Transformations in academic work and faculty perceptions of artificial intelligence in higher education

Abstract

Technologies based on artificial intelligence are transforming teaching practices in higher education. However, many university faculty members still face difficulties in incorporating these tools in a critical, ethical, and pedagogically meaningful way. This review addresses the issue of limited artificial intelligence literacy among educators and the main obstacles to its adoption. The objective was to analyze the perceptions, resistance, and training needs of faculty members in the face of the growing presence of artificial intelligence in educational contexts. To this end, a narrative review was conducted, drawing on recent articles from Scopus and other academic sources, prioritizing empirical studies and reviews that explore the relationship between intelligent systems, university teaching, and the transformation of academic work. Out of 757 records initially retrieved, nine empirical studies met the inclusion criteria. The most frequently examined tools were generative artificial intelligence systems (e.g., ChatGPT), chatbots, and recommendation algorithms. Methodologically, most studies employed survey-based designs and thematic qualitative analysis. The main findings reveal a persistent ambivalence: faculty members acknowledge the usefulness of such technologies, but also express ethical concerns, technical insecurity, and fear of professional displacement. The most common barriers include lack of training, limited institutional support, and the absence of clear policies. A shift in the teaching role is observed, with greater emphasis on mediation, supervision, and critical analysis of output generated by artificial intelligence applications. Additionally, ethical debates are emerging around algorithmic transparency, data privacy, and institutional responsibility. Effective integration in higher education demands not only technical proficiency but also ethical grounding, regulatory support, and critical pedagogical development. This review was registered in Open Science Framework (OSF): 10.17605/OSF.IO/H53TC.

Ähnliche Arbeiten