close
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Bridging educational equity gaps: expanding the CHAT-ACTS framework for personalized GenAI chatbots in higher education

  • Published:
Save article
View saved research
Journal of Computing in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The rapid evolution of Generative AI (GenAI) in higher education has outpaced the pedagogical supports and institutional guidance needed for equitable and effective use. While widely adopted, GenAI chatbots are often deployed without robust pedagogical frameworks or instructor mediation, heightening the risk of amplifying existing disparities in access, participation, and learning outcomes between marginalized and privileged learners. The CHAT-ACTS framework was developed to guide instructors, instructional designers, and policy makers in utilizing personalized GenAI chatbots to coordinate active learning and self-regulated learning (SRL). However, it does not explicitly address the needs of marginalized students or the representational biases embedded in GenAI systems.

This conceptual paper extends CHAT-ACTS by integrating culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP) and universal design for learning (UDL) to foreground equity, inclusion, and learner identity. We propose theoretical expansions that embed inclusive teaching strategies, critical reflection, transparency, and affirmative consent into the framework, with particular attention to multilingual English as an Additional Language (EAL) students, students with disabilities, and students of colour. The expanded CHAT-ACTS clarifies the roles of instructors, learners, and chatbots, and offers practical strategies for fostering equitable human–AI partnerships in instructor-mediated contexts. By centering culturally responsive and accessible design, it aims to mitigate bias, enhance learner agency, belonging, and sense of empowerment, and contribute to a broader discourse on equitable AI in education that is both technologically innovative and transformative from an inclusion lens.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from $39.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • AI Incident Database (2024). https://incidentdatabase.ai/?lang=en

  • Algorithmic Justice League (2024). https://www.ajl.org/

  • Alim, H. S., Baglieri, S., Ladson-Billings, G., Paris, D., Rose, D. H., & Valente, J. M. (2017). Responding to Cross-pollinating culturally sustaining pedagogy and universal design for learning: Toward an inclusive pedagogy that accounts for dis/ability. A Harvard educational review forum. Harvard Educational Review, 87(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-87.1.4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayala, S. (2023). ChatGPT as a universal design for learning tool. Educational Renaissance, 12(1), 23–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskara, F. R. (2023). Chatbots and flipped learning: Enhancing student engagement and learning outcomes through personalised support and collaboration. IJORER: International Journal of Recent Educational Research, 4(2), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.46245/ijorer.v4i2.331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernacki, M. L., Greene, M. J., & Lobczowski, N. G. (2021). A systematic review of research on personalized learning: Personalized by whom, to what, how, and for what purpose(s)? Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1675–1715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09615-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blodgett, S. L., Barocas, S., Daumé, I. I. I., H., & Wallach, H. (2020). Language (technology) is power: A critical survey of bias in NLP. In D. Jurafsky, J. Chai, N. Schluter, & J. Tetreault (Eds.), Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 5454–5476). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.485

  • Bremner, N. (2020). The multiple meanings of ‘student-centred’ or ‘learner-centred’ education, and the case for a more flexible approach to defining it. Comparative Education, 57(2), 159–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2020.1805863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardona-Rivera, R. E., Alladin, J. K., Litts, B. K., & Tehee, M. (2024). Indigenous futures in generative artificial intelligence: The paradox of participation. In Buyserie, B. & Thurston, T.N. (Eds.) (2024) Teaching and generative AI: Pedagogical possibilities and productive tensions. Utah State University. https://uen.pressbooks.pub/teachingandgenerativeai/chapter/indigenous-futures-in-generative-artificial-intelligence-the-paradox-of-participation/

  • CAST (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org

  • CAST (2024). UDL Guidelines 3.0 https://udlguidelines.cast.org/

  • Chang, D. H., Lin, M. P. C., Hajian, S., & Wang, Q. Q. (2023). Educational design principles of using AI chatbot that supports self-regulated learning in education: Goal setting, feedback, and personalization. Sustainability, 15(17), 12921. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, D., Chen, Q., & Lin, A. M. (2024). Writing centers’ praxis is not neutral but raced: Collaborative ethnography. In X. Huo & C. Smith (Eds.), Interrogating Race and Racism in Postsecondary Language Classrooms (pp. 218–240). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-9029-7.ch010

  • Chang, D. H., Chen, Q., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2025). Translingual approach in assessing academic writing for emerging multilingual writers in EMI higher education. Linguistics and Education, 87, 101403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2025.101403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charlton, J. I. (2000). Nothing about Us without Us: Disability oppression and empowerment. University of California Press.

  • Chita-Tegmark, Gravel, J. W., De Lourdes, M., Domings, B. S., Y., & Rose, D. H. (2012). Using the universal design for learning framework to support culturally diverse learners. Journal of Education (Boston Mass), 192(1), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741219200104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CIRCLS (2024). Educator CIRCLS Blog. https://circls.org/educator-circls

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert glaser (pp. 453–494). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

  • Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2023). Co-constructing knowledge with generative AI tools: Reflections from a CSCL perspective. Intern J Comput -Support Collab Learn, 18, 607–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-023-09409-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2023). Investment and motivation in Language learning: What’s the difference? Language Teaching, 56(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Design Justice Network (2025). https://designjustice.org/

  • Dieterle, E., Dede, C., & Walker, M. (2024). The cyclical ethical effects of using artificial intelligence in education. AI & SOCIETY, 39(2), 633–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01497-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiYanni, R., & Borst, A. (2020). Active learning. The craft of college teaching (pp. 42–60). Princeton University Press.

  • Dolmage, J. (2017). Academic ableism: Disability and higher education. University of Michigan Press.

  • Eppard, J., Kaviani, A., Bowles, M., & Johnson, J. (2021). EdTech culturation: Integrating a culturally relevant pedagogy into educational technology. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 19(6), 516–530. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.19.6.2065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eustaqio, A., da Gorráitz, M., & Lora, S. C. (2022). How the active learning method affects students’ desire to learn. International Journal of Curriculum Development Teaching and Learning Innovation, 1(1), 21–26. https://doi.org/10.35335/curriculum.v1i1.58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filippou, K., Acquah, E. O., & Bengs, A. (2025). Inclusive policies and practices in higher education: A systematic literature review. Review of Education, 13, e70034. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.70034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flint, A. S., & Jaggers, W. (2021). You matter here: The impact of asset-based pedagogies on learning. Theory into Practice, 60(3), 254–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2021.1911483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, L., & Saxena, P. (2021). Reading list: AI and education policy. Educator CIRCLS Blog https://circls.org/reading-list/reading-list-ai-and-education-policy

  • García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan.

  • García, O., Lin, A. M. Y., & May, S. (2017). Bilingual and multilingual education. Springer International Publishing.

  • Gay, G. (2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/curi.12002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). (Banks J. A., Ed.). Teachers College Press. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581130

  • Gupta, S., & Chen, Y. (2022). Supporting inclusive learning using chatbots? A chatbot-led interview study. Journal of Information Systems Education, 33(1), 98–108. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1326931

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajian, S., Chang, D. H., Wang, Q. Q., & Lin, M. P. C. (2025). Motivational theories in action: A guide for teaching artificial intelligence prompts to support student learning motivation. International Journal of Instruction, 18(4), 601–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin, a SAGE company.

  • Hamzah, W. W., Ismail, I., Yusof, M. K., Saany, S. M., & Yacob, A. (2021). Using learning analytics to explore responses from student conversations with chatbot for education. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 11(6), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v11i6.23475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, S., Liu, M., Pan, Z., Cai, Y., & Shao, P. (2023). Making FAQ chatbots more inclusive: An examination of non-native english users’ interactions with new technology in massive open online courses. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 33(3), 752–780. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-022-00311-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, J., Blessinger, P., & Makhanyam, M. (2019). Strategies for facilitating inclusive campuses in higher education: International perspectives on equity and inclusion: Vol. First edition. Emerald Publishing Limited.

  • Holmes, W., & Miao, F. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386693/PDF/386693eng.pdf.multi

  • Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2003). Diversity experiences and college student learning and personal development. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 320–334. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2003.0026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, L., Dias, L., Nelson, E., Liang, L., LajoieS. P., & PoitrasE. G. (2022). The role of self-improving tutoring systems in fostering pre-service teacher self-regulated learning. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2021.769455

  • Ilieva, G., Yankova, T., Klisarova-Belcheva, S., Dimitrov, A., Bratkov, M., & Angelov, D. (2023). Effects of generative chatbots in higher education. Information, 14(9), 492. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14090492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G., & Yilmaz, R. (2020). Student opinions about personalized recommendation and feedback based on learning analytics. Technology Knowledge and Learning, 25, 753–768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09460-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khalil, M., & Ebner, M. (2016). De-identification in learning analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(1), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2016.31.8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Killam, L., Lock, M., & Luctkar-Flude, M. (2023). Principles for equity-centered learner-educator co-creation: A reflection on practice and pedagogy. The Journal of Educational Innovation Partnership and Change, 9(1).

  • Kizilcec, R. F., & Lee, H. (2022). Algorithmic fairness in education. The ethics of artificial intelligence in education (pp. 174–202). Routledge. arXiv:2007.05443.

  • Kooli, C. (2023). Chatbots in education and research: A critical examination of ethical implications and solutions. Sustainability, 15, 5614. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korthals Altes, T., Willemse, M., Goei, S. L., & Ehren, M. (2024). Higher education teachers’ Understandings of and challenges for inclusion and inclusive learning environments: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 43, 100605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2024.100605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, S., & Heintz, F. (2020). Transparency in artificial intelligence. Internet Policy Review, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.2.1469

  • Lawson, T. K. (2024). Teaching homeplace: How teachers can cultivate black joy through culturally responsive practices in the classroom. Theory into Practice, 63(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2023.2287662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ledesma, M. C., & Calderón, D. (2015). Critical race theory in education: A review of past literature and a look to the future. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(3), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414557825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Hicke, Y., Yu, R., Brooks, C., & Kizilcec, R. F. (2024). The life cycle of large Language models in education: A framework for Understanding sources of bias. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(5), 1982–2002. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, M., Geron, T., & Brighouse, H. (2022). Conceptions of educational equity. AERA Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221121344. 8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, M., Enkhtur, A., Yamamoto, B. A., Cheng, F., & Chen, L. (2025). Potential societal biases of ChatGPT in higher education: A scoping review. Open Praxis, 17(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.17.1.750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, P. P., Wu, C., Morency, L. P., & Salakhutdinov, R. (2021). Towards understanding and mitigating social biases in language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 6565–6576). PMLR. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2106.13219

  • Likourezos, V., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2019). The variability effect: When instructional variability is advantageous. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 479–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09462-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, M. P. C. (2020). A proposed methodology for investigating chatbot effects in peer review. Canada: Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).

  • Lin, M. P. C., & Chang, D. (2020). Enhancing post-secondary writers’ writing skills with a chatbot. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 23(1), 78–92. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26915408

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, M. P. C., & Chang, D. (2023). CHAT-ACTS: A pedagogical framework for personalized chatbot to enhance active learning and self-regulated learning. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, M. P. C., Chang, D., Hall, S., & Jhajj, G. (2024a). Preliminary systematic review of Open-Source large Language models in education. In A. Sifaleras, & F. Lin (Eds.), Generative intelligence and intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 68–77). Springer Nature Switzerland.

  • Lin, M. P. C., Liu, A. L., Poitras, E., Chang, M., & Chang, D. H. (2024b). An exploratory study on the efficacy and inclusivity of AI technologies in diverse learning environments. Sustainability, 16(20), 8992. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208992

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litts, B. K., Alladin, J. K., Tehee, M., & Cardona-Rivera, R. E. (2023). Gathering as design process: Physical prototyping for culturally sustaining computational technologies. In Proceedings of the 2023 Symposium on Learning, Design and Technology (pp. 107–113). https://doi.org/10.1145/3594781.3594802

  • Liu, L., Subbareddy, R., & Raghavendra, C. (2022). AI intelligence chatbot to improve students learning in the higher education platform. J Interconnect Networks, 22, 2143032:1–2143032. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219265921430325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López, F. A. (2017). Altering the trajectory of the self-fulfilling prophecy: Asset-based pedagogy and classroom dynamics. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116685751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madaio, M., Blodgett, S. L., Mayfield, E., & Dixon-Román, E. (2023). Beyond fairness: Structural (in) justice lenses on AI for education. The ethics of artificial intelligence in education (pp. 203–239). Routledge.

  • Maier, U., & Klotz, C. (2022). Personalized feedback in digital learning environments: Classification framework and literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100080

  • Manohara, H. T., Gummadi, A., Santosh, K., Vaitheeshwari, S., Christal Mary, S. S., & Bala, B. K. (2024). Human centric explainable AI for personalized educational chatbots. 2024 10th International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Systems (ICACCS), 1, 328–334. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACCS60874.2024.10716907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Master, A., Cheryan, S., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2016). Motivation and identity. In K. R.Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp300-319). New York.

  • McDonald, N., Johri, A., Ali, A., & Collier, A. H. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 3, 100121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meekosha, H., & Shuttleworth, R. (2009). What’s so ‘critical’ about critical disability studies? Australian Journal of Human Rights, 15(1), 47–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2009.11910861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Memarian, B., & Doleck, T. (2023). Fairness, Accountability, Transparency, and ethics (FATE) in artificial intelligence (AI) and higher education: A systematic review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moffat, A. D., Matz, R. L., Fowler, R. R., & Jeffrey, M. (2024). Facets of team equity: A scoping review. Small Group Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964241281057

  • Nafea, I. (2020). Active learning multi-strategies. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 10(1), 87–94. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijitee.A8119.1110120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nataraj, W. V. H., Liao, Y. S., Chang, C. Y., Chiang, C. Y., Lin, Y., Lin, A., & Day, M. Y. (2024). Generative AI in Multimodal Cross-Lingual Dialogue System for Inclusive Communication Support. 2024 IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration for Data Science (IRI), 204–209. https://doi.org/10.1109/IRI62200.2024.00051

  • Nelson Laird, T. F. (2005). College students’ experiences with diversity and their effects on academic self-confidence, social agency, and disposition toward critical thinking. Research in Higher Education, 46(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-2966-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nixon, N. M., Lin, Y., & Snow, L. (2024). Catalyzing equity in STEM teams: Harnessing generative AI for inclusion and diversity policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences. https://doi.org/10.1177/23727322231220356

  • Ollion, É., Shen, R., Macanovic, A., & Chatelain, A. (2024). The dangers of using proprietary LLMs for research. Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(1), 4–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-023-00783-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pappagallo, S. (2024). Chatbots in education: A dual perspective on innovation and ethics. Journal of Digital Pedagogy, 3(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.61071/JDP.2420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers College.

  • Paris, D. (2021). Culturally sustaining pedagogies and our futures. The educational forum (Vol. 85, pp. 364–376). Routledge. 4.

  • Pérez, J. Q., Daradoumis, T., & Puig, J. M. M. (2020). Rediscovering the use of chatbots in education: A systematic literature review. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28(6), 1549–1565. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poitras, E., Crane, B. G. C., Dempsey, D., Bragg, T. A., Siegel, A. A., & Lin, M. P. C. (2024). Cognitive apprenticeship and artificial intelligence coding assistants. In C.Bosch, L. Goosen, & J. Chetty (Eds.), Navigating computer science education in the 21st century (pp. 261–281). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.

  • Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramos Salazar, L., Peeples, S. F., & Brooks, M. E. (2024). Generative AI ethical considerations and discriminatory biases on diverse students within the classroom. In S. Elmoudden & J. Wrench (Eds.), The Role of Generative AI in the Communication Classroom (pp. 191–213). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-0831-8.ch010

  • Ruiz, P. (2024). Artificial intelligence in education: A reading guide focused on promoting equity and accountability in AI. Educator CIRCLS Blog. https://circls.org/educatorcircls/ai-in-education/ai-in-ed-reading-guide

  • Saeed, W., & Omlin, C. (2023). Explainable AI (XAI): A systematic meta-survey of current challenges and future opportunities. Knowledge-Based Systems, 263, 110273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2023.110273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. M. (2024). I’m sorry, but I can’t assist: Bias in generative AI. In Proceedings of the 2024 on RESPECT Annual Conference. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1145/3653666.3656065

  • Srivastava, B., Rossi, F., Usmani, S., & Bernagozzi, M. (2020). Personalized chatbot trustworthiness ratings. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 1(4), 184–192. https://doi.org/10.1109/TTS.2020.3023919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, M., Lee, H., Wang, D., & Subramonyam, H. (2024). Is a seat at the table enough? Engaging teachers and students in dataset specification for ML in education. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 8(CSCW1), 1–32. arXiv:2311.05792v1.

  • Tienda, M. (2013). Diversity ≠ inclusion: Promoting integration in higher education. Educational Researcher, 42(9), 467–475. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13516164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsokalidou, R., & Skourtou, E. (2020). Translanguaging as a culturally sustaining pedagogical approach: Bi/multilingual educators’ perspectives. In J. A. Panagiotopoulou, L. Rosen, & J. Strzykala (Eds.), Inclusion, education and translanguaging. Springer VS. Inklusion und Bildung in Migrationsgesellschaftenhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-28128-1_13

  • Valcarlos, M., Wolgemuth, J., Haraf, S., & Fisk, N. (2020). Anti-oppressive pedagogies in online learning: A critical review. Distance Education, 41, 345–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1763783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varshney, K. R. (2022). Trustworthy Machine Learning. Independently Published. Chappaqua, NY, USA. http://www.trustworthymachinelearning.com/

  • Vázquez-Madrigal, C., Rubio, N., & Cano, A. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in education: Risks and opportunities. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-72549-4_11

  • Warr, M., & Heath, M. K. (2025). Uncovering the hidden curriculum in generative AI: A reflective technology audit for teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 76(3), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871251325073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. D. (2017). Reimagining disability and inclusive education through universal design for learning. Disability Studies Quarterly, 37(2). https://dsq-sds.org/index.php/dsq/article/view/5417/4650

  • Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In, DJ Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & AC Graesser. Metacognition in educational theory and practice, 277–304. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

  • Winne, P. H. (2017). Cognition and metacognition within self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 36–48). Routledge.

  • Yuasa, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2024). Strategic use of machine translation: A case study of Japanese EFL university students. AILA Review, 37(2), 215–240. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.24020.yua

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Dr. Lin’s New Scholar’s Grant from Mount Saint Vincent University and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), grant number 430-2023-00368. Permission to republish the figure CHAT-ACTS Theoretical Framework will be granted by Elsevier and has been given by its original authors.

Funding

This research was funded by Dr. Lin’s New Scholar’s Grant from Mount Saint Vincent University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Teaching and Learning Centre, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, NS, Canada

    Emily Ballantyne

  2. Faculty of Education, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, NS, Canada

    Michael Pin-Chuan Lin

  3. Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Burnaby, Canada

    Daniel H. Chang

  4. Faculty of Computer Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

    Eric Poitras

Authors
  1. Emily Ballantyne
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Pin-Chuan Lin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel H. Chang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eric Poitras
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily Ballantyne.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ballantyne, E., Lin, M.PC., H. Chang, D. et al. Bridging educational equity gaps: expanding the CHAT-ACTS framework for personalized GenAI chatbots in higher education. J Comput High Educ 37, 1564–1589 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-025-09475-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-025-09475-z

Keywords

Profiles

  1. Emily Ballantyne View author profile
  2. Michael Pin-Chuan Lin View author profile
  3. Daniel H. Chang View author profile