ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF AI-POWERED TEACHING AND LEARNING
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20848611Keywords:
artificial intelligence, higher education, generative AI, teaching and learning, Technology Acceptance Model, TPACK, adaptive learning, academic integrity, AI literacy, UNESCO, self-regulated learningAbstract
Artificial intelligence, and in particular generative AI systems such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude, has
moved from the periphery to the mainstream of higher education in less than four years. By 2025, multiple international
surveys converge on a single conclusion: AI use among university students is approaching universality, while institutional
governance, faculty competence, and pedagogical theory are scrambling to keep pace. This article synthesises peer-reviewed
empirical research published between 2020 and 2026, together with reports from UNESCO, the OECD, the Russell
Group, the Digital Education Council, the Higher Education Policy Institute, Ellucian, and EDUCAUSE, to present a
global, theoretically grounded account of the current state of AI-powered teaching and learning. The article maps adoption
trends and key technologies, situates them within established and emerging theoretical frameworks including the Technology
Acceptance Model, TPACK and its AI-specific extensions, constructivism, connectivism, and self-regulated learning
theory, reviews benefits and challenges, surveys policy responses across multiple jurisdictions, and outlines future directions
including AI literacy as a graduate attribute, hybrid human–AI pedagogies, and the redefined role of the educator.
The analysis concludes that AI adoption in higher education is no longer a question of trajectory but of governance, and
that the pedagogy of integration, not the technology itself, determines whether AI enhances or undermines learning outcomes.
References
Acosta-Enriquez, B., Gonzalez-Argote, J., & Maqui-Ponce, G. (2024). Acceptance and use of ChatGPT in Latin
American universities: A UTAUT2 approach. Heliyon, 10(7), e28571.
Bastani, H., Bastani, O., Sungu, A., Ge, H., Özge, Ö., & Kabakov, Y. (2024). Generative AI can harm learning. Wharton
Working Paper.
Blahopoulou, J., & Ortiz-Bonnin, S. (2025). University students’ usage of ChatGPT and academic integrity. Studies in
Higher Education.
Celik, I. (2023). Towards Intelligent-TPACK: An empirical study on teachers’ professional knowledge to ethically
integrate artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools into education. Computers in Human Behavior, 138, 107468.
Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher
education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, 43.
Chiu, T. K. F. (2024). Future research recommendations for transforming higher education with generative AI.
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100197.
Chiu, T. K. F., & Rospigliosi, P. (2025). Generative AI and self-regulated learning in higher education. Interactive
Learning Environments.
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2023). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era
of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228–239.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS
Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Digital Education Council. (2024). Global AI Student Survey 2024.
Digital Education Council. (2025). Global AI Faculty Survey 2025.
Ellucian. (2025). 2025 State of AI in Higher Education.
Freeman, A. (2025). Student Generative AI Survey 2025. Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI).
Habibi, A., Muhaimin, Saudagar, A. K. J., & Yusop, F. D. (2023). Factors affecting ChatGPT adoption in higher
education: A UTAUT2 analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 1061–1082.
Karataş, K., & Ataç, L. (2026). Human-Centric AI Pedagogy (HCAP) framework developed from TPACK through
integration of AI literacy and competency. Interactive Learning Environments.
Kulik, J. A., & Fletcher, J. D. (2016). Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: A meta-analytic review. Review of
Educational Research, 86(1), 42–78.
Lodge, J. M., de Barba, P., & Broadbent, J. (2023). Learning with generative artificial intelligence in higher education.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 1–13.
Ma, W., Adesope, O. O., Nesbit, J. C., & Liu, Q. (2014). Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A metaanalysis.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 901–918.
Meng, L., Zhao, Y., & Li, X. (2026). Teachers’ AI-TPACK: Exploring the relationship between knowledge elements.
Sustainability, 16(3), 978.
Miao, F., & Holmes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge.
Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Mishra, P., Warr, M., & Islam, R. (2023). TPACK in the age of ChatGPT and generative AI. Journal of Digital Learning
in Teacher Education, 39(4), 235–251.
Ning, Y., Zhang, C., Xu, B., Chen, Y., & Jiang, Y. (2024). Teachers’ AI-TPACK: Development and validation. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 55(3), 1124–1143.
OECD. (2023). Digital Education Outlook 2023. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2026). Reimagining Teaching in an Accelerating World. OECD Publishing.
Ravšelj, D., Keržič, D., Tomaževič, N., Umek, L., et al. (2025). Higher education students’ perceptions of ChatGPT: A
global study. PLOS ONE.
Russell Group. (2023). Principles on the use of generative AI tools in education.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology
and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.
Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2014). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on
college students’ academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 331–347.
Stephenson, C., & Armstrong, R. (2026). Student Generative AI Survey 2026. Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI).
Strzelecki, A. (2024). To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance and use.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(4), 649–662.
UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2024a). AI Competency Framework for Teachers. UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2024b). AI Competency Framework for Students. UNESCO.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending
UTAUT. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
Wang, X., Huang, R., Sommer, M., Pei, B., Shidfar, P., Rehman, M. S., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Martin, F. (2024). The
efficacy of AI-enabled adaptive learning systems: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(7),
–1768.
Wu, R., Dang, M., & Li, T. (2025). Responses, attitudes, and behaviours to generative AI in higher education classrooms:
A systematic review. Behavioral Sciences, 15(3), 320.
Xu, Z., Chen, L., & Wang, M. (2025). Enhancing self-regulated learning and learning experience in generative AI
environments: The critical role of metacognitive support. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(2), 475–493.
Yildiz Durak, H., & Onan, A. (2024). Predicting ChatGPT adoption: A TAM and UTAUT approach. Turkish Online
Journal of Distance Education, 25(2), 218–237.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M.
Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 MUHANDISLIK VA IQTISODIYOT
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.