AI evidence extraction

Guest editorial: AI-assisted academic writing, translation, and literacy for the promotion of human agency in higher education

Muhammad Shaban Rafi, Davy Tsz Kit Ng, Iram Amjad, Winnie Ho Siu Yee · Artificial Intelligence in Education · 2026

AI-generated evidence extraction, verified across multiple analytical personas. Not a substitute for the peer-reviewed original.

9/10

Relevance

1/4

Quality (LMQS)

Evidence

Citations

0.00

FWCI

This is an AI analysis. Read the peer-reviewed original at the publisher: https://doi.org/10.1108/aiie-12-2026-269

Methodology & findings

Study design

Narrative editorial review synthesizing recent literature and research trends on AI-assisted writing, translation, and literacy in higher education.

Main result

The paper identifies that "highly cited studies are concentrating on GenAI while indicating a thematic shift towards its literacy, academic integrity and ethics in academic research" (Mittal et al., 2026). Key findings emphasize that "pedagogical approaches must move beyond purely technical instruction towards the systematic cultivation of creative and critical thinking" and that "learners should be guided in the effective use of GenAI for critically interrogating its outputs, questioning its assumptions, and reflecting on its influence on cognition and language practices."

Reports effect sizes.

Research paradigm

Interpretivist/Constructivist

Author conclusions

The editorial concludes that "These papers published in this special issue offer rich insights across diverse disciplinary contexts and highlight a range of methodological perspectives that showcase the transformative role of GenAI in academic writing, translation, and literacy in higher education." The authors emphasize that "These initiatives will safeguard intellectual property rights for future writers by preserving their authorship, research originality and data ownership" and recommend that "educators must act as epistemic mediators" who "train learners to understand the applications and limitations of GenAI while valuing the strength of human agency and epistemic independence."

Open questions raised

The editorial identifies gaps including the need for: (1) clearer delineation of acceptable vs. unacceptable GenAI use in academic settings; (2) development of specialized pedagogy-aware AI systems; (3) training in prompt engineering as an essential 21st-century skill; (4) structured approaches to dialogic engagement with LLMs beyond ad hoc prompting; (5) institutional policies and guidelines for GenAI-assisted writing and translation; (6) addressing equity and access in underresourced regions; (7) integration of AI literacy into university curricula; and (8) alternative assessment methods to ensure scholarly integrity.
The editorial identifies several gaps: (1) the need to address equity and access in underresourced regions regarding GenAI adoption; (2) the necessity for clear institutional policies on acceptable GenAI use levels; (3) the requirement for specialized pedagogy-aware AI systems rather than generic chatbots; (4) the need for training educators in assessment of AI-assisted work; (5) the importance of developing students' prompt formulation competencies; and (6) the necessity to preserve academic integrity, authorship, research originality and data ownership in the GenAI era.
The paper identifies the need for: (1) clear GenAI-assisted writing and translation policies at universities, (2) integration of AI literacy into curricula, (3) training educators to assess AI-assisted work, (4) establishment of human-GenAI dialogical spaces within libraries, (5) development of prompt engineering competencies as an emerging 21st-century skill, and (6) addressing equity and access in underresourced regions.

Data: not_statedCode: not_statedExtracted from: pdfAgreement 72%

Explore related topics

Responsible AI Use Academic Writing Position Paper