Assessing Awareness and Usage of AI Tools Among Faculty and Learners in Higher Education Institutions in Sub‑Saharan Africa
Open accessAbstract
This study reports on awareness and usage of artificial intelligence (AI) tools among faculty and learners in Sub-Saharan African higher education institutions. It summarizes which tools respondents recognize, which tools they mostly use, why they use them, and the benefits they perceive. A descriptive, cross-sectional survey design was employed, analyzing responses from N = 315 participants across public, private, and technical/vocational institutions in Sub-Saharan Africa. Results indicate high visibility of general-purpose generative tools (for example, chat-based assistants), strong use of writing and assessment support, and learner focus on idea generation, writing help, and exam preparation. Reported benefits center on time savings, access to information, and improved clarity in writing and learning tasks. Differences between faculty and students suggest the need for role-specific capacity building, clear academic integrity guidance, and alignment of AI use with learning outcomes. The study aimed to explore patterns of AI awareness, use, and perceived benefits while interpreting adoption behavior through the lens of the Diffusion of Innovation theory. Limitations include reliance on self-reports and aggregate tables. The study concludes with practical suggestions for training, policy, and curriculum integration in resource-constrained contexts.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Reviews by Soko, Pete and Mureithi (2025), Bond (2024), and Zawacki-Richter et al. (2019) show that AI tools enhance productivity and personalization while raising dilemmas about authorship, fairness, and accountability.
“Reviews by Soko, Pete and Mureithi (2025), Bond (2024) and Zawacki-Richter et al. (2019) show that while AI tools -particularly generative models -enhance productivity and personalization, they simultaneously raise new dilemmas about authorship, fairness, and accountability.”
From Ethical Concerns and Institutional Policy Responses to Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Higher Education Across Sub-Saharan Africa (2025) · cites this paper as Soko, Pete and Mureithi (2025)
The Results passage (p. 63) reports perceived benefits including time savings and clearer writing, while the Introduction discusses ethical inequalities and risks to academic integrity. But Soko et al. describe their work as a cross-sectional survey, not a review, and the passages do not establish the claimed benefits of personalization or specifically address dilemmas about authorship and accountability. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Soko, J. J. (2025) · Journal of the Kenya National Commission for UNESCO · doi:10.62049/jkncu.v5i1.426 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Soko, J., Pete, J., & Mureithi, G.
- Venue
- Asian Journal of Distance Education
- Publisher
- Asian Journal of Distance Education
- Published
- 2025-10-11
- OpenAlex
- W7103994158
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (cc-by)
- 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 Technology in Learning
- Keywords
- AI tools, AI awareness, artificial intelligence adoption, generative AI, faculty, students, higher education, sub-Saharan Africa, diffusion of innovation theory, academic integrity, writing support, assessment support, AI policy
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