Mapping Generative AI Ethics in Higher Education: A Systematic Review and Multidimensional Boundary Framework

Nio Awandha Nehru; Nik Haryanti

doi:10.47776/nuai.v2i1.1993

Authors

Nio Awandha Nehru Universitas Islam Negeri Sayyid Ali Rahmatullah Tulungagung https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0600-5948
Nik Haryanti Universitas Islam Balitar

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47776/nuai.v2i1.1993

Keywords:

Artificial Intelligence, Higher Education, Human–AI Interaction, Cognitive Augmentation, Systematic literature review

Abstract

The rapid integration of generative artificial intelligence in higher education has generated a fundamental dilemma: does it function as a learning aid or as an academic shortcut? This study employs a qualitative systematic literature review guided by PRISMA procedures to map the ethical spectrum of generative AI use between cognitive augmentation and academic substitution. Thirty-eight core journal articles published between 2021 and 2026 were thematically synthesized. The findings indicate that generative AI can enhance learning when it supports metacognitive reflection, scaffolding, and self-regulated learning while preserving human evaluative control. Conversely, risks emerge when AI contribution replaces core cognitive labor, leading to authorship ambiguity, integrity violations, and superficial engagement. To reconcile these tensions, this study proposes a multidimensional ethical boundary framework structured along two dimensions: human cognitive engagement and level of AI contribution. This framework offers a conceptual basis for policy development, assessment redesign, and responsible pedagogical integration, positioning ethical AI use as a continuum grounded in sustained human intellectual accountability.

References

[1] E. Kasneci et al., “ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education,” Learn. Individ. Differ., vol. 103, p. 102274, 2023.

[2] I. Hamsar, H. Dewantara, H. Andini, S. Ardiansyah, N. A. Afrizah, and M. G. P. Hasta, “Analisis literasi artificial intelligence mahasiswa pada perguruan tinggi,” J. Vocat. Informatics Comput. Educ., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 72–81, 2024.

[3] N. Kshetri et al., “‘So what if ChatGPT wrote it?’ Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy,” Int. J. Inf. Manage., vol. 71, p. 102642, 2023.

[4] A. Tlili et al., “What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education,” Smart Learn. Environ., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 15, 2023.

[5] W. Holmes and F. Miao, Guidance for generative AI in education and research. Unesco Publishing, 2023.

[6] K. Sevnarayan and M.-A. Potter, “Generative Artificial Intelligence in distance education: Transformations, challenges, and impact on academic integrity and student voice,” J. Appl. Learn. Teach., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 104–114, 2024.

[7] D. Boud and E. Molloy, “Feedback in higher and professional education,” Underst. it doing it well, p. 2013, 2013.

[8] D. R. E. Cotton, P. A. Cotton, and J. R. Shipway, “Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT,” Innov. Educ. Teach. Int., vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 228–239, 2024.

[9] T. Susnjak and T. R. McIntosh, “ChatGPT: The end of online exam integrity?,” Educ. Sci., vol. 14, no. 6, p. 656, 2024.

[10] T. Bretag, “Challenges in addressing plagiarism in education,” PLoS Med., vol. 10, no. 12, p. e1001574, 2013.

[11] E. Papagiannidis, P. Mikalef, and K. Conboy, “Responsible artificial intelligence governance: A review and research framework,” J. Strateg. Inf. Syst., vol. 34, no. 2, p. 101885, 2025.

[12] J. Tsao, “Trajectories of AI policy in higher education: Interpretations, discourses, and enactments of students and teachers,” Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell., p. 100496, 2025.

[13] L. J. Wiese and A. J. Magana, “A department’s syllabi review for LLM considerations prior to university-standard guidance,” in 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2024.

[14] D. S. T. Prayogi, “Artificial Intelligence in Education: Opportunities and Challenges,” Kartika J. Stud. Keislam., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 605–621, 2025.

[15] H. Snyder, “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 104, pp. 333–339, 2019.

[16] M. J. Page et al., “Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement,” J. Clin. Epidemiol., vol. 134, pp. 103–112, 2021.

[17] N. R. Haddaway, M. J. Page, C. C. Pritchard, and L. A. McGuinness, “PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis,” Campbell Syst. Rev., vol. 18, no. 2, p. e1230, Jun. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1230.

[18] D. Baidoo-Anu and L. O. Ansah, “Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning,” J. AI, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 52–62, 2023.

[19] J. Rudolph, S. Tan, and S. Tan, “ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?,” J. Appl. Learn. Teach., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 342–363, 2023.

[20] M. Farrokhnia, S. K. Banihashem, O. Noroozi, and A. Wals, “A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research,” Innov. Educ. Teach. Int., vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 460–474, 2024.

[21] R. Luckin, K. George, and M. Cukurova, AI for school teachers. CRC Press, 2022.

[22] A. Mills, M. Bali, and L. Eaton, “How do we respond to generative AI in education?: Open educational practices give us a framework for an ongoing process,” J. Appl. Learn. Teach., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 16–30, 2023.

[23] Y. Kim, D. Kim, J. Choi, J. Park, N. Oh, and D. Park, “A survey on integration of large language models with intelligent robots,” Intell. Serv. Robot., vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 1091–1107, 2024.

[24] L. Kohnke, B. L. Moorhouse, and D. Zou, “Exploring generative artificial intelligence preparedness among university language instructors: A case study,” Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell., vol. 5, p. 100156, 2023.

[25] T. K. F. Chiu, “Future research recommendations for transforming higher education with generative AI,” Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell., vol. 6, p. 100197, 2024.

[26] T. Lim, S. Gottipati, and M. Cheong, “What students really think: unpacking AI ethics in educational assessments through a triadic framework,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 22, no. 1, p. 56, 2025.

[27] M. Perkins, “Academic integrity considerations of AI large language models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond,” J. Univ. Teach. Learn. Pract., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1–24, 2023.

[28] C. K. Y. Chan and W. Hu, “Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 20, no. 1, p. 43, 2023.

[29] C. Zhai, S. Wibowo, and L. Li, “The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students’ cognitive abilities: a systematic review,” Smart Learn. Environ., vol. 11, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7.

[30] D. Dellermann, A. Calma, N. Lipusch, T. Weber, S. Weigel, and P. Ebel, “The future of human-AI collaboration: a taxonomy of design knowledge for hybrid intelligence systems,” arXiv Prepr. arXiv2105.03354, 2021.

[31] D. Long, T. Blunt, and B. Magerko, “Co-designing AI literacy exhibits for informal learning spaces,” Proc. ACM Human-Computer Interact., vol. 5, no. CSCW2, pp. 1–35, 2021.

[32] A. Nguyen, Y. Hong, B. Dang, and X. Huang, “Human-AI collaboration patterns in AI-assisted academic writing,” Stud. High. Educ., vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 847–864, 2024.

[33] K. Bittle and O. El-Gayar, “Generative AI and academic integrity in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda,” Information, vol. 16, no. 4, p. 296, 2025.

[34] R. Khalida, A. Rahmandri, S. A. M. Magren, and E. Nurmiati, “Etika teknologi informasi dalam dunia pendidikan: Tinjauan literatur atas penggunaan AI dan isu plagiarisme akademik,” J. Saintekom Sains, Teknol. Komput. dan Manaj., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 222–234, 2025.

[35] R. Salsabillah and G. Erlianti, “Fenomena AI-Giarism Mahasiswa dalam Aktivitas Akademik: Kajian Tantangan dan Strategi Literasi Digital,” Riwayat Educ. J. Hist. Humanit., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 128–135, 2026.

[36] I. N. Fitri, A. Thahira, M. Mahdum, and J. Copriady, “Etika Penggunaan AI dalam Menjaga Integritas Akademik pada Pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris: Sebuah Kajian Literatur Sistematis,” Pendas J. Ilm. Pendidik. Dasar, vol. 10, no. 04, pp. 425–439, 2025.

[37] S. E. Eaton, “Postplagiarism: Transdisciplinary ethics and integrity in the age of artificial intelligence and neurotechnology,” Int. J. Educ. Integr., vol. 19, no. 1, p. 23, 2023.

[38] N. Hadinejad, K. Sperling, and C. McGrath, “Generative AI chatbots in higher education: Student experiences and perceived ethical challenges,” Comput. Educ. Open, vol. 9, p. 100311, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100311.

[39] A. Mazaherian and E. Nourbakhsh, “Beyond the Hype: Critical Analysis of Student Motivations and Ethical Boundaries in Educational AI Use in Higher Education,” arXiv Prepr. arXiv2511.11369, 2025.

[40] A. Pulungan, R. Ramadhan, F. Windiarti, M. Ariani, and A. Hasibuan, “Examining The Determinants of AI Misuse Among Students in Indonesia: An Analysis Through The Fraud Diamond Framework,” J. Kaji. Akunt., vol. 9, pp. 136–161, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.33603/jka.v9i1.10442.

[41] A. Cheng, A. Calhoun, and G. Reedy, “Artificial intelligence-assisted academic writing: recommendations for ethical use,” Adv. Simul., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 22, 2025.

[42] M. Smit, R. F. Wagner, and T. J. Bond-Barnard, “Ambiguous regulations for dealing with AI in higher education can lead to moral hazards among students,” Proj. Leadersh. Soc., vol. 6, p. 100187, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2025.100187.

[43] M. Bearman, J. Ryan, and R. Ajjawi, “Discourses of artificial intelligence in higher education: A critical literature review,” High. Educ., vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 369–385, 2023.

[44] J. M. Lodge, K. Thompson, and L. Corrin, “Mapping out a research agenda for generative artificial intelligence in tertiary education,” Australas. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2023.

[45] U. L. Snis, L. Svensson, and R. Säljö, “Learning in and for a changing work life,” Studies in Continuing Education, vol. 47, no. 3. Taylor & Francis, pp. 491–495, 2025.

[46] L. Markauskaite et al., “Rethinking the entwinement between artificial intelligence and human learning: What capabilities do learners need for a world with AI?,” Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell., vol. 3, p. 100056, 2022.

[47] J. P. Miranda et al., “Erosion of Critical Academic Skills Due to AI Dependency Among Tertiary Students: A Path Analysis,” 2025, pp. 25–48. doi: 10.4018/979-8-3373-0122-8.ch002.

[48] B. D. Lund and T. Wang, “Chatting about ChatGPT: how may AI and GPT impact academia and libraries?,” Libr. hi tech news, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 26–29, 2023.

[49] J. Rudolph, M. F. bin Mohamed Ismail, and S. Popenici, “Higher education’s generative artificial intelligence paradox: The meaning of chatbot mania,” J. Univ. Teach. Learn. Pract., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 14–48, 2024.

[50] C. Gonsalves, “Addressing student non-compliance in AI use declarations: implications for academic integrity and assessment in higher education,” Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 50, pp. 1–15, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2024.2415654.

[51] O. P. Barus, A. N. Hidayanto, E. Y. Handri, D. I. Sensuse, and C. Yaiprasert, “Shaping generative AI governance in higher education: Insights from student perception,” Int. J. Educ. Res. Open, vol. 8, p. 100452, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2025.100452.

[52] X. Liu and B. Zhong, “Integrating generative Artificial Intelligence into student learning: A systematic review from a TPACK perspective,” Educ. Res. Rev., vol. 49, p. 100741, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2025.100741.