Introduction: Updates on AI, DEI, context, and partnerships

How Can <i>IJDS</i> Authors, Reviewers, and Editors Use (and Misuse) Generative AI?

Effects of Long-Term Dietary Soy Treatment on Female Urethral Morphology and Function in Ovariectomized Nonhuman Primates

Goals, organizational change, advocacy, diversity literacy, and sustainability: A checklist for diversity in cardiothoracic surgery training programs

Institutional research/effectiveness offices are instrumental in advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion (D.E.I.) efforts. Ideally they have the knowledge, perspective, and network within an institution to impact practice, process, policy, and planning in order to guide the institution toward a goal of being fully inclusive. With an understanding of D.E.I. terms within the institution and higher education, IR offices can provide a cohesive perspective and focus through both qualitative and quantitative data that can lead to shared definitions, a collective mindset, and ultimately actionable change.

We would like to start this editorial with sincere gratitude. In putting out a call with such a tight turnaround we were acutely aware of the pressure that we were putting on the contributors, the reviewers and ourselves as editors. However, we were equally cognisant of the rapidly changing nature of the world of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) and its impact on the world of education. Thus, we wanted to publish a timely issue by compressing the whole process from the call, to review, to copyediting and finally to publication into a timeframe of approximately 11 weeks. (Ultimately from call to publication the process took 81 days.) First, thank you to all who took the time to submit manuscripts for consideration. A good portion of academic labour is invisible and unrecognised and we want to acknowledge and thank you for the time you dedicated to creating submissions. Second, thank you to the reviewers who turned things around very quickly in a professional and supportive manner in order to meet our ambitious timetable. Finally, thank you to the authors who appear in this issue and who worked quickly to turn around revisions and edits. As an editorial team, we learned a great deal about our own procedures, processes and patterns which we will carry forward to continue to improve the Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning. In the issue that follows, we hope to provide a snapshot of a moment in time. When ChatGPT was released in November 2022 it created ripples in education that had not been seen in quite some time. Countless articles about it being the downfall of education (Devlin, 2023; Chomsky, 2023) to the solution (Heaven, 2023; Seetharaman, 2023) and all things in-between (Leaver &amp; Srdarov, 2023) flash across our screens daily. Places of education are scrambling to create policies and there has been a swift reaction to GenAI at national, European, and global level. In Ireland, the Quality and Qualification Agency (QQI) issued broad advice for tertiary education providers on GenAI in the context of assessment and academic integrity and reworking assessment strategies (National Academic Integrity Network, 2023). In Europe, The European Network for Academic Integrity (ENAI) published very useful recommendations on the Ethical use of Artificial Intelligence in Education in May (Foltynek et al., 2023). At the global level, UNESCO (2023) published a simple guide for educators called ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence in higher education: Quick start guide in April. In November, Australia produced a national framework for the use of GenAI in schools (Commonwealth of Australia, 2023.) One clear throughline has been the need for faculty to increase their digital literacy and understanding of GenAI (Laupichler et al., 2022; Farrelly &amp; Baker, 2023; Southworth et al., 2023). This was the driving force for this special issue. As a journal, we wanted to create a safe, open and scholarly platform for engaging with GenAI. The hope is that this issue can serve as a mentor text for discussion and experimentation.

From the Editor Sol Miguel-Prendes, Editor It has been almost four years since I became editor in chief of La corónica. Thanks to the constant support of the editorial board, the outside reviewers who generously volunteer their time and expertise, and the contributions to our pages by an increasing number of talented scholars, La corónica is standing strong. With this issue, we have added a new position to our editorial board; Emily Francomano of Georgetown University is joining us as Associate Editor. We are still publishing in the traditional print format, but researchers and students who rely on information online can now access La corónica since vol. 37.1 through ProjectMUSE; an additional ten years' worth of back issues are in the process of being added to this collection. The change of the journal's subtitle in the fall of 2008 to "A Journal of Medieval Hispanic Languages, Literatures and Cultures" reflects the focus expressed in our revised mission statement, namely the desire to publish "scholarship that transcends the linguistic and/or cultural borders of Spanish and explores the interconnectedness of those languages and cultures that coexisted in medieval Iberia". Besides this encompassing scholarly focus, La corónica intends to keep abreast of the most current issues and concerns that affect the academic climate. Emily Francomano is working hard in the preparation of an online forum that will address issues from the impact of the Medieval Academy of America's decision to hold its next annual meeting in Arizona to the place of our field within Medieval Studies. As I approach my fifth year as Editor in Chief, it is time to pass the baton to another scholar, another institution. Wake Forest University has been extremely generous in its support for the journal and for my editorial work, but its support of my editorial role is limited to five years; in fall 2012, I will have to return to my teaching duties full-time. As my predecessor, George Greenia, remarked before I became editor, La corónica "deserves to become embedded in a major research center which can build an onsite editorial team and use the journal to help train its own young Hispanomedievalists in formation". I must pass the baton not just to [End Page 1] another editor but to a future generation of scholars in training who will continue the journal's mission. It is therefore with the highest hopes that I pass along, at the directive of the Executive Committee of the Division on Medieval Hispanic Languages, Literatures and Cultures of the Modern Language Association of America, the following announcement. Call for the position of Editor in Chief The editorship of this journal, published by the Division of Medieval Hispanic Languages, Literatures and Cultures of the Modern Language Association of America, is shared on a rotating basis among researchers in our sector of the profession. The Executive Committee of the MLA Division now seeks applications for the position of Editor in Chief for La corónica. Applicants should be established scholars with publishing and editing experience in both English and Spanish. Ideally the new Editor should be in a supportive department or program where the work of the journal may be shared with qualified colleagues and with graduate students as a mentored experience. Assurance of institutional support and release time for editorial duties will form part of the successful portfolio. Applicants must hold membership in the MLA. Please send a curriculum vitae and cover letter explaining your professional qualifications to Prof. Isidro Rivera, Managing Editor, Department of Spanish and Portuguese, The University of Kansas, Wescoe Hall, 1445 Jayhawk Blvd., Room 2636, Lawrence, KS 66045-2166, e-mail: ijrivera@ku.edu. The new Editor will assume duties in the fall 2012. The senior editorial team joins me in expressing our gratitude to Dean Jacqueline Fetrow and Chair of the Department of Romance Languages Byron Wells at Wake Forest University. We also thank Dean Danny Anderson, Associate Dean Ann Cudd of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and Stuart Day, Chair of the Department of Spanish and Portuguese, at the University of Kansas. Without their continued financial support, this journal could not continue. [End...

The rapid integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) into higher education has sparked debates about the future role of teachers (Chan &amp; Tsi, 2024), including in providing feedback information to students. While GenAI offers unprecedented accessibility and immediacy, this presentation argues that teachers' expertise remains irreplaceable in productive feedback – i.e., processes in which students make sense of information about their performance and use it to improve the quality of their work or learning strategies (Henderson et al., 2019, p. 1402). Drawing on a large-scale, cross-institutional survey involving 6,960 Australian university students (Henderson et al., 2025), this Pecha Kucha highlights students' perceptions of GenAI versus teacher feedback. The quantitative analysis revealed that nearly half of them (49.7%) reported using GenAI for feedback. However, they rated teacher feedback as more helpful and significantly more trustworthy. While 83.9% found GenAI feedback helpful, only 60.1% considered it trustworthy, compared to 90.5% who trusted teacher feedback. This trust gap may reflect the inconsistent quality identified in GenAI's feedback comments (Venter et al., 2024). The thematic analysis of 5,736 open-ended responses from students who used GenAI for feedback yielded 8,498 coded instances, revealing four interrelated characteristics in which teacher feedback was perceived as outperforming GenAI. Contextualisation and Relevance: Teacher feedback was perceived as more sensitive to specific assignment contexts (95.2% of 669 instances rated GenAI as less contextualised than teacher feedback) and more relevant to learning objectives (84.6% of 123 instances rated GenAI as less relevant). This contextual awareness enables teachers to identify what matters within disciplinary and course-specific frameworks. Reliability and Accuracy: Students perceived teacher feedback as significantly more reliable and trustworthy (95.4% of 1143 instances), reflecting teachers' ability to provide more trustworthy and accurate guidance without the hallucinations and factual inaccuracies that can appear on GenAI outputs. Relational Significance: Teachers offered more personal, connected feedback experiences (93.8% of 471 instances), providing the interpersonal recognition essential for productive learning relationships. This relational dimension cannot be replicated by GenAI’s algorithmic responses. Expertise: Students recognised teachers as more authoritative sources (88.2% of 119 instances), valuing their disciplinary knowledge and pedagogical understanding of student development trajectories. Students' evaluation of feedback is fundamentally shaped by perceptions of source credibility (Bearman et al., 2024), which may explain why students perceive teacher feedback as more trustworthy than GenAI's. Research demonstrates this selective engagement: uptake of content-focused GenAI feedback was considerably lower than form-focused feedback(Ziqi et al., 2024), suggesting students recognise GenAI's limitations for substantive guidance requiring disciplinary expertise. This translates into learning outcomes, with students not only perceiving instructor feedback as more useful but also demonstrating significantly greater lab score improvements than those receiving GenAI feedback (Er et al., 2025). GenAI may create opportunities for educators to focus on what they do best: providing expert, contextualised, and relationally-grounded feedback within authentic learning relationships. This potentially positions teacher expertise as increasingly valuable, with educators prioritising higher-level pedagogical responsibilities, such as developmental guidance, facilitating critical thinking, and disciplinary enculturation, while GenAI supports lower-level feedback processes, like grammar correction and initial draft review. Students appear to already recognise this distinction, trusting teachers for more substantive, transformative feedback while appreciating GenAI's supplementary role for immediate, accessible guidance.

Black people have been historically, legally, and systematically blocked from accessing U.S. educational opportunities at all levels. Institutions, policies, and affirmative action efforts have all influenced the racial desegregation of public education, which had legal and social implications for higher education. While legislation provided a way for black students to enroll into predominantly white institutions, students were met with racial tension and discrimination. The integration efforts of the 1960s focused primarily on black students, and later on, other students of color; this led to the creation of many race-centric resources and support services for students. Today, however, as conversations on race have transitioned toward diversity, racial justice efforts are often diluted in the creation of broadly reaching diversity and inclusion efforts. Black cultural centers have since transitioned to minority and multicultural offices to now diversity and inclusion centers. The authors understand that the progression of student issues, needs, and concerns presents a need to broaden diversity efforts. Yet, race-related incidents, specifically, continue to serve as a foundation for the creation of diversity offices that are oftentimes designated as “catch all” efforts. In this chapter, the authors will provide historical racial context for current diversity efforts within higher education and discuss the contemporary role of race and racial justice within diversity work in higher education.

Diversity and inclusion are two terms that provide an umbrella for efforts to tackle discrimination, exclusion, and inequality by valuing diversity and promoting inclusion for historically disadvantaged groups across social, organizational, and individual levels. Diversity and inclusion are now academic, political, and professional fields of study and practice. Diversity and inclusion efforts gain meaning and shape depending highly on the spatial, temporal, sociocultural, and symbolic context in which they manifest. There is a spatial dimension to diversity and inclusion, which means different things across different international, regional, national, and organizational contexts. While in some national and organizational contexts, there is support for diversity and inclusion in terms of recognizing, protecting, valuing, and promoting a more comprehensive range of diversity categories and tackling inequalities across these categories, other contexts remain hostile, unsupportive, and adversarial across some sorts of diversity. While eight types of discrimination are unlawful in the UK, class inequalities are not part of equality laws. In India caste caste-related inequalities are targeted by laws. In South Africa, the legal framework promotes reconciliation to address the detrimental consequences of Apartheid. In terms of temporal context, there is a time dimension to equality and diversity efforts. While earlier diversity and inclusion efforts primarily included generic (-etic) categories such as gender, ethnicity, and disability, recently legitimated diversity categories such as sexual orientation, belief, appearance, and age are considered in some countries. Further, there has been a posthumanist turn, which problematizes the domination of human diversity concerns above and beyond those of nature and technology. In recognition of this, diversity and inclusion research now includes new categories such as biodiversity, technological diversity, and interspecies diversity in the posthumanist landscape of diversity and inclusion. The sociocultural context of diversity and inclusion refers to the specific values, beliefs, and practices that shape and underpin how inclusion and exclusion, privilege and disadvantage, and equality and discrimination manifest in different cultural settings. Sociocultural context is highly varied across national and regional settings, making adopting a standardized, one-size-fits-all approach to diversity and inclusion ineffective. The legal context explains what aspects of diversity and inclusion are considered priority categories for protection against discrimination and inequality. Legal regulation and compliance-based work can set the floor and the baseline for diversity and equality interventions in organizations and nation states. Due to variations in regulatory systems, diversity and inclusion efforts at work emerge as idiosyncratic.

Celebrations and Transitions at Annals of Emergency Medicine: A Few Thoughts

Generative AI tools and empowerment in L2 academic writing

The rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) technologies in higher education has raised concerns about academic integrity, assessment practices and student learning. Banning or blocking GenAI tools has proven ineffective, and punitive approaches ignore the potential benefits of these technologies. As a result, assessment reform has become a pressing topic in the GenAI era. This paper presents the findings of a pilot study conducted at British University Vietnam exploring the implementation of the Artificial Intelligence Assessment Scale (AIAS), a flexible framework for incorporating GenAI into educational assessments. The AIAS consists of five levels, ranging from “no AI” to “full AI,” enabling educators to design assessments that focus on areas requiring human input and critical thinking. The pilot study results indicate a significant reduction in academic misconduct cases related to GenAI and enhanced student engagement with GenAI technology. The AIAS facilitated a shift in pedagogical practices, with faculty members incorporating GenAI tools into their modules and students producing innovative multimodal submissions. The findings suggest that the AIAS can support the effective integration of GenAI in higher education, promoting academic integrity while leveraging technology’s potential to enhance learning experiences. Implications for practice or policy: Higher education institutions should adopt flexible frameworks like the AIAS to guide ethical integration of GenAI into assessment practices. Educators should design assessments that leverage GenAI capabilities, while supporting critical thinking and human input. Institutional policies related to GenAI should be developed in consultation with stakeholders and regularly updated to keep pace with technological advancements. Policymakers should prioritise research funding into the impacts of GenAI on higher education to inform evidence-based practices.

The increasing use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) technologies by students in assessment practices has drawn considerable attention in higher education (HE). This paper examines how HE students in Nepal perceive and experience GenAI use in assessment practices and how they associate its impacts with academic integrity, originality of student work, and assessment validity. Based on a longitudinal design, this study employed semi-structured interviews to generate the overall study data. Our findings showed that, while Nepali HE students appreciated the wide-ranging capabilities of GenAI, their justification of self-assumed frameworks and denial to acknowledge GenAI use in their work produced more concerning findings. In particular, as these students’ conceptions of GenAI emerged, how they subjectively drew ethical frameworks for GenAI use and their false impressions that text prompts and modifications of GenAI’s resulting outputs could retain the creative and intellectual values of their work threatened traditional notions of academic integrity and originality. Further, how they overestimated GenAI capabilities for reducing cognitive loads undermined the core visions of HE assessment systems. Our findings contribute to the practical understanding that urgent policy interventions and GenAI literacy programmes are required to motivate thoughtful, responsible, and transparent GenAI use for effective assessment practices in HE.

Purpose As generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies continue to advance and become more prevalent in higher education, addressing the ethical concerns associated with their use is essential. This study emphasizes the need for robust AI governance as more young consumers increasingly use generative AI for various applications. This paper aims to examine the ethical challenges posed by generative AI and review the AI policies in higher education to regulate young consumers use of generative AI, focusing on the ethical use of AI from foundational principles to sustainable governance. Design/methodology/approach Through a content analysis of literature on generative AI policies in higher education published between 2020 and 2024, this research aims to explore a more holistic approach to integrating generative AI into the educational process. The analysis examines academic policies and governance framework from 28 journal papers regarding generative AI tools in higher education. Data were collected from publicly accessible sources, such as Scopus, Emerald Insights, ProQuest, Web of Science and ScienceDirect. Findings This study analyses ten elements of the governance framework to identify potential AI governance and policy setting, benefiting stakeholders aiming at enhancing the regulatory framework of generative AI use in higher education. The discussions indicate a generally balanced yet cautious approach to integrating generative AI technology, especially considering ethical issues, inherent limitations and data privacy concerns. Originality/value The findings contribute to ongoing discussions to strengthen universities’ responses to new academic challenges posed by the use of generative AI and promote high AI ethical standards across educational sectors.

Generative artificial intelligence (GAI), represented by large language models, have the potential to transform health care and medical education. In particular, GAI's impact on higher education has the potential to change students' learning experience as well as faculty's teaching. However, concerns have been raised about ethical consideration and decreased reliability of the existing examinations. Furthermore, in medical education, curriculum reform is required to adapt to the revolutionary changes brought about by the integration of GAI into medical practice and research. This study analyzes the impact of GAI on medical education curricula and explores strategies for adaptation. The study was conducted in the context of faculty development at a medical school in Japan. A workshop involving faculty and students was organized, and participants were divided into groups to address two research questions: (1) How does GAI affect undergraduate medical education curricula? and (2) How should medical school curricula be reformed to address the impact of GAI? The strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat (SWOT) framework was used, and cross-SWOT matrix analysis was used to devise strategies. Further, 4 researchers conducted content analysis on the data generated during the workshop discussions. The data were collected from 8 groups comprising 55 participants. Further, 5 themes about the impact of GAI on medical education curricula emerged: improvement of teaching and learning, improved access to information, inhibition of existing learning processes, problems in GAI, and changes in physicians' professionality. Positive impacts included enhanced teaching and learning efficiency and improved access to information, whereas negative impacts included concerns about reduced independent thinking and the adaptability of existing assessment methods. Further, GAI was perceived to change the nature of physicians' expertise. Three themes emerged from the cross-SWOT analysis for curriculum reform: (1) learning about GAI, (2) learning with GAI, and (3) learning aside from GAI. Participants recommended incorporating GAI literacy, ethical considerations, and compliance into the curriculum. Learning with GAI involved improving learning efficiency, supporting information gathering and dissemination, and facilitating patient involvement. Learning aside from GAI emphasized maintaining GAI-free learning processes, fostering higher cognitive domains of learning, and introducing more communication exercises. This study highlights the profound impact of GAI on medical education curricula and provides insights into curriculum reform strategies. Participants recognized the need for GAI literacy, ethical education, and adaptive learning. Further, GAI was recognized as a tool that can enhance efficiency and involve patients in education. The study also suggests that medical education should focus on competencies that GAI hardly replaces, such as clinical experience and communication. Notably, involving both faculty and students in curriculum reform discussions fosters a sense of ownership and ensures broader perspectives are encompassed.