This week has emphasized that now is the time for reimagining what critical AI education might look like in the coming months and years, an education that eschews industry-captured AI literacy lessons for an expansive, interdisciplinary civics education with an emphasis on digital degrowth and data center resistance.

This piece builds on earlier reflections I’ve shared about responsible, transparent and learning-focused use of AI in SACE assessments, extending that thinking into the wider question of how we gather trustworthy evidence of learning. A few weeks ago, in a curriculum meeting, a HASS (Humanities and

The emergence of Generative AI (GenAI) in higher education has prompted considerable discussion within the research community. Despite their centrality, students’ perspectives remain underexplored....

"I had one friend who told a colleague that he was going across campus to an Al workshop, and the other professors said, 'Don't, we're leading a boycott against the workshop.' Okay. I mean, I don't remember that kind of thing happening with Wikipedia or other tools for online learning..." For me at least, it's pretty simple. People are using these tools, and they are using them poorly. We are educators and if we can teach them to use them more effectively we should. If we refuse to do that, where we end up as a society is at least a little bit on us. But I disagree with Bryan a bit. We went through this before in miniature. In 2010 I was trying to convince people in civic education conferences we should teach people to use social media more effectively, including checking things online. The most common response "We shouldn't be teaching social media, we should be telling students to subscribe to physical newspapers instead." Those students we could have taught that year are thirty-five now. We could have had 15 cohorts of college students knowing how to check the truth of what they see online. Our entire history might be different, and maybe we wouldn't be seeing this rampant conspiracism. The thing is those professors who said we should just give students physical papers will never realize their role in getting us here. I wish others would consider that history before they treat boycotts of AI workshops like a noble act. When you engage in politics you are judged by results, not intentions. And the results of this approach are not risk free.

Researchers identified tendencies for the chatbot to respond to prompts from fictitious teens by promoting harmful behaviors, as long as users told it the information was for a friend or project.

Editor’s Note: Please join us in welcoming Eleanor Ball, Information Literacy & Liaison Librarian and Assistant Professor of Instruction at the University of Northern Iowa, as a new First Year Academic Librarian Experience blogger for the 2025-26 year here at ACRLog. I’m about as anti-AI as they come. I’ve never used it, and I’m ethically

At this point I'm really just confused. Do people not realize how many college courses are being taught fully online, and of those, how many are fully asynchronous? "While comprehensive restructuring in higher ed will take time, triage must be administered right now. Institutions must apply a tourniquet to stem the hemorrhaging of college credibility. They must prohibit traditional take-home essays until effective, verifiable safeguards are in place. To fail to do so is no longer pedagogically outdated; it’s ethically indefensible." More than 50% of college students take at least one course online. This trends higher at community colleges (no shocker there), because those students need the most flexibility to complete their degrees while working and caring for families. Online asynchronous courses run on a much higher level of student autonomy and self-motivation and have for decades. We don't need clueless generalizations. We do need help. #Faculty are deeply struggling. I have been teaching online for twenty years. This has been the hardest term of my teaching career. We do need help. We need help in redesigning our courses. We need to be paid to do those redesigns. We need consistent support with obvious and flagrant academic integrity violations that harm students, faculty, and institutions. We need help. What is also "ethically indefensible" is the utter lack of understanding of how the majority of non-traditional students are able to complete their coursework. I need folks to realize that losing online learning would rip college access away from millions of non-traditional (what I call new-traditional) college students. I agree with this article that higher ed's very foundations are at risk. But we can't save it by sacrificing access. #HigherEd https://lnkd.in/eAG4rudV

Does ChatGPT’s “study mode” mean students will spend less time talking with their peers?

Some things you can't be polite about.

Greetings from early September, when fall classes have begun.  Today I’d like to share information about one of my seminars as part of my long-running practice of being open about my teaching…

What bots are really doing in the classroom.

Do I even have to ask?

Whether students and faculty are actively using AI or not, it is having significant interpersonal, emotional effects on learning and trust in the classroom.

“Everyone is using it”—almost everyone.

The downsides of generative AI are growing like wildfire

Students shared how they felt about AI usage—for students and adults alike

If you teach on a college campus, you likely have access to a slew of generative AI tools or features that have been quietly embedded in applications you use each day.

Generative artificial intelligence provides both opportunities and challenges for higher education. Existing literature has not properly investigated how this technology would impact assessment in higher education. This scoping review took a forward-thinking approach to investigate how generative artificial intelligence transforms assessment in higher education. We used the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews to select articles for review and report the results. In the screening, we retrieved 969 articles and selected 32 empirical studies for analysis. Most of the articles were published in 2023. We used three levels—students, teachers, and institutions—to analyses the articles. Our results suggested that assessment should be transformed to cultivate students’ self-regulated learning skills, responsible learning, and integrity. To successfully transform assessment in higher education, the review suggested that (i) teacher professional development activities for assessment, AI, and digital literacy should be provided, (ii) teachers’ beliefs about human and AI assessment should be strengthened, and (iii) teachers should be innovative and holistic in their teaching to reflect the assessment transformation. Educational institutions are recommended to review and rethink their assessment policies, as well as provide more inter-disciplinary programs and teaching.

What’s really going on with campus-wide AI adoption is a mix of virtue signaling and panic purchasing. Universities aren’t paying for AI—they’re paying for the illusion of control. Institutions are buying into the idea that if they adopt AI at scale, they can manage how students use it, integrate it seamlessly into teaching and learning, and somehow future-proof education. But the reality is much messier.

AI’s ability to empower students to tailor their learning experience is a promising development in the quest to transform education. But we need to keep an eye on concerns that are more significant than the possibility of students over-relying on the technology.

There’s an arms race on campus, and professors are losing.