CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEducational Innovations and Challenges

Navigating AI Adoption: Challenges and Suggested Solutions for College Lecturers

Ahlam, Anabousy, Huda, Shayeb, Hala, Habayib, Nimer, Baya'A, Wajeeh, Daher·2025·2025 International Conference on Smart Learning Courses (SCME)
DOI 10.1109/scme62582.2025.11104880
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The development of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly generative AI tools, has significantly transformed higher education. This study examined the key challenges encountered by college lecturers in the AI environment and the practical solutions they offered for these challenges. Seventeen heads of departments or academic units from a teacher education college participated in this study. Data were collected through a video-recorded focus group interview and supplemented reports. Data were analyzed inductively using the constant comparison method to identify recurring themes and patterns across the participants. The findings revealed five central challenges faced by college lecturers: (1) Assessment integrity that includes difficulties in verifying student authenticity, increasing plagiarism risks, and diminishing academic originality; (2) AI adoption resistance characterized by reluctance or hesitancy in embracing AI technologies stemming from limited familiarity and a lack of confidence; (3) Pedagogical adaptation imperative that necessitates the revision of instructional methodologies and a redefinition of the lecturer's role in the context of AI integration; (4) Technological literacy disparities that refer to gaps in digital literacy among both faculty and students, compound by unequal familiarity with AI tools; and (5) Limited institutional resources that result in restricted access to advanced AI tools and insufficient professional development opportunities. In response to these challenges, the participants proposed several potential solutions: fostering transparent and ethical student utilization of AI tools, implementing alternative assessment strategies focused on personal and critical thinking skills, enhancing institutional support through ICT centers, offering structured training programs, and ensuring equitable access to AI platforms. So, colleges need to open dialogue and collaboration among faculty members to develop shared guidelines and best practices for the ethical and effective use of AI in academic settings. In addition, teaching should focus more on thinking critically and personal skills, which are especially essential in the AI environment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/scme62582.2025.11104880

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Traditional plagiarism detection tools, such as Turnitin, are ineffective in identifying AI-generated content, often yielding false positives or negatives.

    “Studies have revealed that traditional plagiarism detection tools, such as Turnitin, are ineffective in identifying AI-gen -erated content, often yielding false positives or negatives [ 31, 60, 85, 89, 90 ].”

    From Redefining student assessment in AI-infused learning environments: a systematic review of challenges and strategies for academic integrity (2026) · cites this paper as [89]

  • Institutions have shifted toward alternative assessment methods, such as oral exams (viva voce), real-world reflective tasks, scaffolded assignments, reflective journals, Bloom's Taxonomy higher-order thinking questions, and interactive problem-solving tasks, which require direct student engagement and cannot be easily outsourced to AI.

    “To achieve this, institutions have shifted toward alternative assessment methods, such as oral exams (viva voce), real-world reflective tasks, scaffolded assignments, reflective journals, use of Bloom's Taxonomy higher-order thinking questions, and interactive problemsolving tasks, which require direct student engagement and cannot be easily outsourced to AI [ 56, 65, 67, 70, 73, 79, 89, 94, 97-99”

    From Redefining student assessment in AI-infused learning environments: a systematic review of challenges and strategies for academic integrity (2026) · cites this paper as [89]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ahlam, A., Huda, S., Hala, H., Nimer, B., & Wajeeh, D.
Affiliations
  • Al-Qasemi Academic College of Education (IL)
  • Al-Qasemi Academic College of Education,Mathematics Department,Baqa Al-Gharbiyye,Israel
Venue
2025 International Conference on Smart Learning Courses (SCME)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2025-07-09
Pages
23-29
DOI
10.1109/scme62582.2025.11104880
OpenAlex
W7084103752
Cited by
2
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
FWCI
2.39
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
International Conference on Smart Learning Courses (SCME) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Innovations and Challenges
Keywords
generative AI in higher education, AI adoption barriers, university lecturers, assessment integrity, academic integrity, plagiarism, resistance to AI, pedagogical adaptation, lecturer role, digital literacy, institutional resources, faculty professional development, ethical use of AI, teacher training institutions, department heads

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review