Navigating the Double-Edged Sword of AI Integration in Higher Education
Student perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54337/ecrpl25-10936Keywords:
Higher education, Master students, Problem tree analysis, Sociomateriality, AI literacy, Study practicesAbstract
Digitalization is rapidly transforming society and reshaping higher education. Driven by generative AI technologies (GenAI), this shift challenges traditional paradigms and requires exploration of how digital literacy supports Reflective Practice-based Learning (RPL). Drawing on a sociomaterial theoretical understanding, this case study explores challenges and solutions in the dynamic interplay between social and material elements as AI is woven into the students' study practices. The aim is to generate insights into students’ perspectives on the use of GenAI in their study practices. International master’s students in Swedish higher education participated in focus group interviews, reflecting on AI’s role in their education. Using a problem-tree methodology, students discussed the focal problems, the underlying causes, and possible solutions. Findings show that while students value GenAI for efficiency and judgement-free support, its ubiquity creates a perceived obligation to adopt it, which fuelling ethical, emotional, and academic tensions. Students fear diminished critical thinking and creativity through over-reliance, describing AI as both enabler and threat. They call for compulsory AI-use labelling by tool providers, explicit institutional guidelines, and more hands-on, creative assignments that foster independent reasoning and AI literacy. Without such measures, comfort, social pressure, and “speed culture” risk undermining RPL’s reflective depth. The study underscores the need for balanced, transparent integration of GenAI to harness its benefits without compromising core academic skills.
References
Albayati, H. (2024). Investigating undergraduate students’ perceptions and awareness of using ChatGPT as a regular assistance tool: A user acceptance perspective study. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, Article 100203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100203 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100203
Anson, D. W. J. (2024). The impact of large language models on university students’ literacy development. Higher Education Research & Development, 43(7), 1465–1478. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2332259 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2332259
Bozkurt, A., Junhong, X., Lambert, S., et al. (2023). Speculative futures on ChatGPT and generative artificial intelligence (AI): A collective reflection from the educational landscape. Asian Journal of Distance Edu-cation, 18(1), 53–130. https://www.asianjde.com/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/709/394
Bruno, A., Mazzeo, P. L., Chetouani, A., Tliba, M., & Kekouri, M. A. (2023). Insights into classifying and mitigating LLMs’ hallucinations. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 3563, 50–63. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.08117
Cerratto Pargman, T., Sporrong, E., Farazouli, A., & McGrath, C. (2024). Beyond the hype: Towards a critical debate about AI chatbots in Swedish higher education. Högre utbildning, 14, 74–81. https://doi.org/10.23865/hu.v14.6243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23865/hu.v14.6243
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2024). A multimodal grammar of artificial intelligence: Measuring the gains and losses in generative AI. Multimodality & Society (Online), 4(2), 123–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/26349795231221699 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/26349795231221699
Daniel, S., Pacheco, M., Smith, B., Burriss, S., & Hundley, M. (2023). Cultivating writerly virtues: Critical human elements of multimodal writing in the age of artificial intelligence. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 67, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1298
Jensen, C. G., Georgsen, M., & Dau, S. (2023). A systematic review of concepts related to reflective practice-based learning with a focus on theoretical positions. In Proceedings for the European Conference on Re-flective Practice-based Learning 2023 (Vol. 2023, p. 31).
Jóhannesdóttir, S., Kousa, P., Korkola, S., Tarvainen, J., Björnsdottir, K., Hahn, J., Dau, S., Brooks, E. I., Sjöberg, J., Kjartansdottir, S. H., Lindstrom, N., Sofkova Hashemi, S., Lundin, M., Oyedeji, S., & Stoeckert, R. (2025). “Do as your teacher tells you”: How is AI use regulated in Nordic higher education institutions. 27th HCI International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Gothenburg, Sweden. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-93539-8_14
Huang, C. Y., Wei, J., & Huang, T. H. K. (2024). Generating Educational Materials with Different Levels of Readability using LLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12787. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.12787
Kim, J., Yu, S., Lee, S.-S., & Detrick, R. (2025). Students’ prompt patterns and its effects in AI-assisted aca-demic writing: Focusing on students’ level of AI literacy. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2025.2456043 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2025.2456043
Mahapatra, S. (2024). Impact of ChatGPT on ESL students’ academic writing skills: A mixed methods interven-tion study. Smart Learning Environments, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00295-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00295-9
McMain, E. (2023). The “Problem Tree” of SEL: A Sociopolitical Literature Review. The New Educator, 19(2), 146–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2023.2202716 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2023.2202716
Nazari, N., Shabbir, M., & Setiawan, R. (2021). Application of artificial intelligence powered digital writing assis-tant in higher education: Randomized controlled trial. Heliyon, 7, e07014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07014
Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100041.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2015). Exploring material‐discursive practices. Journal of management stud-ies, 52(5), 697-705. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12114
Rasul, T., Nair, S., Kalendra, D., et al. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in higher education: Benefits, challenges, and future research directions. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.29 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.29
Saheb, T., & Saheb, T. (2023). Topical review of artificial intelligence national policies: A mixed method analy-sis. Technology in Society, 74, 102316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102316 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102316
Schiff, D. (2022). Education for AI, not AI for education: The role of education and ethics in national AI policy strategies. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32(3), 527-563. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00270-2
Swedish Research Council (2024). God forskningssed [Good Research Practice]. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet
Vaughn, L. M., & Jacquez, F. (2020). Participatory Research Methods – Choice Points in the Research Process. Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 1 (1). https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.13244 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.13244
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
Wang, C. (2024). Exploring Students’ generative AI-¬assisted writing processes: Perceptions and experiences from native and nonnative English speakers. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09744-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09744-3
Warschauer, M., Tseng, W., Yim, S., Webster, T., Jacob, S., Du, Q., & Tate, T. (2023). The affordances and contradictions of AI-generated text for writers of English as a second or foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 62, 101071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101071 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101071
