The gatekeepers go digital: Welcome to the new era of college admissions, where artificial intelligence is increasingly being used to evaluate student essays, fundamentally changing the application process. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.
Source
AP News
Summary
This article explores the expanding use of AI systems in U.S. university admissions processes. As applicant numbers rise and timelines tighten, institutions are increasingly turning to AI tools to assist in reviewing essays, evaluating transcripts and identifying key indicators of academic readiness. Supporters of AI-assisted admissions argue that the tools offer efficiency gains, help standardise evaluation criteria and reduce human workload. Critics raise concerns about fairness, particularly regarding students whose writing styles or backgrounds may not align with the patterns AI systems are trained to recognise. Additionally, the article notes a lack of transparency from some institutions about how heavily they rely on AI in decision-making, prompting public scrutiny and calls for clearer communication. The broader significance lies in AI’s movement beyond teaching and assessment into high-stakes decision processes that affect students’ educational and career trajectories. The piece concludes that institutions adopting AI must implement strong auditing mechanisms and maintain human oversight to ensure integrity and trust.
Key Points
AI now used in admissions decision-making.
Faster processing of applications.
Concerns about bias and fairness.
Public criticism where transparency lacking.
Indicates AI entering core institutional processes.
Streamlining academia: A new report illuminates how artificial intelligence can be leveraged to introduce greater efficiency and fairness into the complex process of assessing research within the UK’s higher education sector. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.
Source
University of Bristol
Summary
This report highlights how UK universities are beginning to integrate generative AI into research assessment processes, marking a significant shift in institutional workflows. Early pilot programmes suggest that AI can assist in evaluating research outputs, managing reviewer assignments and streamlining administrative tasks associated with national research exercises. The potential benefits include increased consistency across assessments, reduced administrative burden and enhanced scalability for institutions with extensive research portfolios. Despite these advantages, the report underscores the importance of strong governance structures, transparent methodological frameworks and ongoing human oversight to ensure fairness, academic integrity and alignment with sector norms. The emerging consensus is that AI should serve as an augmenting tool rather than a replacement for expert judgement. Institutions are encouraged to take a measured approach that balances innovation with ethical responsibility while exploring long-term strategies for responsible adoption and sector-wide coordination. This marks a shift from viewing AI as a hypothetical tool for research assessment to recognising it as an active component of evolving academic practice.
Key Points
GenAI already used in UK HE for research assessment.
Potential efficiency gains in processing large volumes of research.
By James Hanley, Oliver Harris, Caitlin Walsh, Sam Blanch, Dakota Venn-Keane, Eve Whelan, Luke Kiely, Jake Power, and Alex Rockett Power in collaboration with ChatGPT and Dr Hazel Farrell
Estimated reading time: 7 minutes
The future is now! BA (Hons) Music students from SETU in a vibrant “futureville” setting, blending the timeless artistry of music with cutting-edge technological imagination.
In recognition of how deeply AI is becoming embedded in the educational landscape, a co-created assignment exploring possibilities for music educators was considered timely. As part of the Year 3 Music Pedagogy module at South East Technological University (SETU), students were tasked with designing a learning activity that meaningfully integrated AI into the process. They were asked not only to create a resource but to trial it, evaluate it, and critically reflect on how AI shaped the learning experience. A wide range of free AI tools were used, including ChatGPT, SUNO, Audacity, Napkin, Google Gemini, Notebook LM, and Eleven Labs, and each student focused on a teaching resource that resonated with them, such as interactive tools, infographics, lesson plans, and basic websites.
Across their written and audio reflections, a rich picture emerged: AI is powerful, fallible, inspiring, frustrating, and always dependent on thoughtful human oversight. This blog is based on their reflections which reveal a generation of educators learning not just how to use AI, but why it must be used with care.
Expanding Pedagogical Possibilities
Students consistently highlighted AI’s ability to accelerate creativity and resource development. Several noted that AI made it easier to create visually engaging materials, such as diagrams, colourful flashcards, or child‑friendly graphics. One student reflected, “With just a click of the mouse, anyone can generate their own diagrams and flash cards for learning,” emphasising how AI allowed them to design tools they would otherwise struggle to produce manually.
Others explored AI‑generated musical content. One student used a sight‑reading generator to trial melodic exercises, observing that while the exercises themselves were well‑structured, “the feedback was exceedingly generous.” Another used ChatGPT to build a lesson structure, describing the process as “seamless and streamlined,” though still requiring adjustments to ensure accuracy and alignment with Irish terminology. One reflection explained, “AI can create an instrumental track in a completely different style, but it still needs human balance through EQ, compression, and reverb to make it sound natural.” This demonstrated how AI and hands-on editing can work together to develop both musical and technical skills.
An interactive rhythm game for children was designed by another student who used ChatGPT to progressively refine layout, colour schemes, difficulty levels, and supportive messages such as “Nice timing!” and “Perfect rhythm!” They described an iterative process requiring over 30 versions as the model continuously adapted to new instructions. The result was a working single‑player prototype that demonstrated both the creative potential and technical limits of AI‑assisted design.
The Teacher’s Role Remains Central
Across all reflections, students expressed strong awareness that AI cannot replace fundamental aspects of music teaching. Human judgment, accuracy, musical nuance, and relational connection were seen as irreplaceable. One student wrote that although AI can generate ideas and frameworks, “the underlying educational thinking remained a human responsibility.” Another reflected on voice‑training tools, noting that constant pitch guidance from AI could become “a crutch,” misleading students into believing they were singing correctly even when not. Many recognised that while AI can speed up creative processes, the emotional control, balance, and overall musical feel must still come from human input. One reflection put it simply: “AI gives you the idea, but people give it life.”
There was also a deep recognition of the social dimension of teaching. As one student put it, the “teacher–student relationship bears too much of an impact” to be substituted by automated tools. Many emphasised that confidence‑building, emotional support, and adaptive feedback come from real educators, not algorithms.
Challenges, Risks, and Ethical Considerations
The assignment surfaced several important realisations, including the fact that technical inaccuracies were common. Students identified incorrect musical examples, inconsistent notation, malfunctioning website features, and audio‑mixing problems. One student documented how, over time, the “quality of the site got worse,” illustrating AI’s tendency to forget earlier instructions in long interactions. This reinforced the need for rigorous verification when creating learning materials.
Another reflection noted that not all AI websites perform equally; some produce excellent results, while others generate distorted or incomplete outputs, forcing teachers to try multiple tools before finding one that works. It also reminded educators that even free or simple programs, like basic versions of Audacity, can still teach valuable mixing and editing skills without needing expensive software. A parallel concern was over‑reliance. Students worried that teachers might outsource too much planning to AI or that learners might depend on automated feedback rather than developing critical listening skills. As one reflection warned, “AI can and will become a key tool… the crucial factor is that we as real people know where the line is between a ‘tool’ and a ‘free worker.’”
Equity of access also arose as a barrier. Subscription‑based AI tools required credits or payment, creating challenges for students and highlighting ethical tensions between commercial technologies and educational use. Students demonstrated strong awareness of academic integrity. They distinguished between using AI to support structure and clarity versus allowing AI to generate entire lessons or presentations. One student cautioned that presenting AI‑produced content as one’s own is “blatant plagiarism,” highlighting the need for transparent and ethical practice.
Learning About Pedagogy and Professional Identity
Many students described developing a clearer sense of themselves as educators. They reflected on the complexity of communicating clearly, engaging learners, and designing accessible content. Some discovered gaps in their teaching confidence; others found new enthusiasm for pedagogical design. One wrote, “Teaching and clearly communicating my views was more challenging than I assumed,” acknowledging the shift from student to teacher mindset. Another recognised that while AI could support efficiency, it made them more aware of their responsibility for accuracy and learner experience.
Imagining the Future of AI in Music Education
Students were divided between optimism and caution. Some saw AI becoming a standard part of educational resource creation, enabling personalised practice, interactive learning, and rapid content generation. Others expressed concern about the possibility of AI replacing human instruction if not critically managed. However, all students agreed on one point: AI works best when treated as a supportive tool rather than an autonomous teacher. As one reflection summarised, “It is clear to me that AI is by no means a replacement for musical knowledge or teaching expertise.” Another added, “AI can make the process faster and more creative, but it still needs the human touch to sound right.”
Dr Hazel Farrell
Academic Lead for GenAI, Programme Leader BA (Hons) Music South East Technological University
Dr Hazel Farrell is the SETU Academic Lead for Generative AI, and lead for the N-TUTORR National Gen AI Network project GenAI:N3, which aims to draw on expertise across the higher education sector to create a network and develop resources to support staff and students. She has presented her research on integrating AI into the classroom in a multitude of national and international forums focusing on topics such as Gen AI and student engagement, music education, assessment re-design, and UDL.
Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
The power of collaboration: Communities of Practice are essential for educators to collectively navigate and integrate new AI technologies, transforming teaching and learning through shared knowledge and support. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.
When the N-TUTORR programme ended in Ireland, I remained seated in the main Edtech25 auditorium to hear some of the final conversations by key players. They stood at a remarkable intersection of professional development and technological innovation. And some of them issued a call to action for continued conversation, perhaps engaging with generative AI tools within a Community of Practice (CoP).
Throughout my 40 year teaching career, I have walked pathways to genuine job satisfaction that extended far beyond simple skill acquisition. In my specific case, this satisfaction emerged from the synergy between collaborative learning, pedagogical innovation, and an excitement that the uncharted territory is unfolding alongside peers who share their commitment to educational excellence.
Finding Professional Fulfillment Through Shared Learning
The journey of upskilling in generative AI feels overwhelming when undertaken in isolation. I am still looking for a structured CoP for Generativism in Education. This would be a rich vein of collective discovery. At the moment, I have three colleagues who help me develop my skills with ethical and sustainable use of AI.
Ethan Mollick, whose research at the Wharton School has illuminated the practical applications of AI in educational contexts, consistently emphasises that the most effective learning about AI tools happens through shared experimentation and peer discussion. His work demonstrates that educators who engage collaboratively with AI technologies develop more sophisticated mental models of how these tools can enhance rather than replace pedagogical expertise. This collaborative approach alleviates the anxiety many educators feel about technological change, replacing it with curiosity and professional confidence.
Mairéad Pratschke, whose work emphasises the importance of collaborative professional learning, has highlighted how communities create safe spaces where educators can experiment, fail, and succeed together without judgment. This psychological safety becomes the foundation upon which genuine professional growth occurs.
Frances O’Donnell, whose insights at major conferences have become invaluable resources for educators navigating the AI landscape, directs the most effective AI workshops I have attended. O’Donnell’s hands-on training at conferences such as CESI (https://www.cesi.ie), EDULEARN (https://iceri.org), ILTA (https://ilta.ie), and Online Educa Berlin (https://oeb.global) have illuminated the engaging features of instructional design that emerge when educators thoughtfully integrate AI tools. Her instructional design frameworks demonstrate how AI can support the creation of personalised learning pathways, adaptive assessments, and multimodal content that engages diverse learners. O’Donnell’s emphasis on the human element in AI-assisted design resonates deeply with Communities of Practice
And thanks to Frances O’Donnell, I discovered the AI assistants inside H5P.
Elevating Instructional Design Through AI-Assisted Tools
The quality of instructional design, personified by clever educators, represents the most significant leap I have made when combining AI tools with collaborative professional learning. The commercial version of H5P (https://h5p.com) has revolutionised my workflow when creating interactive educational content. The smart import feature of H5P.com complements my teaching practice. I can quickly design rich, engaging learning experiences that would previously have required specialised technical skills or significant time investments. I have discovered ways to create everything from interactive videos with embedded questions to gamified quizzes and sophisticated branching scenarios.
I hope I find a CoP in Ireland that is interested in several of the H5P workflows I have adopted. For the moment, I’m revealing these remarkable capabilities while meeting people at education events in Belgium, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands. It feels like I’m a town crier who has a notebook full of shared templates. I want to offer links to the interactive content that I have created with H5P AI and gain feedback from interested colleagues. But more than the conversations at the conferences, I’m interested in making real connections with educators who want to actively participate in vibrant online communities where sustained professional learning continues.
Sustaining Innovation with Community
Job satisfaction among educators has always been closely tied to their sense of efficacy and their ability to make meaningful impacts on student learning. Communities of Practice focused on AI upskilling amplify this satisfaction by creating networks of mutual support where members celebrate innovations, troubleshoot challenges, and collectively develop best practices. When an educator discovers an effective way to use AI for differentiation or assessment design, sharing that discovery with colleagues who understand the pedagogical context creates a profound sense of professional contribution.
These communities also combat the professional tension that currently faces proficient AI users. Mollick’s observations about blowback against widespread AI adoption in education reveal a critical imperative to stand together with a network that validates the quality of teaching and provides constructive feedback. When sharing with a community, individual risk-taking morphs into collective innovation, making the professional development experience inherently more satisfying and sustainable.
We need the spark of N-TUTORR inside an AI-focused Community of Practice. We need to amplify voices. Together we need to become confident navigators of innovation. We need to co-create contextually appropriate pedagogical approaches that effectively leverage AI in education.
Unmasking the flaws: A history professor’s perspective suggesting that AI merely shone a light on the structural vulnerabilities and existing problems within higher education, rather than being the sole source of disruption. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.
Source
Business Insider
Summary
This article features a U.S. history professor who argues that generative AI did not cause the crisis currently unfolding in higher education but instead revealed long-standing structural flaws. According to the professor, AI has exposed weaknesses in assessment design, unclear expectations placed on students and unsustainable workloads carried by academic staff. The sudden visibility of AI-generated essays and assignments has forced institutions to confront the limitations of traditional assessment models that rely heavily on polished written output rather than demonstrated cognitive processes. The professor notes that AI has unintentionally highlighted inequities in student preparation, inconsistencies in grading norms and the mismatch between institutional rhetoric and actual resourcing. Rather than attempting to suppress AI, the article argues that higher education should treat this moment as an opportunity to redesign curricula, diversify assessments and rethink the broader purpose of university education. The piece positions AI as a catalyst for long-overdue reform, emphasising that genuine improvement will require institutions to invest in pedagogical redesign, staff support and clearer communication around learning outcomes.
Key Points
AI highlighted systemic weaknesses already present in higher education
Exposed flaws in assessment design and grading expectations
Revealed pressures on overworked teaching staff
Suggests AI could drive constructive reform
Encourages rethinking pedagogy and institutional priorities
