International Journal of Changes in Education

• McCarthy, J. (1987). Generality in artificial intelligence. Communications of the ACM, 30(12), 1030–1035. https://doi.org/10.1145/33447.33448
• Dobrin, S. I. (2023). Talking about generative AI: A guide for educators. Canada: Broadview Press.
• Biever, C. (2023). ChatGPT broke the Turing test – The race is on for new ways to assess AI. Nature, 619(7971), 686–689. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02361-7
• Sabzalieva, E., & Valentini, A. (2023). ChatGPT and artificial intelligence in higher education: Quick start guide. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385146
• Gozalo-Brizuela, R., & Merchan, E. E. G. (2024). A survey of generative AI applications. Journal of Computer Science, 20(8), 801–818. https://doi.org/10.3844/jcssp.2024.801.818
• Tzirides, A. O., Saini, A., Zapata, G., Searsmith, D., Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., ..., & Kastania, N. P. (2023). Generative AI: Implications and applications for education. arXiv Preprint: 2305.07605. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.07605
• Hitsuwari, J., Ueda, Y., Yun, W., & Nomura, M. (2023). Does human–AI collaboration lead to more creative art? Aesthetic evaluation of human-made and AI-generated haiku poetry. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107502
• Bozkurt, A., Xiao, J., Lambert, S., Pazurek, A., Crompton, H., Koseoglu, S., ..., & Jandri´c, P. (2023). Speculative futures on ChatGPT and generative artificial intelligence (AI): A collective reflection from the educational landscape. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 53–130. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7636568
• Creely, E. (2024). Exploring the role of generative AI in enhancing language learning: Opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Changes in Education, 1(3), 158–167. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE42022495
• Pischetola, M. (2021). Re-imagining digital technology in education through critical and neo-materialist insights. Digital Education Review, (40), 154–171. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2021.40.154-171
• Jauhiainen, J. S., & Garagorry Guerra, A. (2023). Generative AI and ChatGPT in school children’s education: Evidence from a school lesson. Sustainability, 15(18), 14025. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151814025
• Noroozi, O., Soleimani, S., Farrokhnia, M., & Banihashem, S. K. (2024). Generative AI in education: Pedagogical, theoretical, and methodological perspectives. International Journal of Technology in Education, 7(3), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.845
• Press, N., Arumugam, P. P., & Ashford-Rowe, K. (2019). Defining digital literacy: A case study of Australian universities. In S. Y. W. Chew, K. M. Chan, & A. Alphonso (Eds.), Personalised learning. Diverse goals. One heart: 36th International Conference of Innovation, Practice and Research in the Use of Educational Technologies in Tertiary Education (pp. 255–263). Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education.
• Skantz-Åberg, E., Lantz-Andersson, A., Lundin, M., & Williams, P. (2022). Teachers’ professional digital competence: An overview of conceptualisations in the literature. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2063224. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2063224
• Mensonides, D., Smit, A., Talsma, I., Swart, J., & Broersma, M. (2024). Digital literacies as socially situated pedagogical processes: Genealogically understanding media, information, and digital literacies. Media and Communication, 12, 8174. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.8174
• Brown, J. P. (2015). Complexities of digital technology use and the teaching and learning of function. Computers & Education, 87, 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.022
• DeCoito, I., & Richardson, T. (2018). Teachers and technology: Present practice and future directions. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 18(2), 362–378.
• Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. USA: Indiana University Press.
• Blundell, C. N., Mukherjee, M., & Nykvist, S. (2022). A scoping review of the application of the SAMR model in research. Computers and Education Open, 3, 100093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100093
• Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
• Mishra, P. (2019). Considering contextual knowledge: The TPACK diagram gets an upgrade. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(2), 76–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1588611
• Mishra, P., Warr, M., & Islam, R. (2023). TPACK in the age of ChatGPT and generative AI. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 39(4), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2023.2247480
• Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y
• Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: The teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2449–2472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4
• Akram, H., Abdelrady, A. H., Al-Adwan, A. S., & Ramzan, M. (2022). Teachers’ perceptions of technology integration in teaching-learning practices: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 920317. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.920317
• Brenner, A. M., & Brill, J. M. (2016). Investigating practices in teacher education that promote and inhibit technology integration transfer in early career teachers. TechTrends, 60(2), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0025-8
• Blannin, J., Redmond, P., McLeod, A., & Mayne, F. (2022). Positioning the technologies curriculum: A snapshot of Australian initial teacher education programs. The Australian Educational Researcher, 49(5), 979–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-021-00473-5
• Williamson, J., Sprague, D. R., & Foulger, T. S. (2023). Characteristics and indicators of technology-infused programs: Supporting a paradigm shift in teacher preparation. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 31(2), 203–226.
• Department of Education. (2023). Australian framework for generative artificial intelligence (AI) in schools. Australian Government. https://www.education.gov.au/schooling/resources/australian-framework-generative-artificial-intelligence-ai-schools
• Lodge, J. M., Howard, S., Bearman, M., Dawson, P., Agostinho, S., Buckingham Shum, S., ..., & Slade, C. (2023). Assessment reform for the age of artificial intelligence. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. https://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-09/assessment-reform-age-artificial-intelligence-discussion-paper.pdf
• European Commission. (2022). Ethical guidelines on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and data in teaching and learning for educators. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/153756.
• Miao, F., & Holmes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535
• Ladjal, D., Joksimovi´c, S., Rakotoarivelo, T., & Zhan, C. (2022). Technological frameworks on ethical and trustworthy learning analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(4), 733–736. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13236
• Simbeck, K. (2024). They shall be fair, transparent, and robust: Auditing learning analytics systems. AI and Ethics, 4(2), 555–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00292-7
• Chan, C. K. Y. (2023). A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3
• Vasoya, N. H. (2023). The role of parents and educators in managing the risks of artificial intelligence. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 41(4), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2023/v41i4899
• Kirschner, S., Vidgen, R., & Wallace, C. (2022). Checkmate humanity: The how and why of responsible AI. Australia: Global Stories.
• Casal-Otero, L., Catala, A., Fernandez-Morante, C., Taboada, M., Cebreiro, B., & Barro, S. (2023). AI literacy in K-12: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00418-7
• Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041
• Markauskaite, L.,Marrone, R., Poquet, O., Knight, S.,Martinez-Maldonado, R., Howard, S., ..., & Siemens, G. (2022). Rethinking the entwinement between artificial intelligence and human learning: What capabilities do learners need for a world with AI? Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100056
• Wang, N., & Lester, J. (2023). K-12 education in the age of AI: A call to action for K-12 AI literacy. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 33(2), 228–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-023-00358-x
• Almatrafi, O., Johri, A., & Lee, H. (2024). A systematic review of AI literacy conceptualization, constructs, and implementation and assessment efforts (2019–2023). Computers and Education Open, 6, 100173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100173
• Hansen, M. B. N. (2000). Embodying technesis: Technology beyond writing. USA: University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.11092
• Russell, S., & Williams, R. (2002). Social shaping of technology: Frameworks, findings and implications for policy, with glossary of social shaping concepts. In K. H. Sørensen, & R. Williams (Eds.), Shaping technology, guiding policy: Concepts, spaces and tools (pp. 37–132). Edward Elgar.
• Ihde, D. (2010). Embodied technics. Denmark: Automatic Press.
• Ihde, D. (2012). Experimental phenomenology: Multistabilities (2nd ed.). USA: State University of New York Press.
• Watson, R. (2010). Future minds: How the digital age is changing our minds, why this matters, and what we can do about it. UK: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
• Korte, M. (2020). The impact of the digital revolution on human brain and behavior: Where do we stand? Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 22(2), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2020.22.2/mkorte
• Pacey, A. (1992). The maze of ingenuity: Ideas and idealism in the development of technology (2nd ed.). USA: MIT Press.
• Sommariva, A. (2018). The political economy of the space age: How science and technology shape the evolution of human society. USA: Vernon Press.
• Hoffman, R. (2023). Impromptu: Amplifying our humanity through AI. USA: Dallepedia.
• Boulus-Rødje, N., Cranefield, J., Doyle, C., & Fleron, B. (2024). GenAI and me: The hidden work of building and maintaining an augmentative partnership. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 28(6), 861–874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-024-01810-y
• Bozkurt, A. (2024). GenAI et al.: Cocreation, authorship, ownership, academic ethics and integrity in a time of generative AI. Open Praxis, 16(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.16.1.654
• Osiurak, F., Navarro, J., & Reynaud, E. (2018). How our cognition shapes and is shaped by technology: A common framework for understanding human tool-use interactions in the past, present, and future. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 293. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00293
• Xiong, W., Wang, C., & Ma, L. (2023). Partner or subordinate? Sequential risky decision-making behaviors under human-machine collaboration contexts. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107556
• Nah, F. F. H., Zheng, R., Cai, J., Siau, K., & Chen, L. (2023). Generative AI and ChatGPT: Applications, challenges, and AI-human collaboration. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 25(3), 277–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2023.2233814
• Hurlburt, G. (2023). What if ethics got in the way of generative AI? IT Professional, 25(2), 4–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2023.3267140
• Mikalef, P., Conboy, K., Eriksson Lundström, J., & Popovič, A. (2022). Thinking responsibly about responsible AI and ‘the dark side’ of AI. European Journal of Information Systems, 31(3), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2022.2026621
• Nath, R., & Manna, R. (2023). From posthumanism to ethics of artificial intelligence. AI & Society, 38(1), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01274-1
• Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. D. Lee, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 51–85). Cambridge University Press.
• Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. USA: University of Texas Press.
• Selwyn, N. (2022). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (3rd ed.). UK: Bloomsbury.
• Koh, E., & Doroudi, S. (2023). Learning, teaching, and assessment with generative artificial intelligence: Towards a plateau of productivity. Learning: Research and Practice, 9(2), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2023.2264086
• Kristensen, M. L. (2020). Introducing dialogic as a research methodology. International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, 13(3), 196–216. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMCP.2020.111024
• Heitzmann, N., Opitz, A., Stadler, M., Sommerhoff, D., Fink, M. C., Obersteiner, A., ..., & Fischer, F. (2021). Cross disciplinary research on learning and instruction – Coming to terms. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 562658. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.562658
• Ejnavarzala, H. (2019). Epistemology–ontology relations in social research: A review. Sociological Bulletin, 68(1), 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038022918819369
• Geerts, E., & Carstens, D. (2019). Ethico-onto-epistemology. Philosophy Today, 63(4), 915–925. https://doi.org/10.5840/philtoday202019301
• Whatman, S., Wilkinson, J., Kaukko, M., Vedeler, G. W., Blue, L. E., & Reimer, K. E. (2023). Onto-epistemological and axiological considerations for researching practices. In S. Whatman, J. Wilkinson, M. Kaukko, G. W. Vedeler, L. E. Blue, & K. E. Reimer (Eds.), Researching practices across and within diverse educational sites: Onto-epistemological considerations (pp. 1–21). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80071-871-520231001
• Toohey, K. (2019). The onto-epistemologies of new materialism: Implications for applied linguistics pedagogies and research. Applied Linguistics, 40(6), 937–956. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy046
• Kant, S. L. (2014). The distinction and relationship between ontology and epistemology: Does it matter? Politikon: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science, 24, 68–85. https://doi.org/10.22151/politikon.24.4
• Ganguli, D., Hernandez, D., Lovitt, L., Askell, A., Bai, Y., Chen, A., ..., & Clark, J. (2022). Predictability and surprise in large generative models. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 1747–1764. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533229
• Hauhio, I., Kantosalo, A., Linkola, S., & Toivonen, H. (2023). The spectrum of unpredictability and its relation to creative autonomy. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computational Creativity, 148–152.
• Peschl, M. F. (2024). Human innovation and the creative agency of the world in the age of generative AI. Possibility Studies & Society, 2(1), 49–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699241238049
• Sætra, H. S. (2023). Generative AI: Here to stay, but for good? Technology in Society, 75, 102372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102372
• Licklider, J. C. (1960). Man-computer symbiosis. IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, 1(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/THFE2.1960.4503259
• Gilbert, F., Ienca, M., & Cook, M. (2023). How I became myself after merging with a computer: Does human-machine symbiosis raise human rights issues? Brain Stimulation, 16(3), 783–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2023.04.016
• Bronstein, J. L. (2012). Mutualism and symbiosis. In S. A. Levin (Ed.), The Princeton guide to ecology (pp. 233–238). Princeton University Press.
• Moran, N. A. (2007). Symbiosis as an adaptive process and source of phenotypic complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 8627–8633. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0611659104
• Aanen, D. K., & Hoekstra, R. F. (2007). The evolution of obligate mutualism: If you can’t beat’em, join’em. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22(10), 506–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.08.007
• Shadbolt, N. (2022). “From so simple a beginning”: Species of artificial intelligence. Daedalus, 151(2), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01898
• Feuerriegel, S., Hartmann, J., Janiesch, C., & Zschech, P. (2024). Generative AI. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 66(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00834-7
• Calverley, D. J. (2008). Imagining a non-biological machine as a legal person. AI & Society, 22(4), 523–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-007-0092-7
• Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. USA: Polity Press.
• Wolfe, C. (2010). What is posthumanism? USA: University of Minnesota Press.
• Lewis, P. M., Burns, G. L., & Jones, D. (2017). Response and responsibility: Humans as apex predators and ethical actors in a changing societal environment. Food Webs, 12, 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fooweb.2016.09.001
• Henriksen, D., Creely, E., & Mehta, R. (2022). Rethinking the politics of creativity: Posthumanism, indigeneity, and creativity beyond the western anthropocene. Qualitative Inquiry, 28(5), 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004211065813
• Hasse, C. (2019). Posthuman learning: AI from novice to expert? AI & Society, 34(2), 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-018-0854-4
• Ranjan, R. (2024). Beyond the ‘Anthropocene’ impasse: The Colonial past and dissenting futures in the era of climate crisis. Futures, 155, 103296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103296
• Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. USA: Duke University Press.
• Haikonen, P. O. (2003). The cognitive approach to conscious machines. UK: Imprint Academic.
• Walter, Y., & Zbinden, L. (2022). The problem with AI consciousness: A neurogenetic case against synthetic sentience. arXiv Preprint: 2301.05397. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.05397
• Ferrara, E. (2024). Fairness and bias in artificial intelligence: A brief survey of sources, impacts, and mitigation strategies. Sci, 6(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/sci6010003
• Gelhaar, J., & Otto, B. (2020). Challenges in the emergence of data ecosystems. In PACIS 2020 Proceedings: Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 1–14.
• Monteith, S., Glenn, T., Geddes, J. R.,Whybrow, P. C., Achtyes, E., & Bauer, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence and increasing misinformation. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 224(2), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2023.136
• Chen, W. Y. (2024). Intelligent tutor: Leveraging ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot Studio to deliver a generative AI student support and feedback system within teams. arXiv Preprint: 2405.13024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.13024
• Moorhouse, B. L., & Kohnke, L. (2024). The effects of generative AI on initial language teacher education: The perceptions of teacher educators. System, 122, 103290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103290
• Allen, D., & Weyl, E. G. (2024). The real dangers of generative AI. Journal of Democracy, 35(1), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2024.a915355
• White, J. (2019). Dreyfus on the “Fringe”: Information processing, intelligent activity, and the future of thinking machines. AI & Society, 34(2), 301–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-018-0837-5
• Matusov, E., von Duyke, K., & Kayumova, S. (2016). Mapping concepts of agency in educational contexts. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 50(3), 420–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9336-0
• Rosenberger, R. (2017). Postphenomenological investigations: Essays on human-technology relations. USA: Lexington Books.
• Al-Zahrani, A. M. (2024). Balancing act: Exploring the interplay between human judgment and artificial intelligence in problem solving, creativity, and decision-making. IgMin Research, 2(3), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.61927/igmin158

APA

Creely, E., & Janssen, K. (2025). Onto-epistemological Understandings of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education. International Journal of Changes in Education, 2(2), 55-65. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52024380

Vancouver

Creely E, Janssen K. Onto-epistemological Understandings of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education. International Journal of Changes in Education. 2025;2(2):55-65. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52024380

AMA

Creely E, Janssen K. Onto-epistemological Understandings of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education. International Journal of Changes in Education. 2025;2(2), 55-65. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52024380

Chicago

Creely, Edwin, and Kitty Janssen. "Onto-epistemological Understandings of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education". International Journal of Changes in Education 2025 2 no. 2 (2025): 55-65. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52024380

Harvard

Creely, E., and Janssen, K. (2025). Onto-epistemological Understandings of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education. International Journal of Changes in Education, 2(2), pp. 55-65. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52024380

MLA

Creely, Edwin et al. "Onto-epistemological Understandings of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education". International Journal of Changes in Education, vol. 2, no. 2, 2025, pp. 55-65. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52024380