Discourses of artificial intelligence in higher education: a critical literature review

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) holds significant implications for higher education; however, references to AI in the literature are often vague and open to debate. In order to understand how to progress AI-related research and analysis, this critical review systematically searched top higher education journals for references to the term ‘artificial intelligence’. We reviewed definitions and conducted a discourse analysis of included texts. Our findings identify few, confusing definitions and little overt reference to AI as a research object. We delineated two Discourses. The Discourse of imperative change outlines how AI is seen as an inevitable change to which all must respond. Additionally, the Discourse of altering authority describes how texts position AI as decentring the teacher and spreading authority across staff, machines, corporations and students. Our analysis prompts a call for new research foci that attend to the social implications of AI, including tracing accountability in AI-mediated practices and exploring how AI influences learning and teaching relationships.

Related collections

Most cited references 47

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.

Maria J Grant, Andrew Booth (2009)

The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains. Following scoping searches, an examination was made of the vocabulary associated with the literature of review and synthesis (literary warrant). A simple analytical framework -- Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) -- was used to examine the main review types. Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were analysed against the SALSA framework, illustrating the inputs and processes of each review type. A description of the key characteristics is given, together with perceived strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of review types are currently utilized within the health information domain. Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive. Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain.