JOURNAL OF ISSN: 2669-235X

JELR E-LEARNING Volume 2, Issue 2

RESEARCH

AI Assisted Learning: A Tool or a Threat?

Adam L. Miller

Doctoral Candidate, Open University Malaysia, Malaysia

Department of Foreign Language Education Center (FLEC), Nanzan University, Nagoya, Japan
almiller@nanzan-u.ac.jp

ABSTRACT

Both Web 4.0 and EDU 4.0 are malleable terms, that while difficult to define, set the basis for contemporary
learning environments. Within these boundaries, AI (Artificial Intelligence) and AIEd (Artificial
Intelligence in Education) have further complicated modern pedagogy with an ever-increasing list of
potential benefits and pitfalls. This paper argues that to utilize AI and AIEd to its fullest potential, it must
first be understood before it is implemented, and that while the increased presence of AI in our daily lives
may be inevitable, the path it follows is not predetermined. This paper briefly explores the history of AI
and AIEd technology and assesses not only the potential benefits of AIEd and how they may be fully
realized, but also three areas of concern; privacy and data use, inherent bias, and the role of the educator in
the future. Through flexible, cyclical models and careful consideration, this paper argues that AIEd will
not automatically lead to a phasing out of teachers in learning environments, but, if due care is made, the
potential benefits of AI technology can be forged in a way that they improve the working and learning
experiences for all stakeholders.

Keywords: AI, AIEd, 4IR, Web 4.0, Edu 4.0

Cite this article as: Miller, A. L. (2023). AI Assisted Learning: A Tool or a Threat?. Journal of e-learning
Research, 2(2), 52-65. https://doi.org/10.33422/jelr.v2i2.510

1. Introduction
Technology has always played an important and influential role over education, shaping what
is taught, how curricula are delivered, whilst also influencing how teachers approach
constructing their learning environments, and how students interact with them, in short
technology can act “as a tool to enhance the overall learning process.” (Shrivastava, 2023, p.7).
The progression of digital technologies and their application to education can be explored
through the study of EDU 4.0 and Web 4.0, which have had a symbiotic evolution, with
advances in technology, and how that technology is widely adopted and applied, altering the
path and impact EDU 4.0 and Web 4.0 have on our daily lives. While each step along this
evolution cannot be clearly defined with an agreed terminology that distinguishes one aspect
from another, there are broad explanations that can be applied to examine this progression (see
Figure 1).

© The Author(s). 2023 Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and redistribution in any medium, provided that the original author(s) and source are credited.
Miller, 2023 JELR, Vol. 2, No. 2, 52-65

Web 1.0 EDU 1.0

Static pages / Read only content Teacher led / rote learning / memorization

Web 2.0 EDU 2.0

Collective information / Shared Internet assisted learning / Static
knowledge materials

Web 3.0 EDU 3.0

Personalised experiences / Targetted Knowledge based education / Increased
exposure flexibility / Increased student autonomy

Web 4.0 EDU 4.0

Predictive experience / Integration of Personalised education / Increased
physical and virtual / Assistive technologies accessibility / Automated tasks

Figure 1. Web/EDU 1.0 - 4.0

While these changes did not occur truly independent of each other or in a strictly chronological
manner, the increased complexity and technologically enhanced nature of Web 4.0, EDU 4.0,
and each of their respective predecessors do have a number of similarities. For both EDU 1.0
and Web 1.0, the user/student was exposed to a passive experience in which they were given
static materials, which they could not add to, edit, or construct; instead, they could merely
access the information. While EDU 2.0 was infused with the internet and eLearning, it still
relied on static materials, and the rather traditional roles of a teacher acting as an expert
transferring knowledge to their student(s). Web 2.0 saw the beginnings of communal
information, in which people could upload their own materials, to websites such as YouTube,
or edit or compliment a growing library of data on websites such as Wikipedia. Learners also
became a more active participant in the learning experience with EDU 3.0, which offered them
more flexibility and autonomy, as they could not only have more input regarding the parameters
of their learning (such as when and where it would take place), but also an active role in steering
the direction of their learning experience; students were no longer simply relying on teachers
or static materials, but were given an opportunity to contribute to the shared learning experience.
An example of this can be seen in George Siemens Connectivism model, which was designed
to give students more autonomy and input in their learning experience, making the

53
Miller, 2023 JELR, Vol. 2, No. 2, 52-65

contributions of students equally as important as that of the teacher(s). This not only gives
students the opportunity to optimize their learning environment, but also the responsibility to
assess and actively contribute to it, meaning they “must be active agents engaging with a digital
information system and utilizing this to co-construct a knowledge base for themselves and their
community” (Al-Maawali, 2022, p.4).
Web 3.0 saw a further progression in which vast quantities of data was collected from users,
and this had the dual effect of offering users a more personalized online experience, and
allowing for third parties to apply this data to targeted advertising or algorithmically fueled
suggestions. While the boundaries of Web 4.0 may not yet be fully understood or known, the
increased pool of data that users are constantly updating allows for a more acute predictive
experience, in which time online can be curated to an individual’s interests, and Web 4.0 can
predict what a user needs or wants to see and can steer them in the (assumed) right direction.
The increased technological presence could also lead to a blurring of the lines between the
digital and physical worlds. EDU 4.0 exists within this technologically driven environment,
and its success is dependent on stakeholders not only understanding what Web 4.0 and EDU
4.0 are, but how they can be utilized.
This paper aims to examine the social and pedagogical concerns that relate to contemporary
technology, and how this can be applied in contemporary education. There will be a particular
focus on Artificial Intelligence (hereon referred to as AI) and how its role within EDU 4.0 will
become ever more important. The paper will begin by briefly exploring AI’s history within the
realm of education, as well as any concerns that have arisen through its increased presence.
The study does not aim to demonize or celebrate AI, instead it will argue that the process of
understanding the potential of AI, and highlighting any potential pitfalls it may present, can
ensure it is used in an efficient and ethical way. As AI’s use is increasingly inevitable, it is
therefore vital that approaches to education match the needs of modern society and take into
account the full scope and potential of EDU 4.0 and AI tools, as any "educational system unable
to adapt to the speed of innovation in society is obsolete" (Soskil, 2018, p.10).
Once these social and pedagogical concerns have been highlighted and explored, this paper
will move on to compile a sample implementation strategy for the realm of tertiary education
and explain how best to utilize the technology that is readily available to us today, while also
being flexible enough to incorporate potential advances said technology may take in the future.

2. Brief History of AI
While AI is a central feature of EDU 4.0, it is not a new phenonium, as it “has a history that
dates back to the 1940s when computer science and cybernetics were born” (Shrivastava, 2023,
p.3). Since then, there have been a number of important milestones that have seen the
sophistication and application of AI progress over the past 80 years (see Figure 2).

54
Miller, 2023 JELR, Vol. 2, No. 2, 52-65

1950 • Alan Turing designs the "Turing Test" to test a machine's capability of
displaying intelligent "human" behavior.

1951 • The first artificial neural network, SNARC (Stochastic Neural Analog
Reinforcement Calculator) was built by Marvin Minsky and Dean Edmunds

1961 • Unimate, the first industrial robot, is used on a General Motors assembly
line

1965 • An English dialogue program called ELIZA is developed by Joseph

Weizenbaum

1970 • Waseda University in Japan develop an anthropomorphic robot, with limb-

control, vision and conversation systems, called WABOT-1

1986 • A Mercedes-Benz van equipped with cameras and sensors, and developed
at Bundeswehr University, becomes the first "driverless" car.

1997 • IBM's "Deep Blue" program beats the reigning world chess champion,
Garry Kasparov, at chess.

2000 • Cynthia Breazeal of MIT develops a robot that can recognize and simulate
human emotions, called Kismet.

2010s • AI assistants, like Siri, Google Now, and Cortana become standardized.

Figure 2. AI milestones

While not an exhaustive record of AI milestones, the above list demonstrates how AI has been
tested and applied in different fields, from attempting to imitate human speech patterns or
emotions, to beating experts in specialized fields, or tackling manual tasks. AI is now no longer
a mere curiosity, but a tool that most people can access, through the AI assistants available on
their smart-phones, smart-speakers, or computers for example. But AI being more present in
our daily lives does not necessarily mean we are any closer to fully understanding its potential,
in fact each of the milestones above show that AI often exceeds expectations, which brings
about the juxtaposition of it being a tool that could potentially better the lives of countless
people, or a threat to livelihoods.
After 2010, AI progressively resurfaced under a new paradigm, not as simulated human
bits of intelligence or programmable expert systems, but as data-processing systems
capable of learning and making predictions from massive amounts of ‘big data’
classification and correlation (Shrivastava, 2023, p.3).
Today, AI is only limited by the data from which it can draw from, and contemporary programs
such as ChatGPT have “the power to pass legal exams, write entire feature-length articles, and
even code full websites” (Hughes, 2023). It is therefore vital that educators (and other

55
Miller, 2023 JELR, Vol. 2, No. 2, 52-65

stakeholders) can come to grips with the full potential of AI and how it will influence the
direction of EDU 4.0. By exploring the potential benefits and dangers of artificial intelligence,
it will be possible to demonstrate an optimal delivery platform for AIEd (Artificial Intelligence
in Education), and what impact that will have on the online learning ecosystem of EDU 4.0.

3. Benefits of AI
As previously mentioned, AI has now become an integral and near-invisible feature of our
everyday lives, being a tool that people casually call upon for a variety of tasks.
AIs have the potential to direct you with precise turns to and from works or provide
suggestions for eating out in an unfamiliar area based on past visits to restaurants
(Govender, 2021, p.31).
AI can tap into the data it has collected from us, and make predictions or recommendations
based upon the information it has available to it; as in the above example, the AI is aware of
the user’s location and past dining experiences and can suggest a restaurant that is both
geographically close and suitable to perceived preferences of the user. Outside of this, AI can
also be used in far more specific ways within the framework of EDU 4.0, which can allow
teachers to not only rely on AI to accurately and effectively undertake menial tasks, but also
afford them more time to spend with their students.
Recently, there has been the development of educational tools that focus on teachers to
help them either orchestrate the use of classroom technology or reflect on that
organization. They also (i) help teachers allocate their precise time effectively to those
students who need it most and (ii) analyze students’ work to determine which are the
common issues within a class. We can see this as an evolution of the learner model to
emcompass both the individuals within a group and the group itself” (du Boulay, 2023,
p.98).
AI has the potential to alleviate the workload for both teachers and academic administrators,
as it has the ability to take on a variety of tasks, including the ability “to record academic
achievements, develop personalized learning materials, provide reviews and analyse data”
(Tapalova & Zhiyenbayeva, 2022, p.643). This could potentially give teachers more time to
focus on teaching and create a more optimal learning environment for the students.
These benefits are not exclusive to the educators however, and students can also enjoy tangible
and noticeable advantages, as “AI allows the use of different teaching methods effective for
each student, taking into account the strengths, weaknesses, talents and academic problems of
each learner” (Tapalova & Zhiyenbayeva, , p.643), the learning environment can therefore be
adaptive enough to suit the needs of individual students, as it “can potentially be used to help
identify the most effective teaching methods based on students’ contexts and learning
background” (Chaudry & Kazim, 2022, p.157). As will be explored in subsequent sections of
this paper, this observant and adaptive nature, as well as its potential to “automate monotonous
operational tasks” (Chaudry & Kazim, 2022, p.157) could potentially mean that teachers are
better equipped to construct more personalized and effective learning environments. Not only
this, the adoption of AIEd could also lead to improved equity levels within education, as AIEd
“offers students of different age groups, academic levels and socioeconomic backgrounds
opportunities to enhance learning experiences and improve academic achievements” (Tapalova
& Zhiyenbayeva, 2022, p.643).

56
Miller, 2023 JELR, Vol. 2, No. 2, 52-65

4. Concerns Regarding AI
While there is a plethora of ethical and technical concerns regarding AI, this paper will look at
just three central examples:
1. Privacy and data use
2. Ethical implications (including bias)
3. The role of the educator moving forward
To further improve the clarity of this study, these three aspects will be further divided into two
sub-sections, one regarding the implications of AI on teachers, and the other on students.

4.1. Concerns for Teachers

AI and automation can be seen as a threat to job security in a number of industries and sectors,
a problem that was compounded with the COVID-19 pandemic, which saw a sudden
investment in this technology to circumvent the restrictions put in place on working
environments:
In the pre-pandemic era, new artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies were being
gradually introduced to automate some of the tasks performed by human employees.
The COVID-19 crisis, and its accompanying measures of social distancing, has
suddenly accelerated this process of innovation and technological change […] These
innovations provoked by necessity […] will soon result in hundreds of thousands, and
potentially millions, of job losses (Schwab & Malleret, 2020, p.55).
While the pandemic proved that this technology can be successfully implemented on huge
scales, and that more and more sectors of the working public could be in danger of losing their
positions, there has long been the assumption that “teaching is among the professions that is
least threatened. The amount of creativity and social intelligence required to teach well is
simply too "human" to be done by a machine” (Soskil, 2018, pp.22-23). While this may be true
at present, the goal of AI has long been to emulate and even surpass human behaviors, as can
be seen in such milestones in Figure 2 as besting a world champion at chess, attempting to
conduct convincing conversations, or even trying to recognize and react to human emotions.
This could be seen as the programmers attempting to imbue humanity into their AI projects,
whereas now, the more successful AI software recognizes and tries to address the “human”
qualities of its users, as “one of the developments of AIEd since the early days has been the
focus on learners as human beings with feelings and aspirations as well as knowledge and
skills” (du Boulay, 2023, p.96). How AIEd achieves this will be a point of contention in the
following section.
Teachers relying on their humanity and assuring themselves that they are irreplaceable by AI
could well be a form of hubris, as “AI is not yet in a position to provide such a threat, but this
will not always be the case” (Bates et al, 2020, p.12). Systems have already proven that they
can progress beyond merely solving problems or answering commands, as one example of the
application of AIEd in the study of mathematics showed that a more rounded assistance was
possible:
These interactive platforms do not only provide explanations of mathematical concepts
and principles or help in problem-solving, but interact responsively to students’ needs
(Ramful & Patahuddin, 2021, p.17).
If utilized correctly “AIed can be a partner in helping students reconnect with teachers” (Koh
et al, 2022, p.3), as it has the potential to allow teachers more interpersonal time with their
students, so that they can focus on “non-academic skills such as motivating students, inspiring

57
Miller, 2023 JELR, Vol. 2, No. 2, 52-65

them [and] broadening their horizons” (Koh et al, 2022, p.3). It is therefore vital that teachers
are fully aware of AI’s progression and how it may be applied in the future; which may help in
ensuring teachers are utilizing AIEd, instead of being phased out by it.

4.2. Concerns for Students

As previously stated, AIEd has the potential to become better entuned with the specific and
individual needs of students; it does this however by collecting and collating vast amounts of
data, which could include the students’ browsing history, location, demographic details etc. So,
although “such an evolution helps to humanize the interaction between systems and learners,
it opens up further scope for ethical issues around privacy and around the kind of data that are
collected and stored” (du Boulay, 2023, p.96).
This ethical concern is further complicated by the actors who are in charge of this technology
and what they use this information for. Can a privately owned, for-profit company, be trusted
with using this information to improve learning environments, or will their focus be on
generating revenue? It is therefore very important to ask, “who is best placed to protect and
sustain the individual in a digital age: multinational corporations or a public education system?”
(Bates et al, 2020, p.12). The public perspective on AIEd extends beyond the fears and concerns
of potential users, and has also become a concern for those developing these technologies, as
they are increasingly aware of the hesitancy from the wider community, and how these
concerns must be addressed to ensure their product/service is received well:
There is no doubt today that AIED actors (including developers/owners of subsequent
solutions) are, in varying degree, aware of the fact that cultural values and ethical
concerns may influence the processes of the successful implementation of AIED
technologies (Kladko, 2023, p.266).
While the cynical motivations of developers addressing ethical concerns to ensure a more
receptive userbase could be seen as worrying, it could well lead to solutions to this particular
problem, but it should not be left to the impulses of these developers alone to determine the
ethical boundaries within which this technology should be developed and implemented, and as
will be discussed in subsequent sections of this paper, major international bodies have taken it
upon themselves to delve into this complex dilemma.
Another concern could be bias, which could be subconsciously added to the software and
become an inherent and hugely influential problem. As the operating capabilities of AIEd is
dependent on the data it is fed, what the AI is told (and not told) will alter the results to any
tasks it may be set.
AI bias occurs because human beings choose the data that algorithms use, and also
decide how the results of those algorithms will be applied. Without extensive testing
and diverse teams, it is easy for unconscious biases to enter machine learning models.
Then AI systems automate and perpetuate those biased models (Marr, 2022).
While these biases may be unintentional, their impact can be huge, and certain aspects of
society, who are not accurately or completely represented by the data pools available to AI, can
gain either less helpful or actively harmful outcomes from AIEd, as “algorithms lead to bias
and discrimination, inequality, and disadvantages for individual users” (Tapalova &
Zhiyenbayeva, 2022, p.648). As this can potentially “go unnoticed without any accountability”
(Chaudry & Kazim, 2022, p.162) it is vitally important that the ethical responsibilities of AI
and its current failings are clearly highlighted and addressed with due consideration.

58
Miller, 2023 JELR, Vol. 2, No. 2, 52-65

It could be argued that as these subconscious biases are based upon the incomplete data AI is
supplied with, it is therefore the fault of human error that such disadvantages are brought about.
That does not mean however that AI can be excused for such mishaps, and “just because human
teachers can, on occasion, be biased does not mean we should turn a blind eye to the potential
biases in AI-based educational technology” (du Boulay, 2023, p.101). This again points to the
importance of fully understanding the potential benefits and drawbacks of AIEd, so that these
problems can be actively avoided, and users, no matter their demographic, can enjoy the
benefits of AI technology.
Bodies such as UNESCO have addressed the issues of privacy/data use and ethical implications
and bias, and have stated that these issues must first be identified before suitable measures can
be put in place, as the Beijing Consensus on artificial intelligence and education states it is
necessary to adopt the following measures:
Test and adopt emerging AI technologies and tools for ensuring teachers’ and learners’
privacy protection and data security. Support robust and long-term study of deeper
issues of ethics in AI, ensuring AI is used for good and preventing its harmful
applications. Develop comprehensive data protection laws and regulatory frameworks
to guarantee the ethical, non-discriminatory, equitable, transparent and auditable use
and reuse of learners’ data (UNESCO, 2019, p.8).
The guidelines not only call for concrete guidelines that can be referred to in order to ensure
consistent vigilance, it also points to the necessity of continuously studying the “emerging AI
technologies and tools” that are developed, meaning that guidelines that are suitable today, may
well need to be adapted in the near-future, and that these new guidelines must place increased
focus on the wellbeing of the users.

5. A learning Environment to Meet Contemporary Criteria

While the scope and potential for Web 4.0 and EDU 4.0 are both extensive, they are perhaps
hampered not by restrictions in the technology, but by the ability and knowledge of those who
plan to implement them, as in order “for a teacher to successfully implement technology, they
must have an understanding of how the technology knowledge (TK) works and is related to
technology with content (CK)” (Williams, 2020, p.66). But these benefits can only be realized
if educators understand them and implement them correctly, which will lead to tangible
benefits for the students, as the “appropriate integration of new technologies into education
plays a pivotal role in keeping education systems relevant relative to global benchmarks”
(Govinder, 2021, p.33). As technology progresses, these “global benchmarks” will progress
with them, and so learning approaches and methods must remain vigilant in attempting to
remain relevant and effective; they must first be aware of what technology is available to them,
how it can be implemented correctly, and what may change in the future.

5.1. Responsibilities on Educators

To avoid stagnation or only relying on familiar approaches, educators must be familiarized
with instructional technology early on in their career, as studies have shown that “it is critical
to tune teachers to technological affordances early when they are in their training programs”
(Ramful & Patahuddin, 2021, p.21). That being said, simply teaching instructors how to use a
particular technology may not be the most fruitful approach, as any instructional technology
will more than likely become obsolete at some point; instead, teachers should be taught the
importance of staying abreast with instructional technology and give them the tools and support
to try new technologies and approaches when they become available. This should help towards

59
Miller, 2023 JELR, Vol. 2, No. 2, 52-65

maintaining an effective learning environment, no matter what advances are made, and can go
towards keeping the role of the teacher an essential one.
However, this training can only be successful if teachers want to participate in it, as how EDU
4.0 progresses is not limited by the technology, but by rigid paradigms which may not embrace
it:
One weakness of education 4.0 is resistance to change factor occurs at a greater level.
The teachers will resist to change or will not step out from their comfort zone that they
have been putting into practice for many years. Many educators feel unprepared to use
technology to support student learning. Most of them are comfortable teaching the
traditional ways (Lawrence et al, 2019, p.516).
While the aim of this paper is not to belittle or criticize the “traditional ways” teachers may
rely upon to teach their classes, it is crucial that approaches remain flexible enough to account
for any progressions in the realm of instructional technology. Again, focusing on AIEd as just
one example, if utilized correctly it can greatly improve a learning environment as it can “assess
the transient emotional and motivational states of learners in order to boost positive frames of
mind, such as engaged concentration, and counter negative states of mind, such as frustration
of boredom” (du Boulay, 2023, p.96). It therefore has the potential to create a personalized and
custom learning environment for students, exposing them to tasks and materials that fall
squarely in their zone of proximal development (hereon referred to as ZPD); offering them
learning experiences that are challenging enough to elicit growth, without being too difficult
to cause frustration or demotivation.
A number of studies have shown the practical benefits of AIEd, and in Xue and Wang's 2022
paper, Artificial Intelligence for Education and Teaching, they explore the ways in which AI
can be used to ease the workload of teachers, while simultaneously expanding the wealth of
knowledge available to students. There main thesis is that AI is not necessarily a threat to
teaching, but a tool that can greatly improve it:
In the era of information education, the main link in teaching is to implement quality
education, improve the quality of education and teaching, and expand the amount of
information in classroom teaching [...] The use of information technology to teach can
greatly change the amount of information that students receive (Xue & Wang, 2022,
p.7).
Other studies have also highlighted the immediate benefits of AIEd alleviating a teacher’s
workload, by completing a number of “simple tasks such as assessments, digital asses
classification or scheduling [which] helps teachers to save time usually spent on routine tasks
and devote more time to communicate with students” (Tapalova & Zhiyenbayeva, 2022, p.643-
644). So, while the cautionary writings of Schwab and Malleret are still accurate, and
automation and AI have the potential to digitize entire industries, AIEd does not necessarily
need to lead to a dehumanizing of educational environments; in fact, by allowing teachers more
time to spend with their students, by having other responsibilities handled by AIEd, it could be
argued that AIEd could lead to a more engaging and “human” learning environment. However,
Xue and Wang point to the importance of destabilizing the status quo, and forcing stakeholders
to venture out of their comfort zones:
Innovation is not only a simple technology or process invention, but a nonstop
mechanism. Innovation is only introduced by the discovery and invention of production
and the shock effect on the original production system"(Xue & Wang, 2022, p.3).
Teachers, students, and other stakeholders must constantly be expanding their knowledge base
and challenging their pre-existing approaches/methods, otherwise they could fall behind the

60
Miller, 2023 JELR, Vol. 2, No. 2, 52-65

curve of technological advancements, which could lead to either a sub-optimal learning

experience, or one that is completely obsolete and ineffective.
That is not to say that the fears surrounding AIEd are unfounded, as it could be applied in a
more skeptical manner, depending on who is implementing the technology and to what ends,
and simple budgetary savings may be favoured over a more nuanced application of AIEd:
AI advocates often argue that they are not trying to replace teachers but to make their
life easier or more efficient. This should be viewed cautiously. The key driver of AI
applications is cost-reduction, which means reducing the number of teachers, as this is
the main cost in education (Bates et al, 2020, p.7).
To ensure AIEd is applied ethically and effectively, it is vital that its role is consistently and
constantly monitored, reviewed, and discussed and “[d]igital leaders must be flexible,
adaptable, and hungry for intellectual curiosity and new knowledge" (Karakose et al, 2021,
p.2). But it is not just the responsibility of individual teachers to bring about these changes;
instead it should be an inherent concern that is central to the ethos of entire educational
institutes and educational bodies, so “[m]anagers and company leaders of the future must be
prepared to comprehend and intelligently embrace the opportunities and challenges given by
emerging waves of technology as effective growth engines” (Shrivastava, 2023, p.7).

6. The SPICE Model

Due to the rapid evolution of AI, it is unlikely that a static model can be constructed that will
be able to be utilize it. Instead, a cyclical approach, much like the “ADDIE” model (Assess,
Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate) used by instructional designers would be better suited
to the successful execution of AIEd. As previously explored, the first step is to study and
understand AI, which can help identify its potential and boundaries; potential problems can
then be identified, and guidelines can be constructed to ensure that AI is used both effectively
and ethically. Training would then be necessary to make sure stakeholders have the ability to
take full advantage of this technology, and that teachers have the skillset and knowledge to
construct a productive learning environment that is conducive with EDU 4.0. Lastly, this model
should be evaluated; as advances in AI are both unfathomable and unavoidable, it is key that
this model is constantly evaluated, altered, and improved. This will help ensure that AIEd is a
tool for betterment, and not a hindrance.
Step one in the SPICE Model is to attempt to understand the role of AI as it currently stands,
and what its potential may be in the future. This is vital to implementing AIEd correctly, as has
been previously shown, the role of AI has morphed over time, and it will no doubt continue to
do so in the future. Next, potential problems need to be identified so that they can be carefully
addressed; the contemporary problems relating to AI explored in this paper include privacy,
ethical implications, and biases, but new problems may well arise in the future, for which
suitable solutions must be constructed.

61
Miller, 2023 JELR, Vol. 2, No. 2, 52-65

1. Study

5. 2. Potential
Evaluation probelms

3.
4.
Introduce
Coaching
Guidelines

Figure 3. The SPICE Model

With the role of contemporary AI and the potential problems it may entail addressed, guidelines
can then be drawn up; this could be done on a national scale, such as the AI Governance in
Japan Ver. 1.0 (see Appendix), which in 2021 was constructed with the combined knowledge
of 14 experts in the field, and put forward ideas including goals, legally non-binding guidelines,
legally binding regulations, international standards, monitoring and enforcement. While not an
official law, the report opened the discussion surrounding AI and its usefulness in Japan (and
around the world). But guidelines need not be on a national or international scale; individual
educational institutes should also formally state their position on the use of AI; can students
use it to help them complete projects? If so, to what extent? Can teachers rely on AI to grade
said projects; if so, what projects can be graded in this way? Only if these guidelines are clearly
stated can they be explained and understood by all relevant stakeholders and implemented in a
uniformed and consistent manner.
With guidelines in place, coaching can begin. The first step in this process is that the guidelines
(be them institutional or national) be introduced, explained, and demonstrated to the
stakeholders, who must have a fully rounded understanding of how AI should be utilized.
Teachers and students can then be given more focused training to tackle more specific tasks;
this could include understanding how a particular program or function of a program is used, or
how to detect or prevent the improper use of AI, that may otherwise go against the
aforementioned guidelines. Through thorough and well-designed coaching, any problems that
were formally identified can then be addressed and (hopefully) resolved, avoided, or minimized.
The final step in the SPICE model, Evaluation, is potentially the most important, as it helps
maintain the usefulness and applicability of the proposed plan. It can begin by evaluating
whether or not the problems that were previously identified were rectified appropriately, and
whether the guidelines and training are a fair representation of contemporary demands. Moving
forward, the evaluation step can also reassess the role AI plays in modern society and within
the realm of EDU 4.0, and if any progressions have taken place, the SPICE process can begin
again so that it is better suited to meet the updated demands. Teachers, students and other
stakeholders must constantly be expanding their knowledge base and challenging their pre-
existing approaches/methods; this will help ensure that AIEd is handled with due care.

62
Miller, 2023 JELR, Vol. 2, No. 2, 52-65

While this is a very simplified approach to an extremely complex problem, it tackles the main
concerns that have arisen in this study, namely the importance of understanding the technology
before (not) using it, identifying any potential problems that either currently exist or could arise
in the future, and how these should be reflected in clear guidelines. Stakeholders must then be
given the means to use AIEd to its fullest potential and be shown that their flexibility and
willingness to adopt new methods or pedagogies is essential to ensuring a lastingly beneficial
learning environment, so coaching and training to ensure stakeholders know not only how to
use a certain aspect of AIEd, but how that may potentially be of benefit to them, can ensure a
wider adoption rate; as even if they “may not necessarily use these tools […] it is important to
have an understanding of what these tools offer” (Chaudry & Kazim, 2022, p.158). Finally, the
model points to the vital importance of flexibility; as AI progresses, it will not only bring up
new benefits, but the potential for devastating problems is also a serious consideration.
Stakeholders must constantly monitor contemporary technology and reassess their stance on
its use, and only through a cyclical and perpetually moving model can such an amorphous
technology even begin to be understood and utilized correctly.
This model could then be used by individual teachers, to ensure their syllabi and teaching
approaches take AIEd into consideration, as even if they do not personally use the technology
in their courses, there is nothing to suggest their students are not versed in its potential uses.
Secondly, this model should be used by educational institutes, so that they can map out clear
guidelines within which educators can operate. This does not mean they dictate the extent to
which AIEd must be applied in classrooms, but allows for teachers (and students) to be aware
of the boundaries within which they can operate. It also places a responsibility on all
stakeholders to remain vigilant, and monitor the current state of AI, and how it should be
applied to learning environments.

7. Conclusion
The aim of this paper was to explore the functionality and application of AIEd and how it
applies to both Web 4.0 and EDU 4.0. It first looked at how the role of AI technology has
evolved over the years, and how it can benefit both students and learners in the contemporary
classroom. It then explored some potential problems that could arise from AIEd’s increased
presence, and although each of these problems require unique approaches to rectify them, the
consistent remedy for each of them is vigilant and consistent training amongst stakeholders;
this will ensure the full implications and potential dangers of AI technology are never far from
mind.
In order to ensure the application of AIEd is constantly under surveillance, the SPICE model
was constructed, which allows for an approach that can be flexible enough to constantly shift
and adapt to the evolution of this technology. It is vital that educators know how to use the
technology correctly, so that they can be aware of any potential problems, and therefore
(hopefully) avoid them. It could be argued that contemporary AI cannot replace teachers, but
nor should it; it should be used as a tool, one which must be understood in order to be utilized
correctly. There will always be potential problems or complications with AI, be that ethical,
privacy concerns, or inherent biases. Teachers must recognize these complications in order to
avoid them, as AI has become so inherent in professional and daily lives, removing it from the
educational environment is no longer a viable option. While the future of AIEd is unknown, its
progression is a shared responsibility, and we must all ensure it is applied efficiently and
ethically.

63
Miller, 2023 JELR, Vol. 2, No. 2, 52-65

References
Al-Maawali, W. (2022). Integrating critical thinking into digital Connectivism theory: Omani
pre-service teacher development. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 2022, Vol.32,
pp.1-15. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2022.32.01
Bates, T., Cobo, C., Mariño, O. & Wheeler, S. (2020). Editorial: Can artificial intelligence
transform higher education. International Journal of Education Technology in Higher
Education (2020) 17:42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00218-x
Chaudry, M., A. & Kazim, E. (2022). Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIEd): A high-level
academic and industry note 2021. AI and Ethics (2022) 2:157-165.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00074-z
du Boulay, B. (2023). Artificial Intelligence in education and ethics, in Handbook of Open,
Distance and Digital Education Zawacki-Richter, O. & Jung, I. (eds). Springer Nature.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2080-6_6
Govender, R., G. (2021). Embracing the Fourth Industrial Revolution by developing a more
relevant educational spectrum: Coding, robotics, and more, in Teaching and learning in the
21st century: Embracing the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Naidoo, J. (ed.). Brill Sense.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004460386_003
Hughes, A. (2023). ChatGPT: Everything you need to know about OpenAI’s GPT-4 tool. BBC
Science Focus. Last accessed March 23rd 2023. https://www.sciencefocus.com/future-
technology/gpt-3/
Karakose, T., Polat, H. & Papadakis, S. (2021). Examining teachers' perspectives on school
principals' digital leadership roles and technology capabilities during the COVID-19
pandemic, Sustainability 2021, 13, 13448. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313448
Kladko, S. (2023). Cultural-ethical evaluation in the launch of AIEd. In Jezic, G., Chen-Burger,
J., Kusek, M., Sperka, R., Howlett, R., J. & Jain, L., C. (Eds.). Agents and multi-agent
systems: Technologies and Applications 2023 – Proceedings of 17th KES International
Conference, KES-AMSTA 2023, June 2023. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-
3068-5_24
Lawrence, R., Ching, L., F. & Abdullah, H. (2019). Strengths and weaknesses of Education 4.0
in the higher education institution. International Journal of Innovative Technology and
Exploring Engineering (IJITEE), ISSN: 2278-3075, Volume 9 Issue 2S3.
https://doi.org/10.35940/ijitee.B1122.1292S319
Marr, B. (2022). The problem with biased Ais (and how to make AI better). Forbes online. Last
accessed March 23rd 2023. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2022/09/30/the-
problem-with-biased-ais-and-how-to-make-ai-better/?sh=2419074e4770
Ramful, A. & Patahuddin, S., M. (2021). The Fourth Industrial Revolution: Implications for
school mathematics, in Teaching and learning in the 21st century: Embracing the Fourth
Industrial Revolution, Naidoo, J. (ed.). Brill Sense.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004460386_002
Schwab, K. & Malleret, T. (2020). COVID-19: The great reset. Forum Publishing.
Shrivastava, R. (2023). Role of Artificial Intelligence in future of education. International
Journal of Professional Business Review. Miami, v. 8, n.1, ISSN: 2525-3654.
https://doi.org/10.26668/businessreview/2023.v8i1.840
Soskil, M. (2018). Education in a time of unprecedented change, in Teaching in the Fourth
Industrial Revolution: Standing at the precipice, Doucet, A., Evers, J., Guerra, E., Lopez,

64
Miller, 2023 JELR, Vol. 2, No. 2, 52-65

N., Soksil, M. & Timmers, K. (eds). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351035866-2
Tapalova, O., & Zhiyenbayeva, N. (2022). Artificial intelligence in education: AIEd for
personalized learning pathways. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 20(5), pp.639-653.
https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.20.5.2597
UNESCO (2019). Beijing consensus on artificial intelligence and education. Outcome
document of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education ‘Planning
education in the AI era: Lead the leap.’ Last accessed September 10th 2023:
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000368303
Williams, R., T. (2020). A systematic review of the Continuous Professional Development for
Teaching Enhanced Learning Literature. Engineering International, 8(2), pp.61-72.
https://doi.org/10.18034/ei.v8i2.506
Xue, Y. & Wang, Y. (2022). Artificial Intelligence for education and teaching. Wireless
Communication and Mobile Computing, Volume 2022.
https://doi.org/10.1155.2022/4750018

Appendix
A link to AI Governance in Japan Ver. 1.0:
https://www.meti.go.jp/press/2020/01/20210115003/20210115003-3.pdf

65