DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION OF UNIVERSITIES: AGENT TECHNOLOGIES BASED ON GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE ORGANIZATION OF THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS
Abstract
The article examines the specifics of digital transformation in universities in the context of the rapid development of generative artificial intelligence. It identifies key limitations of the traditional organization of the educational process, including administrative inertia, low level of personalization, and excessive workload on academic staff. It is argued that existing approaches to digitalization are mainly focused on data storage rather than on the transformation of core educational processes. The study substantiates the feasibility of applying agent-based technologies as a foundation for the intellectualization of educational environments. A conceptual architecture of a multi-agent system is proposed, integrating generative AI into the organizational contours of university activities. The paper develops a typology of AI agents, including instructor agents, tutor agents, and administrative agents, and defines their functional roles in content generation, student support, process automation, and learning analytics. It is demonstrated that the interaction of these agents enables the formation of a closed-loop educational management cycle, covering planning, content creation, student assistance, performance analysis, and adaptive adjustment of the learning process. The implementation of such systems contributes to reducing routine workload, enhancing personalization, improving feedback quality, and supporting data-driven decision-making in academic environments. At the same time, the study highlights key challenges related to the use of generative AI, including content reliability, ethical considerations, data privacy, and the necessity of human-in-the-loop control mechanisms. The findings emphasize the importance of developing methodological and organizational frameworks for the effective and responsible integration of AI technologies into higher education systems.
References
Andersson F. W., Jordahl H., Kärnä A. Ballooning bureaucracy? Stylized facts of growing administration in Swedish higher education. Constitutional Political Economy. 2023. Vol. 35, No. 2. P. 303–326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-023-09408-x
Tze V. M. C., Klassen R. M., Daniels L. M. Patterns of boredom and its relationship with perceived autonomy support and engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2014. Vol. 39, No. 3. P. 175–187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.05.001
Crespo M., Bertrand D. Faculty workload in a research intensive university: a case study. Montreal: CIRANO, 2013. (Rapports de projets; 2013RP-11). URL: https://cirano.qc.ca/index.php/fr/sommaires/2013RP-11
Lu G. S., Li W. H., Zhang Q. Y., Du P., Lu N. G. An analysis of the types and characteristics of academic work at the university level. Fudan Education Forum. 2010. Vol. 8, No. 6. P. 38–44.
Siconolfi S. F. An analytics-based integrated decision tool for evaluating faculty workloads. International Journal of Management and Decision Making. 2025. P. 452–468. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDM.2025.148353
Spivakovsky O. V., Omelchuk S. A., Kobets V. V., Valko N. V., Malchykova D. S. Institutional policies on artificial intelligence in university learning, teaching and research. Information Technologies and Learning Tools. 2023. Vol. 97, No. 5. P. 181–202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v97i5.5395
Ding X. Teaching reform and exploration of data structure course based on artificial intelligence. 2024 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Digital Libraries (AIDL). Nanjing, 2024. P. 18–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/AIDL66202.2024.00011
Gabriska D., Pribilova K. Artificial intelligence in education, issues and potential of use in the teaching process. 2023 21st International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA). Stary Smokovec, 2023. P. 141–146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICETA61311.2023.10344286
Karyy O. I., Novakivskyi I., Kis Y., Kulyniak I. Y., Adamovsky A. Model of educational process organizing using artificial intelligence technologies. CEUR Workshop Proceedings. 2023. P. 332–347.
Bruyaka A., Kovalenko V., Marienko M., Semerikov S., Shyshkina M. The current state, threats, and challenges of using generative artificial intelligence to support student learning in higher education institutions. Educological Discourse. 2025. Vol. 50, No. 3. P. 6–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.28925/2312-5829/2025.3.1
Apata O. E. ChatGPT in higher education: a systematic review of opportunities, perceptions, and challenges // Preprints. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202507.0567.v1
Moore P. The great history of e-learning platforms. 2026. URL: https://www.didask.com/en/post/la-grande-histoire-des-plateformes-e-learning
eLeaP. Is a learning content management system in the cards for your organization? 2025. URL: https://www.eleapsoftware.com/learning-content-management-system/
Feldstein M. Canvas edges out Blackboard in LMS market share. 2018. URL: https://edscoop.com/canvas-edges-out-blackboard-in-lms-market-share/
Object Management Group. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) specification. URL: https://www.bpmn.org/
Andersson, F. W., Jordahl, H., & Kärnä, A. (2023). Ballooning bureaucracy? Stylized facts of growing administration in Swedish higher education. Constitutional Political Economy, 35(2), 303–326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-023-09408-x
Tze, V. M. C., Klassen, R. M., & Daniels, L. M. (2014). Patterns of boredom and its relationship with perceived autonomy support and engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(3), 175–187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.05.001
Crespo, M., & Bertrand, D. (2013). Faculty workload in a research intensive university: A case study (Rapports de projets No. 2013RP-11). CIRANO. https://cirano.qc.ca/index.php/fr/sommaires/2013RP-11
Lu, G. S., Li, W. H., Zhang, Q. Y., Du, P., & Lu, N. G. (2010). An analysis of the types and characteristics of academic work at the university level. Fudan Education Forum, 8(6), 38–44.
Siconolfi, S. F. (2025). An analytics-based integrated decision tool for evaluating faculty workloads. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 452–468. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDM.2025.148353
Spivakovsky, O. V., Omelchuk, S. A., Kobets, V. V., Valko, N. V., & Malchykova, D. S. (2023). Institutional policies on artificial intelligence in university learning, teaching and research. Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 97(5), 181–202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v97i5.5395
Ding, X. (2024). Teaching reform and exploration of data structure course based on artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Digital Libraries (AIDL) (pp. 18–21). IEEE. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/AIDL66202.2024.00011
Gabriska, D., & Pribilova, K. (2023). Artificial intelligence in education, issues and potential of use in the teaching process. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA) (pp. 141–146). IEEE. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICETA61311.2023.10344286
Karyy, O. I., Novakivskyi, I., Kis, Y., Kulyniak, I. Y., & Adamovsky, A. (2023). Model of educational process organizing using artificial intelligence technologies. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings (pp. 332–347).
Bruyaka, A., Kovalenko, V., Marienko, M., Semerikov, S., & Shyshkina, M. (2025). The current state, threats, and challenges of using generative artificial intelligence to support student learning in higher education institutions. Educological Discourse, 50(3), 6–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.28925/2312-5829/2025.3.1
Apata, O. E. (2025). ChatGPT in higher education: A systematic review of opportunities, perceptions, and challenges. Preprints. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202507.0567.v1
Moore, P. (2026, January 14). The great history of e-learning platforms. Didask. Available at: https://www.didask.com/en/post/la-grande-histoire-des-plateformes-e-learning
eLeaP. (2025, November 10). Is a learning content management system in the cards for your organization? Available at: https://www.eleapsoftware.com/learning-content-management-system/
Feldstein, M. (2018, July 11). Canvas edges out Blackboard in LMS market share. EdScoop. Available at: https://edscoop.com/canvas-edges-out-blackboard-in-lms-market-share/
Object Management Group. (n.d.). Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) specification. Available at: https://www.bpmn.org/
