Mind the Gap, Please!: Addressing the Mismatch Between Teacher Awareness and Student AI Adoption in Higher Education
Open accessAbstract
This mixed-methods study investigates the mismatch between student use of AI for academic tasks and teacher awareness in Saudi Arabian higher education. Surveys of 78 teachers and 243 students in English for Specific Purposes courses at public and private universities included Likert-scale items and an open-ended question on AI tools' benefits, challenges, and impact on learning and academic integrity. The study reveals a significant gap between teachers' perceptions of students' AI skills and the reality of AI integration, leading to discrepancies in judging student knowledge and assessment authenticity. To address these challenges, the manuscript proposes strategies, including targeted professional development for teachers, swift adoption of best practices for ethical use of generative AI in classrooms, and fostering open dialogue within institutions. This research provides insights to inform teaching practices, curriculum development, and policy-making in higher education's evolving landscape. Future research could benefit from more comprehensive sampling to enhance generalizability
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Responsible AI use modules are being developed to encourage reflective rather than passive engagement, often incorporating real-world tasks.
“responsible AI use modules are being developed to encourage reflective rather than passive engagement, often incorporating real-world tasks to guide appropriate usage (Acosta-Enriquez et al., 2024a; Alharbi, 2024; Corbin et al., 2025).”
From Six Institutional Intervention Areas to Support Ethical and Effective Student Use of Generative AI in Higher Education: A Narrative Review (2026) · cites this paper as Alharbi, 2024
Institutions have begun offering targeted professional development programmes aimed at building educators' capacity to understand, evaluate, and apply AI tools in pedagogically meaningful ways.
“institutions have begun offering targeted professional development programmes aimed at building educators' capacity to understand, evaluate, and apply AI tools in pedagogically meaningful ways (Alharbi, 2024; Cai et al., 2025; Okamoto et al., 2025).”
From Six Institutional Intervention Areas to Support Ethical and Effective Student Use of Generative AI in Higher Education: A Narrative Review (2026) · cites this paper as Alharbi, 2024
Cites
Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 · Cited by 3,087 · see citing works
Chatting and Cheating. Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D., Cotton, P., & Shipway, J. R. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/mrz8h · Cited by 3,079 · see citing works
ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 · Cited by 1,806 · see citing works
Revolutionizing education with AI: Exploring the transformative potential of ChatGPT
Adiguzel, T., Kaya, M. H., & Cansu, F. K. (2023) · Contemporary Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/cedtech/13152 · Cited by 975 · see citing works
ChatGPT in higher education: considerations for academic integrity and student learning
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17 · Cited by 853 · see citing works
Perkins, M. (2023) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/1.20.02.07 · Cited by 839 · see citing works
Chatbots in Education and Research: A Critical Examination of Ethical Implications and Solutions
Kooli, C. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15075614 · Cited by 666 · see citing works
Sison, A. J. G., Daza, M. T., Gozalo-Brizuela, R., & Garrido-Merchán, E. C. (2024) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2225931 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Jayasinghe, S., Gamage, K. A. A., Yang, D., Cheng, C., Disanayake, C., & Apeji, U. D. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16010137 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Navigating AI Adoption: Challenges and Suggested Solutions for College Lecturers
Ahlam, A., Huda, S., Hala, H., Nimer, B., & Wajeeh, D. (2025) · 2025 International Conference on Smart Learning Courses (SCME) · doi:10.1109/scme62582.2025.11104880 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Alharbi, W.
- Affiliations
- Yanbu English Language and Preparatory Year Institute (SA)
- Corresponding author
- Alharbi, Wael
- ORCID
- Alharbi, Wael
- Venue
- International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching
- Publisher
- IGI Global Scientific Publishing
- Published
- 2024-08-14
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-28
- ISSN
- 2155-7098 (ISSN-L)
- 2155-7101
- OpenAlex
- W4401576002
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 9.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- ng
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- generative AI in higher education, teacher awareness, student use of AI, English for specific purposes, academic integrity, assessment authenticity, teacher professional development, ethical use of AI, Saudi universities
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
