This paper explores the subtle yet profound transformations occurring in higher education as a result of advancements in artificial intelligence (AI). This paper critically examines the implications of GenAI for teaching, learning, assessment, and institutional policy. Through an interdisciplinary lens, the study explores how AI challenges traditional academic practices while offering opportunities for innovation. Key themes include the redefinition of digital literacy into algorithmic literacy, the ethical dilemmas facing educators and students, and the growing urgency to address digital inequality. The paper highlights the need for proactive institutional strategies that balance innovation with integrity, calling for inclusive policies, ethical frameworks, and the development of critical AI literacies. This article positions GenAI as both a disruptor and enabler, offering strategic guidance for how higher education institutions can navigate and evolve amid rapid technological change.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of blended learning vis-à-vis face-to-face instruction. In order to achieve this aim, three research questions including were raised. The study was conducted using the case study approach which was supported by the collection of qualitative and quantitative data. The study involved two teachers, one who taught the experimental group using blended learning, and another one who taught the control group using face-to-face instruction. The results showed that the blended learning instructor executed instruction better and used more effective methods of assessment than the face-to-face instruction teacher. This is supported by differences in students’ performances which show that the experimental group performed better by scoring higher means and recording lower variances.

Background Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), particularly large language models such as ChatGPT, is rapidly transforming higher education by reshaping how knowledge is produced, assessed, and mediated through digital systems. While these tools offer new opportunities for learning support and instructional efficiency, they also raise significant concerns regarding academic integrity, institutional governance, and ethical sustainability. Methods This study conducts a qualitative thematic literature review of research published between 2020 and 2025. Using thematic synthesis, the study analyzes scholarly articles, institutional reports, and policy discussions addressing the integration of generative AI in higher education. The analysis focuses on four thematic areas: the rise of GenAI in educational contexts, academic integrity challenges, institutional and policy responses, and ethical and environmental implications. Results The review identifies four key tensions shaping current debates: rapid student adoption outpacing institutional readiness; growing ambiguity in authorship and assessment practices; fragmented policy responses ranging from prohibition to cautious integration; and limited attention to the ethical and environmental costs of large-scale AI deployment. The findings indicate that these issues are frequently discussed in isolation rather than as interconnected challenges. Conclusions The study argues for a process-aware pedagogical framework, referred to as augmented pedagogy, that positions generative AI as a cognitive scaffold rather than a substitute for learning. Such an approach emphasizes transparency in AI use, process-oriented assessment, and responsible institutional governance to ensure that AI integration strengthens rather than undermines the educational mission of universities.

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) can support and strengthen responses to the environmental challenges faced today. However, the sustainability knowledge–action gap remains mostly unbridged. This article examines communication as a lever for learning and behavior change in sustainability education and compares the use of communication in conventional delivery and a narrative, dialogic and affective communication mode in secondary, university and community-based learning settings in a mixed-methods experimental study. Quantitative measures (pre-, post-, follow-up) included knowledge, systems thinking, emotional engagement, motivation and self-reported sustainable behaviors. Qualitative data, including interviews, observations and action research projects, were also collected to gain deeper insights into learner engagement with knowledge, systems thinking, emotional engagement and motivation. Results suggest that participants in the catalytic communication condition felt more cognitively and emotionally engaged than the control condition, and displayed more long-term pro-environmental behavior. Mediation analysis suggests that the increase in pro-environmental behavior may be driven by an increase in feelings of empathy and hope associated with the learning experience. This supports the understanding that tailored communication can help to reduce the knowledge–action gap in ESD and provides additional insights into the usefulness of cognitive, affective and behavioral dimensions of sustainability-oriented pedagogical approaches.

This paper explores the ongoing decisions and evaluations by stakeholders involved at a university in a stable multilingual context currently on the cusp of deciding for an additional, international language of education. The site in question is the University of Prizren, located in the young Republic of Kosovo. The region of Prizren is an established multilingual context, featuring Albanian, Bosnian and Turkish as official lingua-cultural groups, where the University of Prizren provides education in all three community languages, with some variation depending on subject and staff availability. Since the late 1990 s at the university and in wider society, lower levels of bi-or multilingualism in the community languages have led to decreased societal mixing across established cultural groups, a fact which becomes a factor in the university’s language policy decisions. Findings show different stakeholders’ perceptions regarding language choice in various domains within the university.