The ARIA Framework: Supporting the Critical Integration of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education

Article Sidebar

PDF (accepté) (Français)
Published: May 11, 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.52358/mm.vi25.533
Keywords:
ARIA framework generative artificial intelligence critical integration assessment pedagogical support higher education

Main Article Content

Sandrine Decamps
Haute Ecole Louvain en Hainaut - Université catholique de Louvain
Axelle Zanichelli
Institut Supérieur de Formation Sociale et de Communication

Abstract

This article presents the ARIA framework, designed to support the critical integration of GenAI in higher education. ARIA combines four pillars (Acceptability, Responsibility, Collective Intelligence, Accessibility) with a methodological cycle (Analyze, Rethink, Integrate, Accompany). The pillars establish four conditions: understanding of tools, traceability of intellectual work, plurality of approaches, and equity of access. The cycle structures the process of collective appropriation. Tested in Belgium and Morocco between January and April 2025, the framework served as a shared vocabulary for naming experienced tensions and organizing reflection within teams. The article presents the architecture of ARIA, illustrates its implementation, and discusses the conditions for its appropriation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Decamps, S., & Zanichelli, A. (2026). The ARIA Framework: Supporting the Critical Integration of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education. Mediations and Mediatizations, (25). https://doi.org/10.52358/mm.vi25.533
Issue
No. 25 (2026): Varia 2026
Section
Practitioners' articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Author Biographies

Sandrine Decamps, Haute Ecole Louvain en Hainaut - Université catholique de Louvain

Sandrine Decamps, HELHa – UCLouvain

Sandrine Decamps is an educational advisor and learning technologist at the Haute École Louvain en Hainaut (HELHa), where she leads the Pedagogical Support Unit. She also teaches at the Université catholique de Louvain. Her work focuses on supporting teaching staff, fostering pedagogical innovation, and developing digital competencies in higher education.

She designs and facilitates professional development programs on the pedagogical uses of digital technologies, hybrid and online learning, and the ethical and educational challenges associated with artificial intelligence. Her research and professional activities particularly explore the evolving relationship between learning, assessment, and student agency in contexts shaped by automation and the co-construction of knowledge with generative AI systems.

Axelle Zanichelli, Institut Supérieur de Formation Sociale et de Communication

Axelle Zanichelli est psychopédagogue à l’Institut Supérieur de Formation Sociale et de Communication (ISFSC). Elle a précédemment exercé comme conseillère (techno) pédagogique et maître-assistante psychopédagogue à la Haute École Louvain en Hainaut (HELHa). Ses activités se concentrent sur l’accompagnement des équipes enseignantes, l’innovation pédagogique et l'ingénierie de formation dans l'enseignement supérieur. Spécialisée dans l’intégration des outils numériques, elle détient un certificat de référente IA en éducation et s'investit dans la sensibilisation aux enjeux stratégiques de la transformation numérique.

Ses recherches actuelles portent sur les perceptions et usages de l’intelligence artificielle générative par les étudiants, les inégalités d’adoption technologique ainsi qu'aux effets de l’automatisation des savoirs sur l’identité professionnelle enseignante.

References

Aillerie, C., et Martineaud, T. (2024). Political Issues of “All-Digital” in Schools and Teacher’s Power to Act. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 49(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt28455 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt28455

Alombert, A. (2025). De la bêtise artificielle : pour une politique des technologies numériques. Allia.

Ali, I., Warraich, N. F., et Butt, K. (2024). Acceptance and use of artificial intelligence and AI-based applications in education: A meta-analysis and future direction. Information Development, 41(3), 859 74. https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669241257206 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669241257206

Anderson, T., et Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-Based Research: A Decade of Progress in Education Research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16-25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813

Barrett, A., et Pack, A. (2023). Not quite eye to A.I.: Student and teacher perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence in the writing process. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(59). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00427-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00427-0

CAST. (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 3.0. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/

CSE-CEST. (2024). Intelligence artificielle générative en enseignement supérieur : enjeux pédagogiques et éthiques. Québec, Le Conseil; La Commission. https://www.cse.gouv.qc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/50-0566-RP-IA-generative-enseignement-superieur-enjeux-ethiques.pdf

Cosgrove, J., et Cachia, R. (2025). DigComp 3.0: European Digital Competence Framework - Fifth Edition. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/0001149

Creswell, J. W., et Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3 rd ed.). SAGE.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Decamps, S., et Zanichelli, A. (2025). L’intelligence artificielle en enseignement supérieur : étude exploratoire des perceptions, usages et inégalités d’adoption des étudiants et étudiantes. Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire, 22(3), article 1. https://doi.org/10.18162/ritpu-2025-v22n3-01 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18162/ritpu-2025-v22n3-01

Fan, Y., Darvishi, A., Khosravi, H., Gašević, D., et Siemens, G. (2024). Beware of metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning motivation, processes, and performance. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13544 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13544

Gerlich, M. (2025). AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies, 15(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T. et Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning

Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Kruber, S., Kuber, G., Lubova, S., Metternich, M., Nerdel, C., Neumann, J., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274

Kuzma, J. D. (2025). The Irreplicable Nature of Human Intuition: A Critical Response to Claims of Artificial Intuition. Philosophy & Technology, 38(2), 59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-025-00894-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-025-00894-5

Luo, J. (2024). A critical review of GenAI policies in higher education assessment: a call to reconsider the “originality” of students’ work . Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(5), 651–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2309963 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2309963

Peraya, D. (2010). Médiatisation et médiation. Des médias éducatifs aux ENT. Dans V. Liquète (dir.), Médiations (p. 33-48). Paris : CNRS Éditions. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.editionscnrs.14730 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/books.editionscnrs.14730

Perkins, M., Roe, J., Furze, L., Postma, D., McGaughran, J., Tran, V. D., Perkins, H., et MacVaugh, J. (2024). The AI Assessment Scale Revisited: A Framework for Educational Assessment. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.09029

Picquenot, A. (2002). GATHER THURLER (Monica). Innover au cœur de l’établissement scolaire. Issy-les-Moulineaux :ESF, 2000, (« Pédagogies »), 235 p. Carrefours de l'éducation, 13(1), IX-IX. https://doi.org/10.3917/cdle.013.0172i. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/cdle.013.0172i

Rabardel, P. (1995). Les hommes et les technologies : approche cognitive des instruments contemporains. Armand Colin. https://hal.science/hal-01017462

Robinson, L., Schulz, J., Blank, G., Ragnedda, M., Ono, H., Hogan, B., Mesch, G. S., Cotten, S. R., Kretchmer, S. B., Hale, T. M., Drabowicz, T., Yan, P., Wellman, B., Harper, M.-G., Quan-Haase, A., Dunn, H. S., Casilli, A. A., Tubaro, P., Carvath, R., … Khilnani, A. (2020). Digital inequalities 2.0: Legacy inequalities in the information age. First Monday, 25(7). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v25i7.10842 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v25i7.10842

Rosa, H. (2010). Accélération : une critique sociale du temps. La Découverte.

Rose, D. H., et Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. ASCD.

Stiegler, B. (2010). Ce qui fait que la vie vaut la peine d’être vécue : de la pharmacologie. Flammarion.

Tankelevitch, L., Kewenig, V., Simkute, A., Scott, A., Sarkar, A., Sellen, A., et Rintel, S. (2024). The metacognitive demands and opportunities of generative AI. Dans Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Article 607). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642902 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642902

Tardif, M., et Lessard, C. (1999). Le travail enseignant au quotidien : contribution à l’étude du travail dans les métiers et les professions d’interactions humaines. De Boeck Université. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9782763713052

UNESCO. (2024). Référentiel de compétences en IA pour les apprenants. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000392652

Université de Sherbrooke. (2025). Adapter les programmes d’études pour tenir compte de l’IA à l’Université de Sherbrooke. Recommandations et invitation à l’action. Service de soutien à la formation, Université deSherbrooke. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13376588

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., et Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412

Veletsianos, G. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence in Canadian post-secondary education: AI policies, possibilities, realities, and futures. Canadian Digital Learning Research Association. https://www.cdlra-acrfl.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2023-AI-Report_special-report.pdf

Wang, S., et Zhang, H. (2026). Pedagogical partnerships with generative AI in higher education: How dual cognitive pathways paradoxically enable transformative learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 23, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-026-00585-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-026-00585-x

Wenger, E. (2005). La théorie des communautés de pratique : apprentissage, sens et identité (F. Gervais, trad.). Presses de l’Université Laval. (Ouvrage original publié en 1998)

Xia, Q., Weng, X., Ouyang, F., Lin, T. J., et Chiu, T. K. F. (2024). A scoping review on how generative artificial intelligence transforms assessment in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21, 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00468-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00468-z

Zhou, T., et Wang, M. (2025). Examining Generative AI User Discontinuance from a Dual Perspective of Enablers and Inhibitors. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41(20), 13140–13150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2025.2470280 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2025.2470280