Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching

Book Review of S. Popenici, J. Rudolph, F. Ismail, & S. Tan (Eds., 2026). The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education. Edward Elgar.

2026-02-12T13:56:06+11:00

Book Review of Jasper Roe (2025). How to use Generative AI in educational research. Cambridge Elements. Research Methods in Education.

2026-02-11T18:30:27+11:00

The double-edged sword: Open educational resources in the era of Generative Artificial Intelligence

2026-02-11T18:12:24+11:00

The integration of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) into the Open Educational Resources (OER) landscape represents a paradigmatic shift, transforming OER from static content into a dynamic, algorithmic infrastructure. While GenAI promises to democratize content creation and accelerate localization, it simultaneously introduces profound ethical and epistemic risks. This commentary, in this regard, adopts a speculative-critical methodological approach to interrogate the "double-edged" nature of this transition. We analyze several emerging tensions: the ontological crisis of human authorship, which challenges traditional copyright frameworks; the risk of "openwashing" where proprietary models appropriate the language of the open movement; the potential for automated translation to amplify Global North epistemic biases; and the paradox of hallucination where OER serves as both a corrective ground truth and a potential casualty of remix culture. By comparing and contrasting the optimistic imaginaries of AI-enhanced access against critical perspectives on data surveillance and commodification, this paper argues that the binary definition of "openness" is no longer sufficient. We conclude that ensuring equity in the AI era requires a transition from open content creation to the stewardship of "white box" technologies and transparent digital public goods.

Desk review explained: Editorial judgement, fit, and publishing

2026-02-11T12:46:53+11:00

For many authors, the editorial desk seems to be something of a black box. A manuscript is submitted, a period of silence follows, and then a decision arrives. When that decision is a desk rejection, it can feel abrupt, impersonal, or difficult to interpret. For editors, however, the desk review is rarely quick or casual. It is one of the most careful and consequential moments in the publishing process.

This Editorial is an attempt to make that moment more visible.

Over the past six months, a striking proportion of submissions to the Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching (JALT), approximately 96%, have not progressed beyond initial editorial screening. Stated plainly, that figure can sound discouraging. It may invite assumptions about rising barriers or increasingly narrow definitions of quality. Yet neither explanation reflects what is actually happening at the editorial desk. The purpose of this Editorial is to explain why desk rejection occurs so frequently, how those decisions are made, and what they mean and do not mean for prospective authors. We also describe common pitfalls and make a case for stylish academic writing.

Book review of Catherine J. Denial (2024). A pedagogy of kindness. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

2026-02-03T23:11:18+11:00

I came to A Pedagogy of Kindness not through an abstract interest in affective approaches to teaching, but through a moment of professional recognition. While reviewing a draft of my teaching philosophy statement for my HERDSA (Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia) Fellowship portfolio, my mentor observed that much of my teaching and mentoring practice appeared to be grounded in what she depicted as a pedagogy of kindness. At the time, I had not articulated my work in these terms. The comment prompted both curiosity and reflection. I was curious as to whether such a pedagogy had been expressed with conceptual clarity and scholarly rigour, and reflective about why I had long enacted these practices without clearly theorising them.

Catherine J. Denial’s book responds directly to this tension. She insists that kindness in higher education is intentional, ethical, and intellectually serious. Kindness, as Denial conceptualises it, is not sentimental softness, but a deliberate pedagogical stance that shapes how educators relate to students, colleagues, and themselves. This positioning is consistent with recent higher education scholarship that argues kindness deserves clearer conceptual definition and stronger empirical attention, as opposed to being treated as an intuitive personal trait (Fox & Aspland, 2024).

My own educational practice spans language teaching, TESOL scholarship, and academic development work coaching educators across multiple campuses and disciplines. I often describe myself as a bridge builder in higher education, connecting cultures, disciplines, and levels of expertise through equity, collaboration, and scholarly inquiry, shaped by a career across varied institutional contexts. Reading Denial’s book helped me recognise that what I have framed as bridge building also carries a more precise pedagogical identity, namely, kindness as an enacted ethic, expressed through design choices, discourse practices, and the everyday ways we make learning possible.

What does ‘good teaching’ mean in the AI age?

2025-10-21T22:42:19+11:00