Full article: doi.org/10.1177/1469...
11.03.2026 22:47
๐ 1
๐ 0
๐ฌ 0
๐ 0
Active Learning in Higher Education: Inheriting Pasts and Emerging Futures. Authors: Kristin Bรธrte and Sandris Zeivots. Abstract: This paper examines active learning from a temporal perspective, reflecting on its historical influences, trajectories and future directions emerging in research. Rather than treating active learning as a fixed pedagogical approach, the paper situates it within longer educational traditions and ongoing debates about teaching and learning. Drawing on research in higher education, the paper discusses how active learning has been shaped by changing ontologies, relationships and understandings of activity and student participation. The paper concludes by identifying three interrelated matters of concern for future research on active learning: the conceptualisation of purposeful activity beyond mere โbeing active,โ questions of agency and authorship and humanโAI entanglements, and the need for critically curious approaches to imagining and designing futures of active learning.
๐ขNew article โActive Learning in Higher Education: Inheriting Pasts and Emerging Futuresโ
Our paper examines past influences and emerging approaches of #active #learning in #HigherEducation, including questions of agency, authorship and human-#AI entanglements.
Link in comments๐๐๐
๐ Bรธrte, K., & Zeivots, S. (2026). Active learning in higher education: Inheriting pasts and emerging futures. Active Learning in Higher Education. Advance online publication. journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...
Read article: doi.org/10.1007/s424...
Free version PDF: rdcu.be/e4RM7
Review of Michael A. Peters, Benjamin J. Green, Olivera Kamenarac, Petar Jandriฤ, and Tina Besley (2025). The Geopolitics of Postdigital Educational Development By Sandris Zeivots A Book (and Postdigital Geopolitics) to Sit With I read The Geopolitics of Postdigital Educational Development (Peters et al. 2025a) on an e-ink digital notebook. Two older practices, reading and note-taking, were digitised and made to feel almost indistinguishable from paper. Highlighting resembled marking student work. An eraser became less about rationale and more about the affordability of the technology, in an oddly intimate way, as if interacting with paper. The gestures with technology felt familiar, despite the changed medium. That experience is inseparable from the bookโs argument. It illustrates what postdigital researchers describe as a blurring of practices, where familiar habits persist and merge with new technologies, even as the material conditions around them change (Jandriฤ et al. 2018). There is something quite daring about opening an edited scholarly collection where the first lines refer to living in times when we have trouble finding โenough good reading timeโ (Peters et al. 2025a, b, c: v) (emphases in original). Rather than treating this as an individual issue of time management, the book situates it within the postdigital condition, where digital technologies are entangled with educational work, institutional expectations to work hard, and everyday scholarly practice (Jandriฤ 2022). Crucially, the Series Editorโs Preface resists the temptation to isolate technology as the next big cause, noting instead that โit is never only about the technologyโ (Lamb 2025: vi), and that what happens within and beyond education is contingent on broader social, economic, political, and environmental forces. I took time to sit with the book, and, equally, to sit with postdigital geopolitics.
Iโve just published a book review of '๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ฃ๐ผ๐๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ด๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐น ๐๐ฑ๐๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น ๐๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐น๐ผ๐ฝ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐' by Peters et al.
In the review, I argue the book shows educational development is never only about technology. It is about power, sovereignty, AI, democracy and who shapes educational futures.
Link below
It's always a pleasure to promote book reviews - and the pleasure multiplies when I co-edited the reviewed book ๐ Big thanks to my co-editors, authors, and of course, to Sandris Zeivots for his wonderful, critical review.
๐๐ฑ๐ฉ๐๐๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐ฏ๐ฌ ๐ซ๐๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐๐ โ 3 key uses of AI: (1) Personal productivity (โmeโ thing); (2) Process productivity (โweโ thing); (3) Paradigm productivity (new ways of doing). Most current AI use sits in step one (Ray Fleming) โ Complexity in balancing students use of AI, incl those refusing to use it, with educator assumptions about student AI literacy (Danielle Ramirez) โ Teachers are not getting timely feedback on their teaching. A prototype AI tool, grounded in instructor-recorded class transcripts, offers structured feedback on: Keep doing; Experiment with; Say this; What to watch for (Dan Levy) ๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฆ๐? โ Headlines focus on job cuts โcaused by AIโ. But did AI actually take the jobs or was the employer โAI washingโ (AI blamed for business choices, organisational change)? (Ray Fleming) โ University systems are short-term and rarely reward systemic collaboration. A small number of units actually innovate within organisations, even where innovation is expected. Implications for AI integration (Kellie Charles)
๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ โ Students engage with GenAI in complex, unique ways. Essential to hold educator assumptions back about how students will use AI (Mark McConnell,) โ Using AI can be emotional. Some students feel embarrassment when using GenAI (Raquel Ho). Students ask if they don't use AI, will they be left behind? (Sasha Nikolic) โ Adding understanding and reasoning to what we assess matters (Anastasia Globa). Process is increasingly vaued (Danielle Ramirez) โ How to help students go beyond the AI output? 'Devilโs advocateโ AI agent that challenges group consensus by providing counterarguments (Daniel Brennan) โ Students can decide whether or not to invite AI into teamwork. Some teams donโt (Danielle Ramirez) โ GenAI is useful for learning in specialised fields, like law, language. Using metalanguage helps students understand nuanced, culturally sensitive meanings (Patricia Koromvokis, Mark McConnell,) โ Students often donโt know where to start with AI. Itโs good when the course makes the way forward clear (Dominic Hearne). ๐๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ค๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐๐ โ Developing AI literacy isn't an individual sport (Danielle Ramirez) โ Itโs not about whether AI is better than a human, but whether itโs better than what I was planning to do (Dan Levy) โ Reward structures are needed for AI tinkering and innovation. Communities should be able to curiously critique to grow AI tinkering skills (Kellie Charles) โ Key steps to critique GenAI output and build hashtag#critical hashtag#AI hashtag#literacy: (1) evaluate accuracy (2) assess conceptual coherence (3) identify bias/blind spots (4) analyse depth of understanding (5) evaluate communication style (6) reflect on purpose/context (Meena Jha) โ Co-intelligence with GenAI is here to stay. How do we help students apply it in practice? (Sasha Nikolic)
Great insights from this #AI in #HigherEd Symposium 2026 at @sydney.edu.au.
My key take-aways across four themes (see images):
โ ๐๐ฑ๐ฉ๐๐๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐ฏ๐ฌ ๐ซ๐๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐๐
โ ๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฆ๐?
โ ๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐
โ ๐๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ค๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐๐
Title: Walking the tightrope of quality assessment: Balancing perspectives and priorities of stakeholder groups ABSTRACT: The ongoing evolution of digital technologies, particularly Generative Artificial Intelligence, continues to shape and challenge assessment design in higher education. Given the complex and sometimes competing factors that contribute to assessment design, and the evolving digital landscape in which assessment is placed, this study examines the perspectives and priorities of five key stakeholder groups โ educators, students, employers of graduates, accrediting bodies, and institutional policy-makers โ regarding the defining characteristics of quality assessment. Using a mixed-methods approach, we conducted interviews, focus groups, and a national survey to extend a framework for designing quality digital assessments in business education that was originally developed using educator perspectives only. The findings highlight the importance of balancing academic integrity, feedback quality, student experience, and authenticity in assessment design to address stakeholder perspectives. They also extend the framework by including two additional design elements: purpose and technology, and by emphasising the value of dialogue about contrasting interpretations of assessment quality. The study provides a refined framework that incorporates nuanced differences in stakeholder priorities, supports educators in designing digital assessments that respond to stakeholder needs, and encourages co-design and shared accountability. Keywords: Digital assessment, business education, assessment design, Generative Artificial Intelligence, higher education.
Figure 1. Framework for supporting the design and evaluation of digital assessments.
Assessment design is getting harder, not simpler.
Our new paper explores what #quality #assessment means when multiple stakeholders are involved, with #generative #AI as the new kid in town.
New framework now out in Studies in Higher Education
@tandfresearch.bsky.social.
Link in comments.
Our article 'Reshaping #Higher #Education Designs and Futures: Postdigital Co-design with Generative #Artificial #Intelligence' has been allocated to an issue.
11 cases from 9 countries๐ show how educators, designers co-design with GenAI.
Article (open access): doi.org/10.1007/s424...
Today, a wonderful collective article on AIs - 3rd in the series of 4, now waiting for the last one. More soon! Link in first comment.
A Multidisciplinary Research Agenda for ArtificialIntelligence, Education, Learning, and Instruction. Our new paper in Postdigital Science. Led by Jimmy Jaldemark. link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007...
Title: Reshaping Higher Education Designs and Futures: Postdigital Co-design with Generative Artificial Intelligence Published in Postdigital Science and Education Authors: Sandris Zeivots, Alison Casey, Tiffany Winchester, Jack Webster, Xin Wang, Linus Tan, Wina Smeenk, Frank P. Schulte, Antonia Scholkmann, Belinda Paulovich, Diego Muรฑoz, Joanne Mignone, Lilia Mantai, Stefan Hrastinski, Rebecca Godwin, Olov Engwall, Henrik Dindas, Marieke van Dijk, Laura Ann Chubb, Chrysi Rapanta, Jimmy Jaldemark & Sarah Hayes Abstract: This article examines how collaborative design practices in higher education are reshaped through postdigital entanglement with generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). We collectively explore how co-design, an inclusive, iterative, and relational approach to educational design and transformation, expands in meaning, practice, and ontology when GenAI is approached as a collaborator. The article brings together 19 authors and three open reviewers to engage with postdigital inquiry, structured in three parts: (1) a review of literature on co-design, GenAI, and postdigital theory; (2) 11 situated contributions from educators, researchers, and designers worldwide, each offering practice-based accounts of co-design with GenAI; and (3) an explorative discussion of implications for higher education designs and futures. Across these sections, we show how GenAI unsettles assumptions of collaboration, knowing, and agency, foregrounding co-design as a site of ongoing material, ethical, and epistemic negotiation. We argue that postdigital co-design with GenAI reframes educational design as a collective practice of imagining, contesting, and shaping futures that extend beyond human knowing.
New publication๐! Co-design with #Generative #Artificial #Intelligence is reshaping higher education designs and futures.
Our new article shares 11 cases from 9 countries showing how educators & researchers co-design with GenAI in practice.
Full article: doi.org/10.1007/s424... (it's open access)
What might #collaboration look like in #future #universities?
Our new chapter explores speculative futures of highly collaborative practices in higher education โ reimagining practice, context and technology together.
๐ doi.org/10.1007/978-...
Plenty of insights and calls for impact from #HERDSA2025 (Higher Education Research Society of Australasia) conference. Summarised for my future self, and maybe useful for others too.
โ๏ธ๐๐จ-๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐ ๐๐ง๐๐ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐๐๐ง๐๐
โ๏ธ๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ฅ๐๐๐ซ๐ง๐ข๐ง๐ ?
โ๏ธ๐๐๐ฒ๐จ๐ง๐ ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ (๐จ๐ซ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ-๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ฉ๐ก๐๐ฌ๐)
2025 Australasian Symposium on #Programmatic Approaches to #Assessment
This full day event will showcase a range of approaches to redesigning assessment along programmatic lines.
Date: Friday, 19 Sept 2025
Venue: Online
Cost: Free
More info & regos: transformingassessment.com/civicrm/even...
Conversation about critical #GenAI literacies is shifting fast.
If youโre only going to read one paper on it, this might be it. It brings together diverse, critical perspectives from leading voices in the field.
I was pleased to contribute to this @pdse.bsky.social article: doi.org/10.1007/s424...
Refreshing insights from this yearโs @egosnet.bsky.socialโฌ (European Group for Organizational Studies) conference.
Plenty of take-aways (summarised in images)๐๐
Our article is out!!!
Rapanta, C., Bhatt, I., Bozkurt, A. et al. Critical GenAI Literacy: Postdigital Configurations. Postdigit Sci Educ (2025). doi.org/10.1007/s424...
New paper on critical #genAI literacy! Happy to have been part of this dialogueโsuperbly coordinated by Chrysi. Hope our framework can contribute toward new dialogues on what AI-related skills and knowledge people need given our #postdigital condition:
doi.org/10.1007/s424...
#AILiteracy
Article title: Sensing Ethics in Postdigital Future Classrooms Abstract In this paper, we introduce and develop the concept of โsensing ethicsโ as a relational approach to thinking about postdigital future classrooms that is informed by our material realities, social and institutional structures, and our responsibilities as educators towards our students. A postdigital lens on ethics emphasises the importance of relationships and interconnectedness in ethical decision-making, moving away from a focus on individual autonomy. It considers how actions afect relationships between humans and non-humans. This perspective moves beyond rule-based ethics, and towards an approach that is more relational, situated, and decentralised. We explore sensing ethics through three examples drawing on the theory of practice architectures. We analyse these examples through the entangled โdoingsโ, โsayingsโ, and โrelatingsโ to unpack the complexities emerging in how educators and students enact sensing ethics and how ethics materialises in their human and non-human relationships. Sensing ethics does not require a fxed defnition or defnitive solutions; rather, it is a proactive and intentional practice situated in the present that shapes the near future of postdigital future classrooms.
New paper!๐ฉ
@dewawardak.bsky.social & I introduce 'sensing ethics' - a relational approach to #ethics in (post)digital #classrooms. Grounded in practice theory, we focus on how ethics is enacted through everyday โdoingโ, โsayingโ and โrelatingโ.
Open access paper: doi.org/10.1007/s424...
Milestone - PDSE Open Access article no. 200!
link.springer.com/article/10.1...
Call for papers: Special issue in 'Active Learning in Higher Education' on active learning and Generative AI.
We welcome theoretical and empirical contributions.
๐น Abstracts due: 30 June 2025
๐น Full paper submission: 16 February 2026
Full call for papers: journals.sagepub.com/page/alh/cal...
New book chapter out: what we've learnt about #co-design to make meaningful change possible in teaching & learning @sydney.edu.au.
Thanks to co-authors @dewawardak.bsky.social, Andrew Cram, Joanne Nash + editors Alicja Syska, Carina Buckley, Gita Sedghi & Nicola Grayson.
๐ doi.org/10.4324/9781...
๐Just launched a new resource for educators: '#Assessment #design through co-design'!
Practical strategies from a year-long strategic education project on collaboration in assessments at @sydney.edu.au
๐ฉ doi.org/10.25910/6je...
๐ฅ bizonlineassessment.com/design
#HigherEd
๐ Call for contributions: Co-design with #GenAI in higher education
๐ข We invite 700-word contributions + a visual artefact for a collectively authored article in @pdse.bsky.social
๐ข Deadline: 30 May 2025
More details: link.springer.com/journal/4243...
#HigherEd #GenerativeAI #ResearchPaper
๐๐๐ง ๐๐: ๐ฐ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐ ๐ฐ๐ ๐๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ญ๐๐ฅ๐ค๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ? โ Gen AI is framed in different ways. For some, itโs โjust a toolโ, an โactive learning partnerโ, for others, something much bigger, messier. Some suggest one chatbot should do it all, others argue for multiple chatbots for different tasks. Some focus on text prompts, others ask AI to describe images to understand how it โthinksโ (Cory Dal Ponte, Anastasia Globa) โ Some use Gen AI โjust like googleโ, missing out on its potential as a dialogic tool. Slowly changing, it shows the importance of prompting โ now as crucial as reading and writing. Some interesting prompting models out there, e.g. ROSE (Role, objective, style, exemplar) (Dr. Kelsey Burton, Jeremy Lindeck) โ Engagement with Gen AI is emotional. Frustration when it doesnโt โgive me exactly what I wantโ. Gen AI increasingly slows and paces interactions. Guiding students can build confidence โ The gap in how we learn about Gen AI is widening. Students are more open to exploring it, while some educators remain hesitant. Meanwhile, many students are unsure how to use Gen AI in class, but actively use it outside. (Jeremy Lindeck)
๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ โ Collisions โ of ideas, disciplines, perspectives โ are rarely smooth, but they can lead to great things. Gen AI is colliding with everything โ particularly with assessments. It challenges how we epistemically assess learning. Discussions are shifting from assessments as products to processes. If AI-generated work performs at the same level as students, what does that mean for assessment design? (Boyd Britton; Giordana Orsini) โ Co-design and co-creation are gaining momentum. Educators are talking about co-designing activities/assessments with others and with AI โ a much-needed, refreshing shift (Swapneel Thite,) โ Students navigate multiple Gen AI ecosystems. Many international students rely on non-Western AI tools, while many government/institutional policies assume Western platforms like ChatGPT. In one study, 1/3 of Chinese international students in a New Zealand university had never used Western Gen AI tools. How do we ensure AI-integrated learning is inclusive? (Pedram Nourani, Anthony Ryan)
๐๐๐๐๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐๐๐ซ๐ง๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ โ Educators and students donโt just need to โknowโ about AI โ they need AI competences. Still unclear what that looks like. We should be explorers, not just visitors. Hands-on, sometimes uncomfortable, engagement with Gen AI is necessary (Prof. Dr. Henrik Dindas, Frank Paul Schulte) โ Calls for free play, role play and game-based learning where Gen AI is integrated to make learning more engaging, meaningful and authentic. One session on sheep and pregnancy detection with AIโฆ why not? (Melanie White, Mike Seymour, sophia li, Mark Freeman, Olga Kozar)
Great variety of presentations and ways of thinking at this yearโs #Generative AI in #HigherEd Symposium at @sydneyuni.bsky.social. Here are my take-aways:
1๏ธโฃ๐๐๐ง ๐๐: ๐ฐ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐ ๐ฐ๐ ๐๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ญ๐๐ฅ๐ค๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ?
2๏ธโฃ๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ
3๏ธโฃ๐๐๐๐๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐๐๐ซ๐ง๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐
#GenAi #HigherEd
We need to stop detecting student #cheating and start detecting #learning.
#GenAI #HigherEd
If you're in Sydney in February, join us for a session โProblematising education and digital technologyโ. Similar sessions are run around the world.
Date: 21 February 2025
Time: 10:00am - 1:00pm
Location: University of Sydney Business School
Register: business-comms.sydney.edu.au/pub/pubType/...
