faculty members and decision-makers were designed to capture nuanced perspectives on academic integrity, assessment challenges, and curriculum redesign. Focus groups with students explored issues of fairness, transparency, and AI literacy. All qualitative sessions were recorded, transcribed, and thematically coded using NVivo software.

Document and policy analysis

Institutional policies, course syllabi, and academic integrity frameworks were reviewed to identify existing regulations and institutional stances on Gen AI. This component helped contextualize participants’ responses and provided a baseline for evaluating consistency and policy gaps across universities.

Data analysis procedures

Quantitative data from surveys were analyzed using SPSS software. Descriptive statistics (mean, frequency, percentage) were used to summarize AI usage patterns, while inferential statistics such as t-tests and ANOVA were conducted to identify significant differences in attitudes and behaviors across faculties, student levels (undergraduate vs postgraduate), and AI tool familiarity. Correlation and regression analyses were employed to assess relationships between AI tool usage and perceived academic performance, ethical concern, and digital literacy.

Qualitative data was subjected to thematic analysis. Open coding was followed by axial coding to derive key themes related to pedagogical shifts, ethical tensions, and institutional preparedness. Emerging themes included “AI as Assistive vs. Autonomic Tool”, “Redefining Authorship”, and “AI Anxiety and Inequity”.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was obtained from the University Research Ethics Committee. Informed consent was secured from all participants, ensuring anonymity and confidentiality. Participants were briefed on the voluntary nature of the study and their right to withdraw at any stage. Sensitive data related to perceptions of misconduct, bias, or institutional criticism were handled with care, and all reporting adhered to de-identification protocols.

Limitations of the methodology

The study acknowledges certain limitations, including the self-reported nature of data which may introduce bias, and the potential underrepresentation of institutions with strict AI bans. Additionally, the rapidly evolving landscape of Gen AI may result in temporal limitations affecting long-term generalizability.

By integrating diverse data sources and analytical lenses, this methodology ensures a robust and multi-layered examination of how Gen AI tools are transforming ethical discourse and pedagogical practice in Australian universities. The design allows for both quantifiable insight and contextual depth, which are essential for informing policy, curriculum, and professional development strategies in the age of AI-enhanced education.

Results

The analysis of survey and interview data revealed significant patterns in how Gen AI tools are being adopted and perceived across Australian university classrooms. These patterns varied according to academic role, discipline, gender, and level of study, and highlighted both pedagogical opportunities and ethical concerns associated with AI integration.

Table 1: Frequency of Gen AI tool usage by students

As presented in Table 1, the majority of students reported using Gen AI tools occasionally (40%) or frequently (30%), while a smaller proportion used them always (10%) or never (5%). A gender-wise breakdown showed slightly higher frequent usage among male students (32%) compared to female students (28%). Postgraduate students displayed notably higher frequent and consistent usage (40% frequent, 12% always) than undergraduates, indicating greater familiarity and reliance on AI tools among advanced learners. These findings suggest that Gen AI tools are becoming embedded in students’ academic routines, particularly at higher education levels.

Table 2: Perceived ethical concerns by academic role with AI literacy level

The ethical implications of such widespread use were evident in Table 2, which compared perceived levels of ethical concern between students and faculty. A substantial 50% of faculty respondents expressed high concern, compared to 40% of students. Notably, both groups reported 20% at the “very high” level. AI literacy appeared to correlate positively with concern levels, with the mean AI literacy score increasing from 2.1 at the “Low” concern level to 4.1 at the “Very High” level. This indicates that increased familiarity with AI may enhance awareness of its ethical complexities.

Table 3: ANOVA results – AI tool usage vs. faculty type with SD and sample size

Disciplinary differences in AI adoption were statistically significant, as detailed in Table 3. ANOVA results revealed notable variance in mean AI tool usage scores across faculties, with Technology students reporting the highest average usage score (4.0), followed by Business (3.4), Arts (3.1), and Science (2.8). The results were significant with an F-value of 3.21 and a p-value of 0.03. These patterns also accounted for variability in standard deviations and sample sizes, with Technology students not only showing higher usage but also more consistency (lowest SD = 0.6), suggesting discipline-specific comfort and integration levels with AI.

Table 4: Correlation matrix of key variables (with Significance Levels)

Correlation analysis (Table 4) offers nuanced insights into how Gen AI usage relates to academic and ethical factors. The positive correlations between AI usage and digital literacy (r = 0.58, p < 0.01) and academic performance (r = 0.42, p < 0.05) indicate moderate to strong effects, suggesting that students more proficient in digital skills tend to benefit academically from judicious AI use. These relationships affirm that AI can be a valuable adjunct to learning when integrated effectively.

Conversely, the negative correlation between AI usage and ethical awareness (r = -0.36, p < 0.05), while moderate, highlights a meaningful trade-off. This finding implies that higher reliance on AI tools is associated with a decrease in sensitivity to ethical considerations such as authorship and academic integrity. Although not overwhelmingly strong, this moderate effect signals a significant concern that institutions must address proactively. The practical implication is that as AI use becomes more embedded, ethical education and awareness programs must be integrated alongside digital literacy initiatives. Doing so can help mitigate risks of ethical complacency or inadvertent breaches of academic standards triggered by overdependence on AI-generated outputs. Moreover, this relationship underscores the delicate balance universities must strike between fostering innovation and upholding foundational academic values.

Figure 1: Radar chart – perceived learning impact of Gen AI

Further perspectives were captured visually through two figures. Figure 1 reveals a clear perception gap between students and faculty regarding the learning impact of Gen AI. Student rated AI as highly beneficial for enhancing creativity (mean 4.2) and understanding (mean 3.8), reflecting enthusiasm and optimism about AI’s potential to support diverse cognitive tasks. In contrast, faculty ratings were more conservative across all dimensions, especially critical thinking (mean 2.9), indicating skepticism about the depth of learning AI enables.

Figure 2: Heatmap – perceived ethical risk by faculty type

Figure 2, a heatmap, visually maps the perceived ethical risks of AI usage across different faculties. Technology and Business faculties exhibited the highest combined “Moderate” and “High Risk” perceptions, aligning with their higher AI usage levels. Science and Arts faculties had more varied responses, with noticeable concern in the “High Risk” zone but also moderate representation in the “Low Risk” category. This visualization supports earlier findings that the perceived ethical burden of AI is not uniform but shaped by discipline-specific culture and curriculum exposure.

The results illustrate a complex but revealing picture of Gen AI’s presence in Australian universities. While adoption rates are rising, especially among postgraduates and technical disciplines, the concurrent rise in ethical concern and disparity in perceptions between students and faculty calls for balanced, guided integration strategies.

Discussion

The findings from this study reveal an evolving academic landscape in Australian universities shaped by the increasing use of Gen AI tools. While these technologies offer significant pedagogical enhancements, such as personalized learning, faster content creation, and idea generation, they simultaneously challenge the conventional educational framework, raising important ethical and cognitive concerns.

Adoption trends and educational implications

The usage patterns of Gen AI tools, as outlined in Table 1, suggest that students are actively integrating AI technologies into their academic workflows, particularly at the postgraduate level (Lin & Chen, 2024). This trend may reflect a shift in learning behavior, where students view AI as a cognitive partner rather than just a reference tool (Kim et al., 2022). The higher adoption rate among male students and postgraduates can be attributed to increased digital confidence and research requirements, respectively. The notable difference in usage frequency across academic levels underscores the urgency for educational institutions to adapt their pedagogical frameworks and incorporate AI literacy as a foundational skill for all students, not just advanced learners (Southworth et al., 2023).

Disparity in ethical awareness between stakeholders

The ethical concerns reported in Table 2 point to a substantial gap in perception between students and faculty. Faculty members, likely more attuned to the principles of academic integrity and the long-term impacts of AI on intellectual growth, expressed greater concern about the unchecked use of these tools (Zhang et al., 2025). Interestingly, the rising trend of ethical awareness with increasing AI literacy scores suggests that deeper understanding of how these models’ function may cultivate more responsible usage (Kong et al., 2023). This insight supports the idea that ethical AI education should not be reactive or punitive but instead proactive rooted in awareness-building and transparency (Tammeleht et al., 2025).

Discipline-specific use and risk profiles

Significant variation in AI usage across faculties (Table 3) reinforces the argument that AI integration in education cannot follow a “one-size-fits-all” model. Technology and Business faculties showed the highest mean usage, likely due to curriculum designs that emphasize innovation, automation, and industry tools (Aithal & Maiya, 2023). However, these faculties also reported higher perceived ethical risk levels (Figure 2), highlighting the dual-edged nature of technological familiarity, it encourages adoption but also exposes potential consequences. By contrast, Science and Arts faculties showed lower mean usage scores and more mixed ethical risk profiles, which may stem from traditional teaching methods and greater reliance on critical analysis over automation (Malik et al., 2025).

Cognitive and learning dynamics

A particular notable insight lies in the perceived educational impact of Gen AI (Figure 1). Students reported significantly greater benefits in terms of creativity and comprehension, whereas faculty were more skeptical, particularly regarding critical thinking (Dyer & Hall, 2019). This divergence signals an emerging tension between the capabilities of AI to assist in surface-level learning outcomes versus the academic community’s emphasis on deep learning and critical engagement. The results urge educators to reassess assessment practices, possibly shifting from knowledge reproduction to application-based and reflective assignments that discourage over-reliance on AI (Akolekar et al., 2025).

Correlation insights and ethical trade-offs

The correlation analysis in Table 4 presents a nuanced picture. The positive correlations between AI usage and both academic performance and digital literacy suggest that students who are more digitally proficient may benefit academically from judicious AI use (Moppett, 2025). However, the negative correlation with ethical awareness raises red flags. Increased dependence on AI tools may lead to diminished attention to ethical boundaries, a concerning trend that institutions must address by embedding ethics education into digital literacy programs (Biagini, 2025). It also raises important questions about the unintended consequences of AI-assisted performance particularly in how universities measure “success” and uphold fairness.

Institutional and policy implications

Collectively, these findings demand a reimagining of how Gen AI is governed in higher education. Rather than prohibiting its use or ignoring its growth, Australian universities should develop discipline-specific AI integration strategies that recognize diverse academic cultures (Abbasnejad et al., 2025). Institutions must invest in AI literacy training for both students and faculty and create inclusive policies that balance innovation with academic integrity. Importantly, these policies should not only define appropriate use cases but also equip students to critically evaluate AI outputs and their implications.

Bridging the perception gap

Finally, the differing perspectives between students and educators evident in usage behavior, learning impact, and ethical concerns highlight the need for inclusive dialogues across stakeholder groups (Akgun & Greenhow, 2022). Collaborative workshops, joint curriculum development, and AI-integrated pedagogical design can help bridge this divide. Faculty should be empowered to incorporate AI meaningfully into course objectives, while students should be encouraged to engage critically with these tools rather than passively consume them (Mohamed et al., 2024).

The results illustrate that while Gen AI is reshaping how knowledge is accessed, produced, and evaluated, its long-term impact will depend on the intentionality of its use. Australian universities stand at a pivotal moment where ethical foresight and pedagogical innovation must go hand in hand to harness AI’s potential while safeguarding academic values.

Conclusion

This study highlights the multifaceted ethical and pedagogical implications of Gen AI tools within Australian university classrooms. As AI technologies become increasingly embedded in academic routines, particularly among postgraduate and technology-focused disciplines, they offer both opportunities for enhanced learning and challenges to traditional notions of authorship, critical thinking, and academic integrity. The findings underscore a clear divide in perceptions between students and faculty, with students embracing AI for creativity and efficiency, while educators express concern over ethical misuse and cognitive dependency. Moreover, significant correlations between AI usage, academic performance, digital literacy, and ethical awareness point to a complex relationship that demands proactive intervention.

To navigate this evolving landscape, Australian universities must implement comprehensive, discipline-sensitive policies that promote responsible AI integration. For example, in the Arts faculty, policies might emphasize fostering student’s critical engagement with AI-generated content through explicit requirements for reflective annotations and source transparency, combined with AI literacy training focused on ethical authorship and discernment of AI biases in creative and interpretive work. Conversely, in the Technology faculty, where AI adoption is higher and more consistent, policies could prioritize guidelines for appropriate AI-assisted coding and problem-solving practices, alongside advanced digital skills training that develops student’s ability to critically evaluate, debug, and augment AI outputs while maintaining academic integrity.

Such tailored approaches ensure that AI literacy initiatives are relevant to disciplinary cultures and learning objectives, balancing innovation with protection against uncritical tool reliance. Encouraging inclusive dialogue across stakeholders and embedding ethical reasoning into educational assets, rather than as a source of risk. Only through such balanced and informed strategies can Gen AI be harnessed to truly augment, rather than undermine, the transformative mission of higher education.

References

Abbasnejad, B., Soltani, S., Taghizadeh, F., & Zare, A. (2025). Developing a multilevel framework for AI integration in technical and engineering higher education: insights from bibliometric analysis and ethnographic research. Interactive Technology and Smart Education.

Aithal, P. S., & Maiya, A. K. (2023). Innovations in higher education industry–Shaping the future. International Journal of Case Studies in Business, IT, and Education (IJCSBE), 7(4), 283-311.

Akgun, S., & Greenhow, C. (2022). Artificial intelligence in education: Addressing ethical challenges in K-12 settings. AI and Ethics, 2(3), 431-440.

Akolekar, H., Jhamnani, P., Kumar, V., Tailor, V., Pote, A., Meena, A., … & Kumar, D. (2025). The role of generative AI tools in shaping mechanical engineering education from an undergraduate perspective. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 9214.

Aljawarneh, S. A. (2020). Reviewing and exploring innovative ubiquitous learning tools in higher education. Journal of computing in higher education, 32(1), 57-73.

Batista, J., Mesquita, A., & Carnaz, G. (2024). Generative AI and higher education: Trends, challenges, and future directions from a systematic literature review. Information, 15(11), 676.

Biagini, G. (2025). Towards an AI-Literate Future: A systematic literature review exploring education, ethics, and applications. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 1-51.

Chan, C. K. Y. (2023). A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. International journal of educational technology in higher education, 20(1), 38.

Creely, E., & Carabott, K. (2025). Generative AI and New Pedagogies in Times of Change. Posthumanist and Phenomenological perspectives. Posthumanist and Phenomenological perspectives (April 01, 2025).

Dyer, K. D., & Hall, R. E. (2019). Effect of critical thinking education on epistemically unwarranted beliefs in college students. Research in Higher Education, 60, 293-314.

Kim, J., Lee, H., & Cho, Y. H. (2022). Learning design to support student-AI collaboration: Perspectives of leading teachers for AI in education. Education and information technologies, 27(5), 6069-6104.

Kong, S. C., Cheung, W. M. Y., & Tsang, O. (2023). Evaluating an artificial intelligence literacy programme for empowering and developing concepts, literacy and ethical awareness in senior secondary students. Education and Information Technologies, 28(4), 4703-4724.

Kumar, A., Krishnamurthi, R., Bhatia, S., Kaushik, K., Ahuja, N. J., Nayyar, A., & Masud, M. (2021). Blended learning tools and practices: A comprehensive analysis. Ieee Access, 9, 85151-85197.

Lin, H., & Chen, Q. (2024). Artificial intelligence (AI)-integrated educational applications and college students’ creativity and academic emotions: students and teachers’ perceptions and attitudes. BMC psychology, 12(1), 487.

Malik, A., Khan, M. L., Hussain, K., Qadir, J., & Tarhini, A. (2025). AI in higher education: unveiling academicians’ perspectives on teaching, research, and ethics in the age of ChatGPT. Interactive Learning Environments, 33(3), 2390-2406.

Mauti, J. M., & Ayieko, D. S. O. (2024). Ethical Implications of Artificial Intelligence in University Education. East African Journal of Education Studies, 8(1), 159-167.

Mohamed, A. M., Shaaban, T. S., Bakry, S. H., Guillén-Gámez, F. D., & Strzelecki, A. (2024). Empowering the faculty of education students: Applying AI’s potential for motivating and enhancing learning. Innovative Higher Education, 1-23.

Moppett, S. A. (2025). Preparing students for the artificial intelligence era: the crucial role of critical thinking skills. Preparing Students for the Artificial Intelligence Era: The Crucial Role of Critical Thinking Skills (March 25, 2025). Suffolk University Law School Research Paper, (25-4).

Rasheed, T., Bashir, A., Hanif, S., & Gul, H. (2025). Leveraging AI to mitigate educational inequality: Personalized learning resources, accessibility, and student outcomes. The Critical Review of Social Sciences Studies, 3(1), 2399-2412.

Southworth, J., Migliaccio, K., Glover, J., Glover, J. N., Reed, D., McCarty, C., … & Thomas, A. (2023). Developing a model for AI Across the curriculum: Transforming the higher education landscape via innovation in AI literacy. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100127.

Tammeleht, A., Antoniou, J., de La C. Bernabe, R., Chapin, C., van den Hooff, S., Mbanya, V. N., … & Löfström, E. (2025). Manifestations of research ethics and integrity leadership in national surveys–cases of Estonia, Finland, Norway, France and the Netherlands. Accountability in Research, 1-24.

Trigka, M., & Dritsas, E. (2025). The Evolution of Generative AI: Trends and Applications. IEEE Access.

Walther, C. C. (2024). Where: Humans, technology, and humane technology. In Human Leadership for Humane Technology: The New AI: Agency Ignited (pp. 103-194). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.

Yadav, S. (2025). Reimagining Education With Advanced Technologies: Transformative Pedagogical Shifts Driven by Artificial Intelligence. In Impacts of Generative AI on the Future of Research and Education (pp. 1-26). IGI Global.

Zhang, W., Xiong, Y., Zhou, D., Liu, C., Gu, Y., & Yang, H. (2025). Balancing human and AI instruction: insights from secondary student satisfaction with AI-assisted learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-16.