By Jim Shimabukuro (assisted by Copilot, ChatGPT, Grok, and Gemini)
Editor
[Related reports: Nov 2025, Oct 2025, Sep 2025]
1. “Integrating artificial intelligence in higher education: perceptions, challenges, and strategies for academic innovation,” by Dusana Alshatti Schmidt et al., Computers and Education Open, Volume 9, December 2025, Article 100274. (Copilot)
The Schmidt et al. article sits exactly where the September and October ETC Journal “10 Critical Articles on AI in Higher Ed” series has been circling: the lived realities of AI in teaching, learning, and policy, but with fresh empirical grounding and a practical orientation toward implementation. Where the September series highlighted conceptual dilemmas such as “how far universities should go to limit the harms of AI while reaping its benefits,” this study gives voice to the people who are actually navigating that dilemma in classrooms and departments. The authors emphasize that “both students and faculty recognize AI’s potential in enhancing teaching and learning,” while simultaneously documenting the friction points that make that potential hard to realize.
Methodologically, the article gathers perceptions from both students and faculty, which is crucial for institutions that are trying to move beyond top‑down AI policies and into negotiated practices. The authors show that enthusiasm and anxiety coexist. Faculty report significant challenges with AI tool accuracy and questions about how to embed AI into curricula without undermining disciplinary rigor. Students, by contrast, focus more intensely on reliability, ethical use, and the risk that AI might short‑circuit their own learning if overused. This dual perspective is what lifts the piece above many earlier 2025 syntheses covered in the October ETC report, such as the “state‑of‑the‑art overview” of AI, pedagogical integrity, and policy integration (“Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: A State-of-the-Art Overview of Pedagogical Integrity, Artificial Intelligence Literacy, and Policy Integration”). Instead of simply mapping the terrain, Schmidt and colleagues show you what happens when real people have to walk it.
The heart of the article lies in its insistence that integration is not just about giving people tools; it is about building capacity and guardrails. As the authors write, “Effective AI integration requires AI literacy, training, and clear ethical guidelines.” That single sentence could be read as a thesis for how the field has evolved from September to December 2025. Early fall commentary, including work highlighted in the ETC series, often oscillated between alarm and optimism—will AI make students “smarter or stop thinking?”—but tended to treat literacy, faculty development, and governance as adjuncts. This article reverses the hierarchy: AI tools are almost secondary to the institutional work of helping people use them wisely.
For leaders in higher education, the article matters because it functions like a practical bridge between policy and practice. It affirms what the October systematic reviews had already signaled—that AI’s impact on higher education depends heavily on teaching methods and institutional context (“Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education”)—but goes a step further by teasing out concrete risks. Over‑reliance on AI can “hinder academic skills and reduce collaboration in learning,” a finding that aligns with the ETC September series’ concerns about authentic learning but now carries empirical weight. This means that campus decisions about AI are not just about academic integrity; they are about preserving the social and cognitive conditions that make higher education distinctive.
For faculty, the article offers a constructive reframing. Many instructors experience AI as a threat to assessment, authorship, and workload. Schmidt and co‑authors do not dismiss those concerns; instead, they show that faculty frustrations with AI tool accuracy and integration are not failures of individual instructors but structural problems that institutions must take seriously. Training, time, and clear guidelines become rights rather than optional extras. That perspective encourages faculty to see themselves as partners in AI integration rather than passive recipients of ed‑tech mandates.
For students, the article validates their ambivalence. The authors capture how students struggle with reliability and ethics—worrying that AI might mislead them or tempt them into shortcuts that compromise their learning. In the context of ETC’s earlier focus on generative AI and assessment, this is a crucial update: it shows that students are not simply pushing for more AI; many are asking institutions for guardrails and guidance. Designing AI‑literate curricula, then, is not paternalistic; it is responsive to articulated student needs.
Finally, the article’s emphasis on AI literacy, faculty development, and ethical frameworks sets up a through‑line to two other December 2025 pieces (Lee and Lv etal.). The AI‑Digital Maturity Index will show how prepared institutions are to do that work at scale, while the performance‑informed AI research will pressure us to ask what “integration” means when AI systems are capable of deeply intimate forms of data collection. Taken together, this makes Schmidt et al. the conceptual anchor for December 2025.
2. “AI‑Digital Maturity Index: 2025 Insights,” by Louise Lee, Times Higher Education, published via Inside Higher Ed as a PDF (December 2025). (Copilot)
If Schmidt et al. articulate what AI integration feels like on the ground, Lee shows how prepared institutions are, systemically, to support that work. Lee’s report, based on a Times Higher Education benchmarking framework, measures universities’ AI and digital readiness across two core areas—Education and Research, and Governance and Administration—and four dimensions: Strategy, People, Utilization, and Technology. It draws on more than 4,600 responses from 1,200 universities globally, including 272 responses from 206 U.S. institutions. In scale and specificity, it outstrips anything featured in the September or October ETC Journal lists, which typically focused on single institutions, national policies, or conceptual overviews.
The report’s thesis is captured in a line that should be on every cabinet retreat agenda: “U.S. institutions demonstrate strong digital and data readiness, scoring above global averages on strategy, people, technology, and utilization. However, AI readiness lags, and one reason behind the lag is the uneven technology adoption and infrastructure access.” This is a subtle but vital shift from the fall 2025 narrative. Earlier articles highlighted in the ETC series often treated AI as a pedagogical or ethical problem within otherwise stable infrastructures—how to design assignments, how to update honor codes, how to talk with students about generative AI. Lee’s analysis suggests that underneath those debates lies a more basic question: do institutions even have the technical and organizational capacity to deploy AI in ways that are equitable and sustainable?
The AI‑DMI exposes stratification in painful detail. Among U.S. respondents, 51 percent come from R1/R2 (Very High Research Activity/High Research Activity) institutions, 12 percent from moderate research universities, and 36 percent from teaching‑focused institutions. Not surprisingly, R1/R2 institutions lead in enterprise AI adoption, while community colleges and teaching‑focused campuses are far more likely to fall into the lowest readiness tier. The report describes this as an “AI Readiness Divide,” noting that 38 percent of community colleges sit in the lowest level of readiness, compared with much smaller proportions of high‑research universities. For higher education leaders, this translates directly into questions about equity of opportunity: if AI‑enhanced learning becomes the default at flagship institutions, what happens to students in under‑resourced regions and sectors?
Another critical thread is the linkage between emerging AI‑driven pedagogy and next‑generation infrastructure. The report warns that “AI‑driven learning depends on next‑gen infrastructure,” pointing out that major LMS providers already embed AI features—conversational tools, authentic assessment supports, intelligent translation, and adaptive design—but that delivering on the promise of truly immersive, real‑time, data‑rich learning will require 5G and edge computing, “beyond what current Wi‑Fi can deliver.” This is a major update to the fall conversation reflected in the ETC series, which largely assumed that AI tools would ride on top of existing digital infrastructures. Lee makes clear that campus network architecture, cloud strategy, and edge‑computing readiness are now pedagogical issues.
For policy makers and governance bodies, the AI‑DMI gives an empirical backbone to arguments about differentiated support. Teaching‑focused institutions, community colleges, and rural campuses face structural barriers in connectivity and enterprise AI access. At the same time, the report notes that 86 percent of respondents have access to some kind of AI tools (individual subscriptions or enterprise systems), even if adoption is uneven. This combination—widespread access to basic AI, limited readiness for sophisticated AI—helps explain some of the tensions showing up in the pedagogical literature. Faculty and students experiment at the edges with tools like ChatGPT and Gemini, but institutions are not yet prepared to provide robust, campus‑wide support or governance.
The report’s most forward‑looking move is its insistence that “future‑proofing campuses isn’t just about being more innovative but also being inclusive, ensuring that every learner benefits from AI‑driven innovation.” Here the December 2025 conversation moves decisively beyond the ETC September and October focus on whether AI is good or bad for thinking. The question becomes: who gets access to the forms of AI that will define the next decade of higher education? For readers in higher education, this matters because it turns AI strategy into a question of social responsibility, not just competitive positioning.
Finally, Lee provides a useful mirror for the Schmidt et al. and Lv et al. articles. Schmidt et al. describe the need for AI literacy, training, and ethical guidelines at the micro level; Lee shows that, at the macro level, many institutions are underprepared to deliver those supports equitably. Meanwhile, Lv et al.’s performance‑informed AI research illustrates what is technically possible when infrastructure, sensors, and analytics are deeply integrated into teaching. The AI‑DMI helps leaders ask whether their institutions are ready—not just technically, but strategically and ethically—for that kind of future.
3. “Performance‑informed learning effectiveness prediction for customized higher education: an engineering perspective,” by Yanxing Lv etal., Frontiers in Education,14 December 2025. (Copilot)
Among December 2025 articles, this Frontiers in Education piece is the one that most radically stretches what we mean by “AI in higher ed.” It does not merely add AI tools to existing courses; it redesigns the learning environment around real‑time, performance‑informed artificial intelligence (PI‑AI). The authors describe PI‑AI as “an emerging scientific direction in AIEd, which is expected to balance the dilemma between the generalized and customized learning in higher engineering education and address the concern on the design and optimization of its instructional design and teaching strategy.” In doing so, they implicitly respond to themes that have surfaced throughout the 2025 ETC Journal series: the tension between scale and personalization, the risks of opaque learning analytics, and the desire to move from AI‑as‑shortcut to AI‑as‑partner.
Technically, the article introduces a learning effectiveness‑informed genetic programming (LEI‑GP) model, applied in a graduate‑level “Smart Marine Metastructures” course at Zhejiang University. The model combines conventional educational inputs—such as prerequisite knowledge, class participation, procedural and summative performance—with physiological and behavioral data collected via biosensors, including skin temperature, heart rate, relative body movements, and pupil fluctuations. These multimodal data streams feed into a high‑performance chip system that updates the AI model in real time, allowing it to predict each student’s learning effectiveness at each class hour with a maximum mean absolute error of about 5 percent. It is a glimpse of what AI‑enhanced teaching might look like when institutions have the kind of infrastructure the AI‑Digital Maturity Index identifies as next‑generation.
The article’s thesis is that traditional AI in education, which relies on static or slowly updated indicators like past exam scores and assignment grades, cannot deliver genuinely personalized, time‑sensitive support in higher engineering education. As the authors put it, “PI‑AI is envisioned as an emerging scientific direction in AIEd, which can balance the dilemma between the inaccuracy of generalized learning and the low efficiency of customized learning.” This is a direct response to long‑standing critiques, some of which were amplified in earlier 2025 systematic reviews, that AI in higher education often promises personalization but in practice delivers coarse‑grained recommendations Directory of Open Access Journals. Here, personalization is not a marketing slogan; it is encoded in biosensors and genetic programming.
For readers in higher education, the article matters on at least three levels. First, it showcases a concrete, implementable model of ultra‑personalized instruction that goes beyond dashboards and clickstream analytics. In the case study, the LEI‑GP model allows instructors to adjust course design and teaching strategies in response to fine‑grained predictions about each student’s learning effectiveness. This could, in theory, help address some of the worries voiced in the ETC’s September and October lists about AI making students passive or masking disengagement. A system that detects physiological indicators of disengagement might allow instructors to intervene before students fall behind.
Second, the article forces a deeper conversation about data ethics and student agency than many policy‑oriented pieces. The authors explicitly note that “applying advanced sensing techniques and AI algorithms can improve the prediction accuracy of students’ learning effectiveness; however, it does not necessarily guarantee the improvement of learning effectiveness in higher engineering education.” They argue that PI‑AI must be integrated with educational theories and must support a shift toward “Paradigm 3 AI‑empowered, learner‑as‑leader,” where students retain agency over their learning and understand how their data are used. This resonates with the fall 2025 ETC emphasis on pedagogical integrity and AI literacy (Directory of Open Access Journals) but extends it into a research agenda: how do we design AI systems that both sense students and empower them?
Third, Lv and colleagues situate PI‑AI within a broader ecosystem that now includes large language models such as ChatGPT. They observe that LLMs are transforming teaching by providing instant feedback and generating materials, but they also generate risks around accuracy and academic integrity. In this context, they propose that “the synergy between PI‑AI and LLMs holds the potential to significantly enhance teaching effectiveness and learning outcomes,” with PI‑AI providing real‑time insight into students’ cognitive and affective states and LLMs offering responsive tutoring and explanation. This is a notable evolution from earlier 2025 debates, which often treated learning analytics and generative AI as separate issues. December 2025’s contribution is to imagine them as interlocking components of a single, deeply data‑driven learning environment.
Finally, the article serves as a kind of stress test for the the Schmidt et al. and Lee articles. Schmidt et al. call for AI literacy, training, and ethical guidelines; Lv et al. show what is at stake if such frameworks are not in place when highly intrusive, powerful AI systems are deployed. Lee’s AI‑DMI report highlights disparities in 5G, edge computing, and enterprise AI adoption; Lv and colleagues demonstrate the kinds of pedagogical innovations that will likely be concentrated in institutions that sit on the “AI‑digitally mature” side of that divide. For leaders, faculty, and researchers, this makes the article not just an engineering case study, but a preview of the values and decisions that will shape AI in higher education over the next decade.
4. “You Can’t AI-Proof the Classroom, Experts Say. Get Creative Instead,” by Emma Whitford, Inside Higher Ed, December 16, 2025. (ChatGPT)
This article grapples with the core pedagogical dilemma of our time: how institutions should respond to generative AI’s disruptive impact on assessment and learning. Unlike alarmist pieces or advocacy for bans, this article grounds its argument in the lived experiences of faculty, instructional designers, and assessment experts wrestling with generative AI’s practical implications for teaching and learning.
The thesis of the article is captured in the straightforward directive that “you can’t AI-proof the classroom”—a claim supported by conversations with educators who recognize that attempts to block AI outright are both futile and counterproductive. Instead, the piece spotlights creative strategies and mindset shifts aimed at preserving meaningful learning while acknowledging AI’s presence as a tool students will use. In doing so, it reframes the conversation: rather than fighting AI with detection and punishment, faculty should reinvent assessments and classroom activities to foreground critical thinking, reflection, and human-centered tasks that cannot be outsourced to a machine.
This article matters because it marks a turning point in the sector’s discourse. Early debates in 2023–24 were dominated by questions of banning, detecting, and policing student AI use. By late 2025, however, the discussion has matured: faculty and educational leaders are now asking deeper questions about what authentic learning looks like in an AI-infused world. Assessments built around real-time performance, oral presentations, portfolios, and practices that require students to demonstrate process and understanding are presented not as stopgaps but as opportunities to improve pedagogy itself.
For higher education readers—especially faculty, deans, and academic leaders—this article crystallizes a pivotal insight: AI is here to stay, and institutions must evolve with it rather than attempt the professional equivalent of building a moat around the campus gates. That insight carries profound implications for curriculum design, faculty development, and academic policy. It encourages educators to move beyond compliance-oriented responses toward innovative, learning-centered design where AI is a catalyst for deeper inquiry rather than a cheating threat.
By elevating specific examples and expert perspectives, the article offers both philosophical grounding and practical inspiration, making it essential reading for anyone responsible for shaping instruction and assessment in the AI era.
5. “Inside Texas A&M University’s Partnership with Google for AI Training,” by Danielle McLean, Higher Ed Dive, December 16, 2025. (ChatGPT)
This article is a strategic and systemic framing of how universities and external technology partners are co-creating AI education ecosystems inside and beyond the classroom. Rather than dwelling on philosophical or diagnostic debates, it examines tangible institutional collaboration—a $1 billion Google initiative and Texas A&M University’s involvement in training students and faculty with industry-grade tools like Gemini and NotebookLM.
The article’s importance lies in its depiction of how higher education is entering a new phase of AI integration that goes beyond ad-hoc use of tools. It underscores a structural shift toward equipping students not just with access to AI tools but with purposeful training and ethical guidance. As one expert quoted in the article emphasizes, “It is our responsibility to teach students to use it ethically and effectively”—a line that encapsulates the emerging consensus that simply providing access isn’t enough without instructional frameworks and faculty support.
For universities wrestling with their role in preparing students for an AI-shaped economy, this article provides a compelling case study. It shows how meaningful partnerships with industry can expand institutional capacity, supporting students in gaining real-world AI skills while also reminding educators that these collaborations come with pedagogical and ethical responsibilities. It conveys that institutions like Texas A&M are not just reacting to AI but proactively integrating it as a strategic asset aligned with workforce preparation, research support, and curricular innovation.
The piece also implicitly challenges institutions that remain cautious or fragmented in their approach: the scale of investment and institutional commitment demonstrated by this initiative highlights a competitive frontier in which higher education’s value proposition increasingly includes AI literacy and fluency. For higher education readers, the article is significant because it shifts the conversation from AI as an academic threat toward AI as a driver of academic transformation and career relevance.
6. “AI Is Destroying the University and Learning Itself,” by Ronald Purser, Current Affairs, December 1, 2025. (ChatGPT)
Ronald Purser’s essay represents perhaps the most widely-cited critical reflection on AI’s broader philosophical implications for higher education in December 2025. Though controversial in tone, its significance stems from the way it ignites debate about core institutional values, academic integrity, and the meaning of learning itself in an era of AI proliferation.
Purser’s thesis is blunt: “AI is destroying the university and learning itself,” reflecting a deep skepticism about the trajectory of AI integration across teaching, research, and credentialing structures. The article paints a dystopian picture in which students lean on AI for academic tasks, faculty rely on it for grading, and degrees risk becoming hollow signals as generative models commoditize knowledge production. While many readers may find the tone hyperbolic, its value lies in prompting educational leaders and communities to confront hard questions about purpose, meaning, and mission in a rapidly changing educational landscape.
This piece matters because it amplifies concerns that are often marginalized in more technocratic coverage—especially those related to human agency, intellectual development, and institutional purpose. As AI tools become more potent, the essay serves as a counter-weight to narratives that emphasize efficiency and innovation at all costs. It challenges universities to articulate clearly what they stand for beyond credentialing and throughput.
For many faculty and administrators, grappling with Purser’s critique—whether one agrees with it or not—stimulates reflection on ethical governance, assessment philosophy, and the limits of technological substitution in learning environments. As colleges and universities craft policies, redesign curricula, and rethink campus strategies in 2026 and beyond, critical voices like this remind the sector that thoughtful engagement with AI must be normative as well as technical.
7. “Scientific Production in the Era of Large Language Models,” by Keigo Kusumegi et al., Science, December 18, 2025. (Grok)
This piece provides empirical evidence from a massive dataset—over two million preprint papers analyzed from 2018 to 2024—demonstrating how large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT are altering the landscape of academic research, a core function of higher education institutions. Unlike speculative opinion pieces, this study employs a detection model to quantify LLM usage in scientific writing, revealing a surge in productivity that could redefine how universities evaluate scholarship, allocate resources, and maintain intellectual integrity. Its significance lies in its data-driven approach, which moves beyond anecdotal concerns to highlight systemic shifts, making it essential for administrators, faculty, and policymakers grappling with AI’s infiltration into the research enterprise.
Kusumegi et al. show that AI-assisted writing has led to productivity increases of up to 50% on platforms like bioRxiv and SSRN, particularly benefiting non-native English speakers and shifting global research dynamics toward Asian scholars, who saw gains of 43-89%. This evolution from earlier discussions of AI as a mere tool for drafting to a force amplifying output underscores a maturation in the conversation, where institutions must now confront not just adoption but the erosion of quality signals in peer review.
For readers in higher education, this matters because it challenges the bedrock of academic careers—publication metrics. As universities face budget constraints and demands for measurable impact, AI’s role in inflating paper counts without corresponding depth could exacerbate inequalities, favoring quantity over innovation and pressuring under-resourced faculty to rely on tools that homogenize thought. The study’s observation that AI-polished papers are less likely to secure journal acceptance hints at a brewing crisis in credibility, where reviewers struggle to discern genuine contributions amid “slop”—superficially refined but substantively thin work.
This could lead to reformed tenure processes, revised funding criteria, and mandatory AI disclosure policies, all of which would reshape faculty workloads and student training in research methods. Moreover, by improving citation diversity and literature searches, AI offers a silver lining for interdisciplinary work, potentially enriching curricula in fields like biology and social sciences where vast data synthesis is key.
Yet, the article warns of unintended consequences, such as overburdened oversight systems, urging experimental studies to test causal effects. “There’s a big shift in our current ecosystem that warrants a very serious look, especially for those who make decisions about what science we should support and fund.” This thesis encapsulates the urgency for higher education leaders to act, lest AI undermine the very pursuit of knowledge that defines universities.
In an era where enrollment dips and public skepticism grows, embracing such insights could help institutions reclaim authority by integrating AI ethically, perhaps through dedicated centers for AI-augmented research that train the next generation to wield these tools responsibly. Ultimately, this article’s rigor and implications position it as a call to arms, prompting readers to rethink how AI not only accelerates but potentially dilutes the scholarly mission, ensuring higher education remains a bastion of authentic discovery rather than automated output.
8. “AI in Higher Ed Will Come Slowly, Until All of a Sudden!” by Ray Schroeder, Inside Higher Ed, December 10, 2025. (Grok)
This is a prescient analysis of AI’s impending disruption to higher education’s operational and economic models, drawing on trends like declining enrollments and financial pressures to forecast a tipping point around 2027-2028. While not as empirically dense as the top-ranked piece, it synthesizes macroeconomic data with expert predictions, offering a strategic roadmap that resonates with administrators and faculty navigating institutional survival.
Its timeliness—amid ongoing debates about AI’s pace of integration—elevates it above more niche trend overviews, as it directly addresses the inertia in higher education that previous months’ discussions in the ETC Journal series have critiqued. Schroeder’s article advances these by projecting an “avalanche” of change driven by external forces, updating the narrative with fresh data on enrollment cliffs (e.g., a 6% drop in international undergraduates) and college closures, which amplify the cowardice theme into a survival imperative.
For higher education readers, this piece is crucial because it illuminates how AI could automate up to one-third of academic work, from administrative tasks to creative and managerial roles, per McKinsey insights, thereby offering cost savings amid tuition hikes that have doubled since 1995 and eroded public trust (63% of voters see degrees as unworthy investments). This matters for faculty facing job insecurity, students seeking relevant skills, and leaders balancing budgets, as AI’s personalization promises to restore value through tailored education, countering competition from agile online platforms.
Predictions from figures like Bill Gates and Sal Khan suggest AI tutors and robotic instructors by 2027, revolutionizing teaching beyond historical shifts like the printing press. Yet, the article cautions against complacency in slow-moving bureaucracies, where policy lags could doom smaller institutions. “Higher education is, by nature, very slow to change. So it is with embracing artificial intelligence. Yet, when they finally come, the changes will come in an avalanche.” This core statement urges proactive adaptation, such as investing in AI literacy programs or partnerships with tech firms, to mitigate closures that devastate local economies.
In context, it updates ETC’s November’s cowardice critique by emphasizing that hesitation now risks obsolescence, while building on October’s student-focused concerns by noting AI’s potential to enhance, not replace, human elements in learning. Readers in higher education should heed this as a blueprint for resilience, fostering collaborations that integrate AI into curricula for fields like STEM, where automation is most acute, and ensuring equitable access to prevent widening gaps between elite and regional universities. By framing AI as an inevitable accelerator, the article empowers stakeholders to pivot from resistance to reinvention, preserving the humanistic core of education while harnessing technology for sustainability and relevance in a post-demographic-cliff world.
9. “Five Emerging AI Trends in Dec 2025: ‘democratizing where AI can run’,” Educational Technology and Change Journal, December 24, 2025. (Grok)
This is a forward-looking synthesis of cutting-edge developments, emphasizing accessibility and edge computing that could democratize AI in resource-limited campus settings. Its value stems from bridging general AI advancements to educational applications, providing actionable insights for practitioners amid a month heavy on warnings about AI’s downsides. It spotlights innovations like Meta’s augmented hearing in smart glasses and Google’s LiteRT for edge devices—as evolutions that address accessibility gaps, transforming abstract concerns into practical tools for inclusive learning.
For higher education audiences, this article illustrates how trends like long-term memory frameworks (Titans + MIRAS) could enable adaptive AI tutors handling extended contexts, reducing costs in virtual classrooms and updating October’s debates on cognitive enhancement. Similarly, open-source models like DeepSeek challenge proprietary dominance, allowing universities to customize AI for localized needs without exorbitant fees, countering November’s cowardice by empowering grassroots adoption.
The focus on edge AI via LiteRT promises on-device processing for privacy-sensitive applications, such as real-time student support in remote areas, while NetraAI’s explainable platform for clinical trials could inform medical education, fostering precision in research training. Privacy risks and misuse potential echo earlier ethical discussions, but the piece’s optimism about “ambient intelligence” in campuses—e.g., smart glasses aiding hearing-impaired students—offers a counterbalance to fears of dehumanization.
This article reflects a democratizing ethos, urging readers to integrate these into pedagogy for equitable access, potentially revitalizing enrollment by making education more immersive and personalized. While less transformative than top entries, it equips educators with trends to experiment with, such as IoT-enabled labs, ensuring higher education evolves from passive observer to active innovator in AI’s ecosystem.
10. “What is the problem with generative artificial intelligence in higher education? – a critical analysis of educator responsibility in the Swedish policy landscape,” by Elin Sporrong and Cormac McGrath, Learning, Media and Technology (Taylor & Francis), December 28, 2025. (Gemini)
This analysis by Sporrong and McGrath moves beyond the hype of “innovation” to an examination of what it actually means to be a “responsible” educator in the AI era. Published in the final days of December, this article provides the theoretical backbone for the “Institutional Trust” issues mentioned in the ETC Journal November article in this series. By analyzing the Swedish policy landscape—a stand-in for many global HE systems—the authors identify a troubling trend: policy-makers often frame AI as a technical “problem” for students to solve, rather than a site of fundamental educator responsibility.
The core of their argument is that “Such findings about GenAI underline unresolved issues with student GenAI use and a lack of clear strategies and boundaries in HE to address them.” This quote reflects the thesis that current policies are failing because they assume AI is a neutral tool, ignoring the ways it reshapes the teacher-student contract. The authors argue that by delegating the “responsible use” of AI to students, institutions are abdicating their own professional duty. This is a direct challenge to the “Informal Innovation” and “Professors Embrace AI” narratives found in the December ETC entries, suggesting that “embracing” AI without a critical framework is a form of professional negligence.
For readers in higher education research and administration, this article is a call to action. It demands a shift from “guidelines” to “ethics of care.” It matters because it identifies the “AI Literacy” push of late 2025 as insufficient. Simply teaching students how to prompt is not enough; educators must take responsibility for how these tools change the nature of knowledge itself. The article updates the “Death of Research” topic from September by suggesting that the real death isn’t the research itself, but the death of the educator’s role as an ethical guide. As we enter 2026, Sporrong and McGrath provide the most significant intellectual framework for reclaiming the human role in an increasingly automated system, insisting that “educator responsibility” cannot be automated.
[End]
Filed under: Uncategorized |
Educational Technology and Change Journal 
Leave a comment