A Systematic Review of Generative AI for Teaching and Learning Practice

The use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in academia is a subjective and hotly debated topic. Currently, there are no agreed guidelines towards the usage of GenAI systems in higher education (HE) and, thus, it is still unclear how to make effective use of the technology for teaching and learning practice. This paper provides an overview of the current state of research on GenAI for teaching and learning in HE. To this end, this study conducted a systematic review of relevant studies indexed by Scopus, using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The search criteria revealed a total of 625 research papers, of which 355 met the final inclusion criteria. The findings from the review showed the current state and the future trends in documents, citations, document sources/authors, keywords, and co-authorship. The research gaps identified suggest that while some authors have looked at understanding the detection of AI-generated text, it may be beneficial to understand how GenAI can be incorporated into supporting the educational curriculum for assessments, teaching, and learning delivery. Furthermore, there is a need for additional interdisciplinary, multidimensional studies in HE through collaboration. This will strengthen the awareness and understanding of students, tutors, and other stakeholders, which will be instrumental in formulating guidelines, frameworks, and policies for GenAI usage.

Higher education assessment practice in the era of generative AI tools

The higher education (HE) sector benefits every nation's economy and society at large. However, their contributions are challenged by advanced technologies like generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive assessment of GenAI tools towards assessment and pedagogic practice and, subsequently, discuss the potential impacts. This study experimented using three assessment instruments from data science, data analytics, and construction management disciplines. Our findings are two-fold: first, the findings revealed that GenAI tools exhibit subject knowledge, problem-solving, analytical, critical thinking, and presentation skills and thus can limit learning when used unethically. Secondly, the design of the assessment of certain disciplines revealed the limitations of the GenAI tools. Based on our findings, we made recommendations on how AI tools can be utilised for teaching and learning in HE.