Cited by 1Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEducational Technology in Learning

Assessing Awareness and Usage of AI Tools Among Faculty and Learners in Higher Education Institutions in Sub‑Saharan Africa

Open access
Soko, Jeketule, Pete, Judith, Mureithi, Grace·2025·Asian Journal of Distance Education

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.5281/zenodo.17316893

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

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
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