The emergence of mainstream generative artificial intelligence (AI) in the form of ChatGPT nearly three years ago has had a disruptive impact on higher education.
The challenges it poses have been written and spoken about from various perspectives. But what has not yet come to the fore is how AI is impacting, now and into the future, the internationalisation of higher education.
The withdrawal and revision of the draft National AI Policy present an opportunity to address this.
Recent history has shown that AI is a two-level disruptor in higher education globally.
First, as a process disruptor, it has upended the fundamentals of teaching, learning and assessing by muddying the research process and reliability of literature. On both scores, it calls into question standards, quality assurance and the trust-building processes across the sector and globally that serve as a basis for higher education harmonisation across jurisdictions.
Second, AI as an outcomes disruptor affects the employability of graduates by calling into question the credibility of their qualifications. Employers across the globe are bound to ask whether the students really did the work to obtain the qualification (per the process disruption described above) but that assumes there is a market willing to absorb the graduates — just as easily, the market is coming to believe it can allocate certain functions to AI processes and agents. Universities have had to do soul-searching on the basis of these questions.
But it also has implications for how they collaborate.
Three questions come to mind: How will partner universities put together joint programmes when two or more of the institutions have different philosophies towards AI?
How confidently will South African universities continue to send or accept international students for semesters abroad when we cannot be certain about the receiving or sending institutions’ AI policies?
How will the South African Qualifications Authority, whose mandate is to validate the degrees of international or returning South African students, carry out its due diligence towards possibly AI-assisted qualifications obtained from foreign universities?
In early April, the South African government, through the Department of Communication and Digital Technologies, put out a draft National AI Policy for public comment. None of these issues were contemplated in the document.
Ironically, the policy soon came under scrutiny for having fabricated publications in its references, a typical giveaway for AI-generated work. It was recalled on April 26 by the minister, Solly Malatsi.
The policy’s aims were five-fold, with two of them having clear-cut implications for higher education and its internationalisation. These include the increased uptake of AI technologies in public, private, society, and other sectors; reduction in the digital divide through equitable access to AI education, technologies and services; and stronger national positioning in global AI discussions and
partnerships.
In what it called Strategic Building Block 1 (education, training and industry collaboration), the would-be policy aimed to grow South Africa’s AI talent pool and recommended a National AI Skills Development Strategy spanning schools, TVET colleges, universities and lifelong learning pathways.
Additionally, the draft recommended that the government introduce competitive AI research grants, innovation challenges and fellowships.
The document then laid out a list of entities, which it says will play key defined roles in the regulation of AI in South Africa, as well as their roles and contributions in the AI ecosystem.
These include the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies, the Department of Science, Technology and Innovation, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the Technology Innovation Agency, the Industrial Development Corporation, the South African Human Rights Commission and the Information Regulator.
Concerningly, and despite the number of Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET)-facing issues it is cognisant of, the draft policy did not mention the higher education and training department as a role player in implementing the policy. This is despite education being one of the sectors that has most immediately been impacted by the emergence of AI, particularly generative AI.
Globally, there has been much regulatory discourse on higher education but that too has been inconclusive.
Part of the limitation is that the conversation is based on the Beijing Consensus on AI in Education, developed under the auspices of Unesco. But the document was developed in May 2019 — more than four years before ChatGPT debuted publicly. Today it is every student’s hands.
With both the national and international AI regulation landscapes in flux, South African universities, DHET and its agencies have the opportunity to drive the conversation and the process nationally and globally.
It is an opportune time to work towards a “South African Consensus” on AI in education.
- Ndzendze is a professor of politics and international relations and the senior director for global engagement at the University of Johannesburg
- The emergence of mainstream generative artificial intelligence (AI) in the form of ChatGPT nearly three years ago has had a disruptive impact on higher education.
- The challenges it poses have been written and spoken about from various perspectives.
- But what has not yet come to the fore is how AI is impacting, now and into the future, the internationalisation of higher education.
- The withdrawal and revision of the draft National AI Policy present an opportunity to address this.
- Recent history has shown that AI is a two-level disruptor in higher education globally.
