Not yet human-reviewed
This source record was written automatically by the research pipeline and has not yet been reviewed by the maintainer or integrated into a topic page. Treat it as a provisional summary and verify claims against the original source.
Paradox of AI in Higher Education: Qualitative Inquiry Into AI Dependency Among Educators in Palestine
Citation. Alhur, A. A., Khlaif, Z. N., Hamamra, B., & Hussein, E. (2025). Paradox of AI in higher education: Qualitative inquiry into AI dependency among educators in Palestine. JMIR Medical Education, 11, e74947. https://doi.org/10.2196/74947
Summary. This qualitative study examines how 46 medical and health-sciences educators in Palestine describe the drivers, consequences, and mitigations of dependence on generative AI. Participants associated reliance with institutional workload and weak guidance alongside psychological and cognitive pressures, while also describing efficiency benefits. They reported risks to critical thinking, professional autonomy, pedagogy, motivation, integrity, collaboration, and creativity; proposed safeguards emphasize bounded use, verification, AI literacy, and human-led teaching.
Key claims
- Institutional workload, unclear organizational guidance, low academic confidence, performance pressure, perfectionism, easy access, and limited AI literacy were reported as drivers of educator AI dependency.
- Participants described skills atrophy as the most prevalent consequence (41/46, 89%), including reduced critical thinking, scientific writing, decision-making, and independent synthesis.
- Participants reported that AI-supported efficiency can coexist with pedagogical erosion: 35/46 (76%) described reduced student interaction or teaching innovation, although some said AI freed time for deeper discussion.
- Educators described verification and refinement of AI output, limits on delegated instructional work, professional development, and interactive teaching as practices intended to retain human judgment and pedagogical creativity.
Evidence & limitations
- The study used 22 semistructured interviews and four focus groups (n=24) with 46 purposively sampled medical and health-sciences educators in Palestine; thematic analysis used the I-PACE model and reports saturation after 18 interviews.
- Findings are self-reported, qualitative, and situated in Palestinian higher education, so reported frequencies describe this participant group rather than causal effects or population prevalence; the study also records countervailing accounts of AI supporting confidence, creativity, and deeper student interaction.