Introduction

New technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) or learning analytics, are considered current educational trends worldwide, which will strongly shape learning and teaching in higher education (Tuomi, 2018; Gimpel et al., 2023; Ocaña-Fernández et al., 2019). Many education scholars hope that the use of new educational technologies will enable students to study more efficiently, successfully, and quickly, reducing both the cost of a degree and the amount of time spent studying (Nuxoll, 2023; Schumacher & Ifenthaler, 2021; UNESCO International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2023). Technology-enhanced teaching and learning currently focuses on the use of generative AI (especially ChatGPT) (Farrokhnia et al., 2024 ; Gimpel et al., 2023; Michel-Villarreal et al., 2023) and adaptive learning environments or intelligent tutoring systems (Crompton & Burke, 2023; Wang et al., 2023; Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019), which are mainly explored in educational science on the basis of empirical studies and conceptual guidelines (von Garrel et al., 2023; Preiß et al., 2023; Gimpel et al., 2023).

In addition, educational researchers are looking more generally at the use of new educational technologies and considering critical issues. For example, Castañeda and Selwyn (2018) question whether technology- enhanced learning can increase students’ focus on their own academic success, reducing interaction with other students or collaborative learning. Furthermore, the educationalist Macgilchrist (2019) sees a danger in the use of technology where learners will increasingly subject their studies to an end-use category, while Watanabe (2023) discusses the ways in which AI in higher education shows totalitarian tendencies. Basically, various educational scientists appeal for a critical, interdisciplinary discussion and refer to the complexity within educational sciences, which cannot be understood only through data-supported, new technologies (Humble & Mozelius, 2019; Selwyn et al., 2020; Watanabe, 2023).

In this context, there is also a growing request for theoretical approaches to technology-enhanced learning (Ocaña-Fernández et al., 2019; Ifenthaler, 2023; Reinmann & Watanabe, 2024). However, it proves difficult to relate abstract philosophical considerations to precise educational science concepts or technology-supported teaching.

The chapter addresses this research desideratum by reframing the central concepts—plurality, promise, and forgiveness—of the political thinker Hannah Arendt (Arendt, 1998) and placing them within a theoretical investigation in the context of SoTL and technology-enhanced teaching. On the one hand, SoTL is particularly suitable for this investigation as it is characterized by a clear educational science concept and an open format that allows SoTL to be extended to include philosophical considerations (Huber, 2014). On the other hand, SoTL provides educators with a framework for exploring very different areas of technology-supported teaching and learning in a structured way (Watanabe, 2022). In this regard, SoTL is used to connect Arendt’s reflections with educational science demands on technology-enhanced teaching and learning. Simultaneously, this way of proceeding also adds a theoretical perspective to SoTL and helps to think about possible extensions. The aim is to provide educational scientists and SoTL actors with theoretical references and to illuminate both SoTL and the use of new educational technologies from a philosophical perspective. Therefore, the focus circles around the question of how Arendt’s central concepts correspond to SoTL and how they can act as extensions of SoTL. Additionally, the added value combining Arendt’s philosophical thoughts and SoTL for technology-enhanced learning and teaching will be discussed.

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Foundations and Current Trends

The core of SoTL is the systematic examination and reflection of one’s own teaching and the publication of the results, which enable discussion and lead to an academic exchange of teaching experiences (Huber, 2014). A current trend in SoTL is the exploration of technology-enhanced formats, such as online teaching, flipped classroom approaches, and gamification (Mårtensson & Schrum, 2022). In addition to these research interests, Vöing et al. (2022) identify four emerging trends:

1. Active involvement of students in teaching research
2. Review of subject-related teaching-learning scenarios in higher education
3. Promotion of a subject- and teaching-related transfer of experience and knowledge
4. Transfer of experience and knowledge across university types and status groups

The following analysis shows how Arendt’s reflections provide a theoretical basis for Points 1, 3, and 4. Point 2 will not be taken up, since specific considerations of teaching-learning scenarios are more likely to be discussed in different disciplinary contexts and cannot be addressed by general approaches to philosophical education.

Plurality, Promise and Forgiveness

Hannah Arendt’s work is related to political theory and has fascinated humanity scholars, social scientists, and the public for years (Thaa, 2008). Her literature is essayistic and unconventional. However, despite numerous criticisms, such as her utopian understanding of the political theory (Höffe, 1993), Arendt has managed to inspire a wide audience with her philosophical reflections (Neumann et al., 2001). With her redefinition of the political theory, she has significantly influenced various disciplines in the humanities and is now considered a modern classic (Weißpflug, 2019).^[1]

In her book The Human Condition, the political thinker explains her understanding of politics, which is based on the ancient Greek polis. According to this, people are politically active when they meet as free and equal beings and begin to speak and act together in the world. Central to Arendt’s understanding of politics are human plurality, making and keeping promises to one another, and forgiving each other (Arendt, 1998, 2005). In the following section, these terms will be examined in more detail and then placed in context to SoTL.^[2]

Plurality

According to Arendt, human plurality arises from the fact that people are, on the one hand, alike and, on the other hand, different. The characteristic of similarity is seen by Arendt as a basic prerequisite and already exists in the fact that people acting together are all living persons. Much more interesting for Arendt is the characteristic of difference. By this feature, the theorist understands that each person sees and evaluates the world from a particular perspective, which gives origin to different points of view. She describes this consideration by comparing the world to a table, around which different people are gathered. Each of the assembled people view the table from a specific perspective unique from the other ones, giving birth to different points of view. In their summation, the singular, different positions of the people result in human plurality (Arendt, 1998):

If someone wants to see and experience the world as it ‘really’ is, he can do so only by understanding it as something that is shared by many people, lies between them, separates and links them, showing itself differently to each and comprehensible only to the extent that many people talk about it and exchange their opinions and perspectives with one another, over against one another. (Arendt, 2005, p. 128).

Promises and Forgiveness

According to Arendt, people need mutual trust and must keep their promises when they share their points of view with each other or start a new project together. The factors trust and promise are especially essential because not everything can be planned in joint action and mistakes can occur. Arendt describes joint action as a web into which people spin new strings together in the form of new ideas and actions. In this process, the participants do not know what the pattern will look like in the end, which often leads to errors and uncertainties. According to Arendt, these must be endured by the actors. Also, the acting people have to trust that everyone involved will act in good conscience and keep their promises (Arendt, 1998).

Because of the unpredictable course of a common action and the fact that the results of the process of action cannot be undone, it is equally important for the actors to forgive mistakes or misjudgements. The following passage illustrates how central Arendt considers the activity of forgiveness for common action:

Without being forgiven, released from the consequences of what we have done, our capacity to act would, as it were, be confined to one single deed from which we could never recover; we would remain the victims of its consequences forever (Arendt, 1998, p. 273).

Plurality, Promise, and Forgiveness as Philosophical Foundations for SoTL Projects in Educational Technology Contexts

After explaining central concepts of Arendt’s political theory, these will now be connected to SoTL and placed in a context for technology-enhanced learning. In general, Arendt’s reflections on political theory receive much attention in the field of higher education. In his 2020 published book Hannah Arendt. The Promise of Education, Jon Nixon places a wide variety of Arendt’s concepts and reflections in an educational context and describes the political thinker as a public educator (Nixon, 2020). Also, Arendt’s theories of action and thinking are already being used to theoretically frame educational science concepts or methodologies, such as the design-based-research approach (Jahn, 2017) or the activity of critical thinking in universities (Watanabe & Schmohl, 2021).

Educationalists’ enthusiasm for Arendt may be related to the fact that, unlike most philosophers, the theorist Arendt does not present a unified system of thought in her texts and does not identify herself with any particular philosophical school (Grunenberg, 2003). This openness enables other disciplines to take up certain concepts or considerations of Arendt and to place them in a different (in this case, educational science) context.

Arendt’s reflections, however, make a suitable theoretical foundation for SoTL projects in the context of educational technology for two further substantive reasons. Firstly, Arendt places human plurality at the centre of her philosophical considerations (Ludz, 1993) and is, thus, highly compatible with the diversity of SoTL projects. Secondly, Arendt is intensely engaged with the question of how people can act together and realize joint projects. Especially regarding SoTL projects, which are fundamentally about exploring and discussing actions in teaching-learning contexts with others, Arendt’s theories enable us to grasp and think further about SoTL. Whether Arendt’s political concepts of plurality, trust, and forgiveness are applicable to SoTL and technology-enhanced teaching and learning is discussed below.

Plurality in SoTL and the Context of New Educational Technology Contexts

Essentially, SoTL describes educators who research their own teaching, publish their findings in a follow-up, and share them with the professional community (Huber, 2014). SoTL, thus, combines teaching and research and has the overarching goal of improving quality and evidence-based teaching practices within higher education (Boyer, 1990). In this regard, SoTL is characterized primarily by its openness, which is visible, for example, in the interdisciplinary character of SoTL (Miller-Young & Yeo, 2015) or in the various publication formats (Schmohl, 2019). Arendt’s philosophical considerations on plurality can be easily applied to SoTL. Accordingly, to SoTL, the table described by Arendt would not be the world but would instead represent academic teaching. The people gathered around the table are SoTL actors who use their specific teaching experiences to generate universally relevant insights and discuss their points of view with other scholars. Above all, publication and discussion with other SoTL actors (Davies, 1999; Shulman , 1998) can be understood as a form of Arendt’s concept of plurality.

Regarding the use of new technologies in higher education context, educational scholars express their desire for an interdisciplinary exchange in which new technologies are considered from different perspectives. Selwyn et al. (2020, p. 5) summarize this demand pointedly:

Indeed, some of the most interesting new ideas that can drive these reimaginings of digital education can be found in interdisciplinary areas still forming in between the computational and social sciences – i.e. critical data studies, anticipatory studies, critical design. It is crucial that critical EdTech scholars continue to pay close attention to such hybrid areas of debate and inquiry.

This statement highlights how well Arendt’s reflections on plurality line up with SoTL and the exploration of new technologies in education.

However, Arendt’s theoretical analysis goes one step further. In her theory of action, the political thinker not only addresses the common exchange and representation of different perspectives, she also pleads for people to act together (Arendt, 1998). For SoTL, this consideration would mean that educators from different disciplines team up and teach together with or about new educational technologies and research their own theories and methods based on their own teaching subsequently. Two examples briefly outline what such SoTL projects might look like:

Example #1 Teaching about new technologies:

Educators from the fields of philosophy, sociology, and computer science join forces and give a collaborative seminar on AI-supported chatbots and then analyse their teaching methods together. While in computer science, the technical basics would be given (adapted to the level of the respective students), in humanities or social sciences, a discussion about societal implications and ethical problems would take place. After the seminar, the educators can evaluate the course mutually, work out strengths and weaknesses, and publish their results in the SoTL community. Through this interdisciplinary teaching-learning setting, both teachers and students learn about new technologies from different perspectives and implement an interdisciplinary approach.

Example #2 Teaching with new technologies:

Teachers from various disciplines use an intelligent tutor system or ChatGPT in their courses to support students’ personalised learning with the help of AI applications. After the course, the teachers examine the use of the intelligent tutor system or ChatGPT and discuss their findings and problems with the other educators. On this basis, the SoTL scholars can derive and publish subject-specific and generally valid findings. Through this approach, differences and similarities between the disciplines in relation to technology-enhanced teaching and learning can be identified.

With the help of Arendt’s considerations on plurality, it is also possible to think about whether students should play a more active role in SoTL projects. For example, it might be conceivable to expand evaluations further and interview selected students about the educational implementation of seminars. In addition, teachers could first discuss their SoTL findings from the course with the students and, thus, check whether the learners agree or disagree with them. Through this approach, student participation could be increased and SoTL actors could review their findings about the course more directly. Especially in the field of technology-supported learning, students could participate and shape the future of higher education. Including students also helps counteract the danger of technology-enhanced learning, which causes students to focus only on their individual academic success and have less interest in fellow peers or democratic participation (Castañeda & Selwyn, 2018; Watanabe, 2023).

These examples highlight how Arendt’s considerations on plurality provide a theoretical basis for the transfer of subject-related knowledge, for transdisciplinary collaboration, and for the inclusion of students in SoTL in relation to the current tendencies of SoTL (Section 1). Thus, Arendt’s thoughts on plurality can be profitably applied to SoTL projects in the field of new educational technologies.

However, educational researchers already consider the open, interdisciplinary discourse of SoTL projects to be challenging for many researchers who normally research only under discipline-specific requirements (Huber, 2014). Conducting cross-disciplinary seminars (see example: Teaching about new technologies) or joint evaluation and analysis of educational technologies (see example: Teaching with new technologies) could lead to further tensions and pressures between SoTL actors. A clear division of tasks and the use of checklists and guidelines, such as those already used by educational researchers to ensure an academic standard (Glassick et al., 1997), can be helpful here as well.

In contrast, student involvement in SoTL is less problematic. Due to the openness of SoTL (Reinmann, 2019), the teacher is free to choose the method or level to which they want to share and discuss their findings with students during the course. The only necessary factor is that SoTL actors have knowledge of educational and/or social science methods and conduct them correctly (Schmohl, 2019). In basic terms, however, it can be assumed that courses with a low number of participants are especially suitable for this approach.

Promise and Forgiveness in Sotl and in the Context of New Educational Technologies

While SoTL already embodies pluralistic and interdisciplinary approaches (Huber, 2014), aspects of promise or forgiveness are not yet addressed in SoTL. This is not surprising, since these primarily philosophical concepts seem, at first, too abstract for precise teaching-learning projects. In principle, these activities also do not seem to be particularly important for SoTL, since the focus is on evidence-based research and the presentation of results within the SoTL community (Boyer, 1990; Huber, 2014). However, forgiveness is a good point of reference for SoTL participants. Particularly because SoTL is about discovering problems, or even errors, within one’s own teaching and deriving universal insights from them. Therefore, it is important that teachers admit and forgive themselves for mistakes made in learning-to-learn contexts.

Furthermore, there is a need for an open SoTL community, in which academics can address mistakes or problems within their teaching and rely on the understanding and forgiveness of other SoTL participants. Especially for young teachers, their own and others’ forgiveness is elementary to act out their teaching methods and try out new things.

Also, for the extensions of SoTL described above, the activities of promising and forgiving can strengthen collaborative action in SoTL projects. Due to the fact that interdisciplinary teaching and collaboration pulls teachers out of their subject-specific comfort zone (Schmohl, 2019), it is elementary to trust each other, keep promises, and forgive each other’s mistakes (Arendt, 1998). Only through this attitude can joint action and the follow-up seminar analysis take place successfully.

Involving students in SoTL projects also requires that they feel safe and have the desire to discuss the teaching format with the lecturer. Since there is a general hierarchy between teachers and students, which is neither compatible with the open nature of SoTL nor Arendt’s theory of action (Arendt, 1998; Boyer, 1990), strategies must be found to remove this hierarchy in the discussion about the teaching format. By showing students that they make and keep their promises, teachers build trust and enable students to express themselves openly and critically about the educational design. However, it is equally important that teachers admit mistakes they have made and ask students to forgive them.

In the context of new technologies, promise and forgiveness play an especially important role. Currently, it is not clear what impact new technologies, such as AI and learning analytics, will have on education and what forms and types of technology-enhanced learning are appropriate for higher education (Herzberg, 2023; Ifenthaler, 2023). Here, educational science embarks on a journey of discovery (Sesink, 1990) and can only find out how and which technologies are suitable for teaching-learning situations through trial and error and must endure uncertainty and the unknown (de Witt & Leineweber, 2020).

On the one hand, it is important that educators explore the use of new technologies in teaching-learning contexts based on SoTL and discuss general findings with the professional community (Watanabe, 2022). On the other hand, teachers need to inform students about this situation, make clear promises about technology-supported teaching and learning, keep those promises , take responsibility for mistakes, and ask students to forgive them. Learners and teachers are directly affected when using new technologies (Gimpel et al., 2023; Reinmann & Watanabe, 2024). Together, they need to explore how new technologies can be wisely and appropriately integrated into teaching-learning contexts.

For this, Arendt’s reflections on forgiveness and promises, as well as the SoTL extension described above, provide first orientation points that can be used to support subject-based knowledge transfer, enabling transdisciplinary collaboration and engaging students.

In this context, it should be pointed out that forgiveness and promise need to be anchored primarily within the attitude of SoTL actors while also including it in their teaching. At this point, the individual responsibility and challenges involved in transferring abstract philosophical approaches to concrete teaching-learning settings show up. Despite this difficulty, it seems to be elementary that professors adopt this inner attitude for university teaching, especially regarding the use of new educational technologies and its associated uncertainty.

Conclusion

In this chapter, Hannah Arendt’s reflections on the term s “plurality,” “promise,” and “forgiveness” were placed in a context of SoTL and technology- enhanced teaching and learning. On the one hand, Arendt’s philosophical reflections helped to theoretically underpin SoTL. Thus, Arendt’s philosophy provides a good theoretical basis to address the openness and interdisciplinarity of SoTL. On the other hand, possible extensions of SoTL in technology-supported teaching and learning were discussed. Thereby, three central extension possibilities for SoTL were identified:

• Teachers from different disciplines team up, such as by giving a joint seminar about a new technology, investigating their teaching format together, and then publishing their findings.
• Teachers from different disciplines use the same educational technology and subsequently compare their results with each other. This allows both discipline specific and general findings to be captured and published.
• Teachers involve their students in SoTL by sharing and discussing their research on their own teaching with students.

These extensions were each put in a context of technology-enhanced teaching and learning. In addition, the chapter discussed the extent to which promising and forgiving can be a philosophical basis for SoTL expansion and why these activities are important for the use of new educational technologies. Together, Arendt’s philosophical considerations and SoTL provide a framework for grounding new technologies with theoretical reference and in a teaching design.

Although SoTL was named in the 1990s (Boyer, 1990), it has not yet lost its relevance (McEwan, 2022). Interest in SoTL continues to grow, underscoring its importance in educational science. And precisely because SoTL has proven so successful, it is important to think further about the concept and expand it with new perspectives.

How suitable the presented extensions and philosophical aspects are for SoTL actors can only be seen in their application. They are philosophical proposals that offer SoTL actors alternative perspectives to explore the use of new technologies in their own teaching-learning contexts.

References

Arendt, H. (1998). The human condition. The University of Chicago Press.

Arendt, H. (2005). The promise of politics. Schoken Books.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. A special report. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Castañeda, L., & Selwyn, N. (2018). More than tools? Making sense of the ongoing digitizations of higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, Article 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0109-y

Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8

Davies, C. A. (1999). Reflexive ethnography: A guide to researching selves and others. Routledge.

de Witt, C., & Leineweber, C. (2020). Zur Bedeutung des Nichtwissens und die Suche nach Problemlösungen: Bildungstheoretische Überlegungen zur Künstlichen Intelligenz. MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung, 39(Orientierungen), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/39/2020.12.03.X

Farrokhnia, M., Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., & Wals, A. (2024). A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(3), 460–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846

Gimpel, H., Hall, K., Decker, S., Eymann, T., Lämmermann, L., Mädche, A., Röglinger, M., Ruiner, C., Schoch, M., Schoop, M., Urbach, N., & Vandrik, S. (2023). Unlocking the power of generative AI models and systems such as GPT-4 and ChatGPT for higher education: A guide for students and lecturers [White paper]. Universität Hohenheim, Fakultät Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.20710.09287/2

Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. A special report. Jossey-Bass.

Grunenberg, A. (2003). Arendt. Herder-Spektrum Meisterdenker: Vol. 4954. Herder.

Herzberg, D. (2023). Künstliche Intelligenz in der Hochschulbildung und das Transparenzproblem: Eine Analyse und ein Lösungsvorschlag. In T. Schmohl, A. Watanabe, & Kathrin Schelling (Eds.), Hochschulbildung: Lehre und Forschung: Vol. 4. Künstliche Intelligenz in der Hochschulbildung: Chancen und Grenzen des KI-gestützten Lernens und Lehrens [transcript] (pp. 87–98).

Höffe, O. (1993). Politische Ethik im Gespräch mit Hannah Arendt. In P. Kemper (Ed.), Die Zukunft des Politischen. Ausblicke auf Hannah Arendt (pp. 13-34). Fischer.

Huber, L. (2014). Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Konzept, Geschichte, Formen, Entwicklungsaufgaben. In L. Huber, A. Pilniok, R. Sethe, B. Szczyrba, & M. P. Vogel (Eds.), Blickpunkt Hochschuldidaktik. Forschendes Lehren im eigenen Fach: Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Beispielen (pp. 19–36). Bertelsmann.

Humble, N., & Mozelius, P. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education – A promise, a threat or a hype. In P. Griffiths & M. N. Kabir (Eds.), Proceedings of the European Conference on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (pp. 149–156). Academic Conferences & Publishing.

Ifenthaler, D. (2023). Ethische Perspektiven auf künstliche Intelligenz im Kontext der Hochschule. In T. Schmohl, A. Watanabe, & Kathrin Schelling (Eds.), Hochschulbildung: Lehre und Forschung: Vol. 4. Künstliche Intelligenz in der Hochschulbildung: Chancen und Grenzen des KI-gestützten Lernens und Lehrens [transcript] (pp. 71–86).

Jahn, D. (2017). Entwicklungsforschung aus einer handlungstheoretischen Perspektive: Was Design Based Research von Hannah Arendt lernen könnte. EDeR. Educational Design Research, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.15460/eder.1.2.1144

Ludz, U. (1993). Kommentar zu Was ist Politik. In H. Arendt, Was ist Politik? Fragmente aus dem Nachlaß (pp. 137–190). Piper.

Macgilchrist, F. (2019). Cruel optimism in edtech: When the digital data practices of educational technology providers inadvertently hinder educational equity. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(1), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1556217

Mårtensson, K., & Schrum, K. (2022). Becoming Teaching & Learning Inquiry: Celebrating our 10th anniversary. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 10. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.10.1

McEwan, M. P. (2022). The journey to SoTL: Institutionally supporting a transition to scholars of teaching and learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(2), Article 5. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ej1344091

Michel-Villarreal, R., Vilalta-Perdomo, E., Salinas-Navarro, D. E., Thierry-Aguilera, R., & Gerardou, F. S. (2023). Challenges and opportunities of generative AI for higher education as explained by ChatGPT. Education Sciences, 13(9), Article 856. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090856

Miller-Young, J., & Yeo, M. (2015). Conceptualizing and communicating SoTL: A framework for the field. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 3(2), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.3.2.37

Neumann, B., Mahrdt, H., & Frank, M. (Ed.). (2001). The angel of history is looking back. Hannah Arendts Werk unter politischem, ästhetischem und historischem Aspekt; Texte des Trondheimer Arendt-Symposions vom Herbst 2000. Königshausen & Neumann.

Nixon, J. (2020). Hannah Arendt: The promise of education. Springer.

Nuxoll, F. (2023 ). KI in der Schule. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, S. 41–46. https://www.bpb.de/shop/zeitschriften/apuz/kuenstliche-intelligenz-2023/541500/ki-in-der-schule/

Ocaña-Fernández, Y., Valenzuela-Fernández, L. A., & Garro-Aburto, L. L. (2019). Artificial intelligence and its implications in higher education. Journal of Educational Psychology – Propositos Y Representaciones, 7(2), 553–568.

Preiß, J., Bartels, M., Niemann-Lenz, J., Pawlowski, J., & Schnapp, K.-U. (2023). “ChatGPT and me” Erste Ergebnisse der quantitativen Auswertung einer Umfrage über die Lebensrealität mit generativer KI an der Universität Hamburg. Universität Hamburg. https://doi.org/10.25592/uhhfdm.13403

Reinmann, G. (2019). Die Selbstbezüglichkeit der hochschuldidaktischen Forschung und ihre Folgen für die Möglichkeiten des Erkennens. In T. Jenert, G. Reinmann, & T. Schmohl (Eds.), Hochschulbildungsforschung: Theoretische, methodologische und methodische Denkanstöße für die Hochschuldidaktik (pp. 125–148). Springer.

Reinmann, G., & Watanabe, A. (2024). KI in der universitären Lehre: Vom Spannungs- zum Gestaltungsfeld. In G. Schreiber, & L. Ohly (Eds.), KI: Text: Diskurse über KI-Textgeneratoren (pp. 29–46). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111351490

Schmohl, T. (2019). Wider die Vulgärdidaktik. In T. Schmohl & K.-A. To (Eds.), TeachingXchange. Hochschullehre als reflektierte Praxis. Fachdidaktische Fallbeispiele mit Transferpotenzial (pp. 149–169). wbv.

Schumacher, C., & Ifenthaler, D. (2021). Investigating prompts for supporting students’ self-regulation: A remaining challenge for learning analytics approaches? The Internet and Higher Education, 49, Article 100791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100791

Selwyn, N., Hillman, T., Eynon, R., Ferreira, G., Knox, J., Macgilchrist, F., & Sancho-Gil, J. M. (2020). What’s next for Ed-Tech? Critical hopes and concerns for the 2020s. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1694945

Sesink, W. (1990). Künstliche Intelligenz, Systemreproduktion und Bildung. Neue Sammlung, 30(2), 193–207.

Shulman, L. S. (1998). Course anatomy: The dissection and analysis of knowledge through teaching. In P. Hutchings (Ed.), The course portfolio: How faculty can examine their teaching to advance practice and improve student participation (pp. 5–12). American Association for Higher Education.

Thaa, W. (2008). Repräsentation oder politisches Handeln? Ein möglicherweise falscher Gegensatz im Denken Hannah Arendts. In C. Vollnhals (Ed.), Vol. 35. Schriften des Hannah-Arendt-Instituts für Totalitarismusforschung (pp. 71–88).

Tuomi, I. (2018). JRC science for policy report. The impact of artificial intelligence on learning, teaching, and education policies for the future (M. Cabrera, R. Vuorikari, & Y. Punie, Eds.). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/12297

UNESCO International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. (2023). ChatGPT and artificial intelligence in higher education: Quick start guide. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385146

von Garrel, J., Mayer, J. & Mühlfeld, M. (2023). Künstliche Intelligenz im Studium: Eine quantitative Befragung von Studierenden zur Nutzung von ChatGPT & Co. https://doi.org/10.48444/h_docs-pub-395

Vöing, N., Reisas, S., & Arnold, M. (2022). Einleitung. In N. Vöing, S. Reisas, & M. Arnold (Eds.), Forschung und Innovation in der Hochschulbildung: Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Eine forschungsgeleitete Fundierung und Weiterentwicklung hochschul(fach)didaktischen Handelns 16 (pp. 7–17). DUZ.

Wang, H., Tlili, A., Huang, R., Cai, Z., Li, M., Cheng, Z., Yang, D., Li, M., Zhu, X., & Fei, C. (2023). Examining the applications of intelligent tutoring systems in real educational contexts: A systematic literature review from the social experiment perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 28 , 9113–9148 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11555-x

Wannemacher, K., & Bodmann, L. (2021). Künstliche Intelligenz an den Hochschulen: Potenziale und Herausforderungen in Forschung, Studium und Lehre sowie Curriculumentwicklung. Arbeitspapier Nr. 59. Hochschulforum Digitalisierung.

Watanabe, A. (2022). Let’s talk about artificial intelligence: How scholarship of teaching and learning can enhance the AI scientific discourse in higher education . In F. A. Menâendez, A. Maz Machado, C. Lâopez Esteban, & C. A. Lâopez (Eds.), Strategy, policy, practice, and governance for AI in higher education institutions (pp. 48–72). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-9247-2.ch003

Watanabe, A. (2023). Exploring totalitarian elements of artificial intelligence in higher education with Hannah Arendt. International Journal of Technoethics, 14(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJT.329239

Watanabe, A., & Schmohl, T. (2021). How can students explore critical thinking as an academic practice. New Perspectives in Science Education, 10, 150–154. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:27943

Weißpflug, M. (2019). Hannah Arendt: Die Kunst, politisch zu denken. Matthes & Seitz.

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education –: Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, (16), Article 391–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0