Critical, Ethical and Pedagogical Perspectives

We believe that people should remain at the centre of education. Technology can support and enhance teaching and learning, but it should not determine what we value, how we teach, or what students are expected to learn. People think, create, learn, experience, question and reflect in ways that are central to education. We have our own experiences, values, intentions and understanding of the world. AI, including Generative AI (GenAI), works differently. While AI can produce remarkably sophisticated responses, it does not 'think', 'learn' or experience the world in the same way that people do.

AI systems are often described using terms such as “learning”, “thinking” and “intelligence”. These terms can be useful for describing what AI systems do, but they should not be taken to mean that AI thinks or understands in the same way as a person. Keeping this distinction in mind is important when considering the role of AI in education. A human-centred approach means keeping human intelligence, critical thinking and creativity at the heart of education. AI can support these capabilities, but it should not replace them. Students and educators remain responsible for questioning, evaluating and making decisions about AI-generated content. Human oversight and judgement are particularly important when AI is used to inform decisions or produce work that affects others.

AI can extend what people are able to do, but it cannot replace the human relationships, experiences and judgement that are central to many aspects of education and professional practice. For example, an AI system may help a medical student explore a clinical scenario, but it cannot replace the professional judgement and responsibility of a doctor. Similarly, AI may provide information or suggest approaches, but it cannot replace the empathy and human connection involved in counselling or teaching. For these reasons, we see AI and GenAI as tools that can support human activity, rather than substitutes for human judgement or relationships. Their responsible use in teaching, learning and assessment requires educators and students to remain actively involved: questioning outputs, checking information, considering context, and making informed decisions about when and how AI should be used.

Key Takeaways

• Keep people at the centre: AI tools may be able to support education, but should never determine its purpose or replace human judgement.
• AI can support us, but learning remains human: AI can produce sophisticated outputs, but learning outcomes should continue to focus on the knowledge, skills, thinking and judgement we want students to develop.
• Keep humans in control: educators and students remain responsible for questioning, checking and evaluating AI outputs.
• Use AI to support, not substitute: AI can extend human capabilities, but cannot replace human relationships, experience, empathy or professional judgement.
• Use it thoughtfully: always interrogate whether, why and how AI should be used in a particular teaching, learning or assessment context, putting pedagogy before technology.

A critical approach does not mean rejecting AI outright. It means taking the time to consider how a tool works, what it can and cannot do, and whether using it is appropriate for the learning, teaching or assessment activity in question.
For educators, this means approaching AI with curiosity as well as care. AI can offer useful ways to support teaching and learning, but its outputs may also contain errors, bias or misleading information. Its use can also raise questions about academic integrity, student agency, privacy, accessibility and environmental impact. A critical approach helps us recognise both the potential and the limitations of these technologies, and make informed choices about when and how to use them.

In practice, we encourage educators to:

• Question the output: check AI-generated content for accuracy, bias, omissions and appropriateness rather than assuming that a confident or convincing response is correct.
• Consider whether AI is appropriate: ask whether using AI will support the learning outcomes and educational purpose of the activity, and whether there are good reasons not to use it.
• Use professional and disciplinary judgement: consider the expectations, practices and ethical considerations of your discipline when deciding how AI should be used.
• Be transparent about its use: where AI is used in teaching, learning or assessment, be clear about how and why it is being used and what contribution it is expected to make.
• Keep learning at the centre: design learning and assessment activities that give students meaningful opportunities to develop and demonstrate their own knowledge, understanding, critical thinking and judgement.
• Consider different student needs: be mindful of differences in students' access to AI tools, their experience and confidence in using them, and any accessibility or inclusion considerations.
• Consider the wider impact: recognise that using AI has implications beyond the immediate task, including questions of privacy, sustainability and environmental impact.

Approaching AI ethically means thinking carefully about how its use may affect students, staff and others. It involves considering not only what AI can do, but also whether its use is fair, transparent, responsible and appropriate for the context. Ethical use does not mean that every use of AI will require the same approach. The important thing is to consider the circumstances, make your reasoning clear, and ensure that people remain responsible for decisions made with or about AI.

The HEA Principles for GenAI Ethical Adoption (O’Sullivan et al., 2025) provide a useful framework for thinking about these issues. In practice, we encourage educators to consider:

• Academic integrity and authenticity: Be clear about what work students are expected to produce themselves and what role, if any, AI can play. Where AI use is permitted, expectations should be clear in assessment guidance.
• Transparency and accountability: Be open about when and why AI is being used, including its limitations. Responsibility for decisions and outcomes should remain with people, not the AI system.
• Equity and inclusion: Consider whether students have fair access to appropriate AI tools and the knowledge and skills needed to use them. Be alert to the ways that AI systems may reproduce or amplify bias.
• AI literacy and critical engagement: Help students develop the knowledge and judgement they need to use AI thoughtfully, evaluate its outputs and recognise its limitations.
• Human oversight: Keep people involved in important decisions. AI can inform professional and academic judgement, but should not replace it.
• Privacy and data protection: Take care when entering personal, confidential or sensitive information into AI tools and follow relevant data protection requirements, including GDPR.
• Sustainability: Consider the environmental costs associated with using AI and whether its use is justified by the educational benefit it provides.
• Ongoing reflection: Recognise that AI technologies and our understanding of their impact will continue to change. Review and adapt approaches as new evidence, tools and guidance emerge.

Pedagogy is the way we think about how learning happens and how we can best support it, including what students need to learn, how we support them, and how we know whether learning has taken place. A pedagogically grounded approach to AI starts with learning, rather than with the technology. Instead of asking “How can I use AI?”, it requires us to ask:

“What am I trying to help students learn, and could AI help me achieve this (or could it get in the way)?”

This keeps the focus on learning outcomes, the needs of our students, and the knowledge and skills that are important within a particular discipline, profession, and life beyond graduation. AI and GenAI can create new opportunities for teaching and learning, but their use should be guided by clear educational purpose rather than novelty or convenience. We encourage educators to consider:

• Why might AI be useful here? What learning opportunity or challenge could it help address?
• What do I want students to learn? Will using AI help students achieve the intended learning outcomes, or could it get in the way of developing important knowledge, skills or understanding?
• Is AI appropriate for this context? Consider the discipline, professional expectations, students’ needs and the purpose of the learning activity.
• What might be lost if we use AI? Could using AI remove opportunities for students to practise important skills, think through a problem themselves, create something independently, or learn through interaction with others?
• Would another approach work better? AI does not need to be used simply because it is available. Sometimes a more traditional approach may better support the intended learning.

A pedagogically grounded approach therefore does not assume that AI should be used, or that it should be avoided. Instead, it encourages thoughtful decisions about whether, when and how AI can meaningfully support learning.