Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some minor formatting issues, e.g., capitalisation of ‘higher education’ in the abstract.

Additional citations about the environmental impact of GenAI, i.e., rare earth minerals, would add extra credibility.

Extra space, i.e, “unrelenting online” (7).

The acronym LLM is not explained to readers on P. 8.

Inconsistent italicisation of quotations, i.e., P. 9.

Author Response

Comment 1: Some minor formatting issues, e.g., capitalisation of ‘higher education’ in the abstract.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this, have corrected.

 

Comment 2: Additional citations about the environmental impact of GenAI, i.e., rare earth minerals, would add extra credibility.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this, have provided additional citations to support these points.

 

Comment 3: Extra space, i.e, “unrelenting online” (7).

Response: Thank you for highlighting this, have corrected these instances.

 

Comment 4: The acronym LLM is not explained to readers on P. 8.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this, have corrected.

 

Comment 5: Inconsistent italicisation of quotations, i.e., P. 9.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this, have corrected.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting essay, although I am wondering whether it fits the aims and scope of the journal. There was nothing necessarily discipline-specific about it, and I am unsure how it draws on theories from the fields mentioned (psychiatry, neuroscience, psychology, cognitive and behavioural sciences, and behavioural biology) or advances thinking in these fields. Perhaps arguments around relevance to these disciplines can be made? If not, you may wish to explore Higher Education and Educational Technology journals, and given how you are framing things, perhaps Postdigital Science and Education https://link.springer.com/journal/42438

Overall, I think this is a well-written and publishable essay, I'm just not sure whether this journal is the best place for it. 

Some suggestions to strengthen your essay and further reading for interest:

- Line 20 'more-than-human' - whose ideas are you drawing on here? Define and include a source.

- Line 28 that the application of GenAI in HE has been largely optimistic - I think there have been mixed responses, see the article by Bearman et al. at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-022-00937-2 It is also a useful paper in the sense that it notes how the articles they analysed talk about AI as systems and how there is often a lack of definition. In your essay, you start out discussing GenAI but the ethical side of AI seems more about AI systems than GenAI specifically. Another article that may be useful for framing debates around AI in HE: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13562517.2023.2263839

- In the section on AI and assessment, you talk about authentic assessment, perhaps look at Jan McArthur's work on this https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-022-00822-y and there are some books that may be of interest too:

Author Response

Comment 1: This is an interesting essay, although I am wondering whether it fits the aims and scope of the journal. There was nothing necessarily discipline-specific about it, and I am unsure how it draws on theories from the fields mentioned (psychiatry, neuroscience, psychology, cognitive and behavioural sciences, and behavioural biology) or advances thinking in these fields. Perhaps arguments around relevance to these disciplines can be made? If not, you may wish to explore Higher Education and Educational Technology journals, and given how you are framing things, perhaps Postdigital Science and Education https://link.springer.com/journal/42438

Response: Thank you for this. This submission is for a special issue focused on GenAI in post secondary education. I hope this sufficiently answers your query but happy to revisit if not.

 

Comment 2: Line 20 'more-than-human' - whose ideas are you drawing on here? Define and include a source.

Response 2: Thank you this is a good point. I have provided a definition and citation to support the use of this term.

 

Comment 3: Line 28 that the application of GenAI in HE has been largely optimistic - I think there have been mixed responses, see the article by Bearman et al. at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-022-00937-2 It is also a useful paper in the sense that it notes how the articles they analysed talk about AI as systems and how there is often a lack of definition. In your essay, you start out discussing GenAI but the ethical side of AI seems more about AI systems than GenAI specifically. Another article that may be useful for framing debates around AI in HE: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13562517.2023.2263839

Response 3: Thank you this is a great suggestion and have now included the Bearman et al paper which was very useful, thank you! 

 

Comment 4: In the section on AI and assessment, you talk about authentic assessment, perhaps look at Jan McArthur's work on this https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-022-00822-y and there are some books that may be of interest too:

Response 4: Thank you, again this is a very helpful suggestion and I'll be sure to explore this work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper provides a timely and important exploration of the rapid advancements in Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) and their implications for Higher Education. The authors effectively highlight both the opportunities and challenges posed by GenAI, emphasizing the need for careful planning and strong pedagogical foundations to ensure its successful integration into educational practices.

 

The paper's discussion of how GenAI can influence learning, teaching, assessment, and feedback is well-argued. By incorporating theories from the "more-than-human world" and addressing critical concepts such as originality, equality, and sustainability, the authors demonstrate a nuanced understanding of the broader implications of GenAI. This theoretical approach adds depth to the discussion and encourages readers to consider the ethical and practical dimensions of GenAI in education.

 

However, the paper could benefit from further elaboration on specific examples of how GenAI has already been integrated into educational settings and what lessons can be learned from these experiences. The literature review on recent AI and deep learning should be included. The following recent papers should be discussed: “ Reducing Human Annotation Effort Using Self-supervised Learning for Image Segmentation. HCI (51) 2024: 436-445”. Providing concrete case studies or examples would strengthen the argument and offer readers a clearer sense of the practical applications of the concepts discussed.

 

Additionally, while the paper touches on the importance of placing students' learning journeys at the center of the GenAI dialogue, more emphasis could be placed on how educators can actively involve students in this process. For instance, exploring ways to ensure student agency and voice in the integration of GenAI would add a valuable perspective to the discussion.

 

Overall, this paper makes a good contribution to the ongoing conversation about the role of GenAI in Higher Education. It provides a thoughtful framework for considering the ethical and pedagogical implications of this technology, though it could be further strengthened by practical examples and a more explicit focus on student involvement.

 

**Recommendation**: Accept with minor revisions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is well written.

Author Response

Comment 1: However, the paper could benefit from further elaboration on specific examples of how GenAI has already been integrated into educational settings and what lessons can be learned from these experiences. The literature review on recent AI and deep learning should be included. The following recent papers should be discussed: “ Reducing Human Annotation Effort Using Self-supervised Learning for Image Segmentation. HCI (51) 2024: 436-445”. Providing concrete case studies or examples would strengthen the argument and offer readers a clearer sense of the practical applications of the concepts discussed.

Response 1: Thank you for this. Apologies I am unsure which paper specifically is being referred to when you say "The literature review on recent AI and deep learning should be included"? I am also unsure if the paper suggested (Reducing Human Annotation Effort Using Self-supervised Learning for Image Segmentation. HCI (51) 2024: 436-445) is a good fit for this discussion, but I am grateful for the suggestion, thank you.

 

Comment 2: Additionally, while the paper touches on the importance of placing students' learning journeys at the center of the GenAI dialogue, more emphasis could be placed on how educators can actively involve students in this process. For instance, exploring ways to ensure student agency and voice in the integration of GenAI would add a valuable perspective to the discussion.

Response 2: Thank you this a helpful suggestion and I have included some additional commentary on this point.