What Has 2023 Taught Us About Tomorrow’s Universities? From AI to Palestine

Universities are in a topsy-turvy state. They face enormous and often contradictory pressures from a mix of protagonists including governments and parents, corporations and alumni. These pressures are dwarfed only by the worries of our students, anxious about the direction of the global political economy and the implications for their futures. Each group looks to the tertiary sector for solutions, demanding education that is relevant, effective, and accessible. They also insist we reach these goals on shrinking budgets, while adapting our teaching to the endless disruptions we face. Oh, and academics should also produce world-class research and meaningful social impact along the way. The satire is playful, but not far off the mark.

As the Associate Dean of Learning and Teaching at the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at XJTLU, I have seen first-hand the soaring pressures facing our colleagues and students. The pandemic exacerbated an already delicate situation, to be sure, but universities now find themselves in perpetual transition. While it is hard to predict how, when, or if things will settle, it is crucial to take stock and to plan ahead, even if or especially when the future is uncertain.

The horizon, we might say, looks like a mix of sunny skies and torrential rains. It is not about facing an end-of-time scenario or making the wrong choice between progressive or ominous paths. Rather, we should expect a combination of better periods and tough times, and it is important for academic institutions to prepare accordingly. Below, I explore three shifts in the dynamics of universities that took place in 2023. There are others, of course, but these stood out because of the implications they are sure to have for tomorrow’s universities.

The Revolution is Artificial

AI enables personalised learning pathways. With just a digital connection, students gain access to a virtual tutor, a bottomless encyclopaedia, and a dynamic and adaptive learning companion. Many AI variants are commonly used: language learning applications like Duolingo customise the activities for each user, while platforms such as Carnegie Learning provide tailored instruction in areas like mathematics. The same is true for universities. At XJTLU, we have integrated our XIPU-AI teaching assistant into the virtual learning environment. It is a resource built on technology and databases unique to our university and to China, and adds a layer of cultural customisation that further underscores AI’s ability to deliver bespoke student support. At the institutional level, AI complements the activities of professional staff, streamlining administrative functions and provoking new ways to optimise, rather than just reduce, the workforce. The age of AI in the tertiary sector signals a leap forward in pedagogical innovation, with the potential to substantially improve teaching, learning, and management practices.

This technological shift, however, has not come without its challenges. As many of us have observed, the co-mingling of AI with education has, paradoxically, undermined aspects of learning. The speed with which students have grown dependent on AI tools is alarming, leading to an obvious decline in the active learning and critical thinking skills that we seek to cultivate. Moreover, the convenience of AI in accessing and processing information has raised concerns over rising illiteracy, as students abandon reading in droves, as well as the erosion of academic integrity. For many students, the temptation to pass off AI-generated content as their own has proven too hard to resist. While this is not outright plagiarism, AI has forced us to draw a fuzzy line between legitimate assistance and forms of misconduct.

To illustrate a common scenario, consider the use of translation tools. Sensibly, many students use these tools to better understand the assigned materials. But what about instances where they draft assignments in their native language–a natural preference–and then use AI to translate the text into the language of submission. While this practice does not constitute plagiarism per se, it deviates drastically from our intentions when we deliver learning in a foreign language. Universities must embrace the advantages of AI but we must also confront these emerging challenges. We want AI to serve as a supportive tool for our students’ learning, and not a crutch that hobbles their growth. From my experiences as Dean, and after encountering a plethora of AI-assisted texts, I can confidently say there are no easy answers (and the solutions proposed by AI are oddly self-referential!).

Beyond the Lecture Theatre

Long the foundation of university education, traditional lecture theatres are in flux. We have moved away from viewing uniformity in provision and expectation as an equitable apex, and instead, we strive to offer personalised learning experiences that cater to the unique needs, backgrounds, and aspirations of each student. This approach respects the individuality of learners while actively supporting their unique academic and professional trajectories, ensuring a more inclusive and effective educational framework. The lecture theatre is obviously not the ideal forum for this approach. To boost interactivity and to pepper the space with a bit of personalisation, tools like Mentometer and Kahoot! are now available. Similarly, some academics use generative AI to foster dialogue between students, an artificial tutor now entrusted with the facilitation of group discussions. Though some lament the gamification of learning, others recognise that technological innovations can promote engagement and learning, better reflecting the shift from teacher-centred to student-centred education.

Likewise, our thinking about student engagement has also evolved. Behavioural engagement measures aspects like attendance, involvement in activities, or adherence to academic expectations. How ‘present’ are students in their learning when in lectures? Do we create opportunities for them to be ‘present’ in tutorials? Participation is key to effective learning, highlighting the need to reflect on student behaviour rather than just police it. By contrast, emotional engagement considers affective responses. Do they display interest or indifference, enthusiasm or anxiety? Have they formed an emotional connection to the learning process, with their peers, or even with us as educators? Positive affect paves the way to sincere effort, underscoring the importance of fostering a supportive emotional climate. Rounding our trinity is cognitive engagement, perhaps the element most familiar to academics. Not all intellectual effort is created equal, however, and many academics now teach meta-cognition skills to equip students with the tools to approach their learning intentionally. While we are aware of the multiple entry points, can academics be sensitive to these dynamic layers of engagement, especially when applied to a sprawling number of students? What does this mean for work allocation models? How many hours can a Head of Department realistically assign for lecture preparation? Again, the pressures are enormous, hence the exhaustion many academics feel, and the rise of the life-after-academia movement.

Yet, as we move away from traditional lectures to more personalised, technologically integrated learning experiences, there is cause for joy. These efforts represent a strategy to make education more dynamic, inclusive, and effective. This is not just about integrating new toys into the lecture theatre but about cultivating a more engaging and meaningful educational environment that responds to students’ needs and prepares them for the unknown. To be frank, I see these efforts as essential for maintaining the relevance and excellence of our institutions.

How Globally Aware Do We Truly Want Our Students to Be?

To better understand and prepare students for a world that is interdependent and interconnected, faculties have been incorporating global perspectives into their curricula. This initiative goes by many names, including internationalisation, decolonisation, global engagement, and, my preferred term, epistemic justice. We have heard a lot about these initiatives this past year, both in scholarship and in marketing tracts. Naturally, our students have become more literate in the philosophies, ideologies, and histories of different societies. 

One of the most significant outcomes of this heightened awareness is the recognition that many challenges—among others, militarism, racism, consumerism, ecological degradation, and ethno-chauvinism—possess civilisational, even planetary dimensions. This realisation has prompted universities to promote interdisciplinary and intercultural perspectives that transcend traditional academic boundaries. We see this understanding materialise in curricula as scholars teach students about interconnectedness of these challenges, seeking to enable them to think both locally and globally. At the same time, our pursuit of epistemic justice has led to a paradoxical rise in nationalist sentiment. Notice, for example, Canada, the UK, and the USA explore and adopt restrictions on international students or ban inclusive curricula. To be clear, this is not just a matter of politicians behaving badly, though I wish it were. In some instances, academic leaders are jumping on the bandwagon.

In the past year, global awareness has translated into increased student activism on campuses. Two instances stand out for the contrasting responses that some universities demonstrated: Ukraine and Palestine. In the case of Ukraine, many Euroamerican universities offered support. They flew Ukrainian flags, organised academic panels to debate Russian / NATO aggression, and established scholars-at-risk programmes offering fellowships, contracts, and opportunities to Ukrainian scholars. This response, which included efforts to better understand the conflict and to provide material support to academics directly affected, was commendable. [I am aware of the instances of mistreatment of Russian students and scholars, but am highlighting the positive aspects of these responses.] In contrast, the reaction to the plight of Palestinian scholars has been far different, and this despite Israel’s actual devastation of every university in Gaza and the killing of scores of academics (we might add these are war crimes). The same institutions that actively supported Ukraine, including my previous employer UCL, have either remained silent on the issue of Palestine, limited their response to expressions of sorrow rather than active solidarity, or, in some cases, even targeted academics and students who championed a ceasefire.

While the active support for Ukrainian scholars and students was praiseworthy, the muted response to the challenges faced by Palestinian academics raises important questions about the principles guiding universities’ global engagement. Are these sincere efforts at promoting intercultural literacy, understanding, and solidarity, or is this an opportunistic gesture? The contrasting treatment of Ukrainian and Palestinian academics suggests universities will prioritise some global issues over others, not based on principles of academic freedom, epistemic justice, or humanism, but according to the prevailing populist winds. This inconsistency collapses the credibility of our global engagement efforts and, frankly, harms the academic environment. For scholars and students from the disfavoured regions, the university’s actions will provoke a sense of abandonment, even ostracisation. For the university as a whole, these double-standards convey an appalling message about selective equity and humanity, a lesson that is antithetical to the idea of epistemic justice.

Despite the dubious response to Palestine, the awareness universities seekto nurture has taken hold, fostering a sense of global citizenship among students and academics. Students are much more aware about the impact of local actions on global trends and vice-versa. Indeed, by integrating a sense of global consciousness into our educational practices, we are preparing students to tackle these civilisational challenges, and educating a new generation of leaders and thinkers who are better attuned to both the complexities and injustices of our world.

Building on the Lessons of 2023

The university landscape in 2023 was dynamic and challenging. As the world changes, tertiary institutions must proactively prepare both students and themselves for an uncertain future. This involves thinking and rethinking about the role of AI in education, student engagement, and the multilayered meanings of epistemic justice. Scholars and students have a duty to push the boundaries of learning; universities have a duty to nurture this. My experiences in different educational contexts over the past year have taught me that embracing these complex dynamics is the only way forward.

Photo by Nikhita S on Unsplash