Artificial intelligence in education: A phenomenological study of opportunities, ethical tensions, and digital inequality in South African universities
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63569/ajopac/08/01/02Keywords:
learning, technology, digital divideAbstract
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in education is changing the way teachers teach, manage, and support learners. It is providing new opportunities for efficiency, personalisation, and even new learning spaces. However, massive ethical, structural, and pedagogical issues are still there despite the vast global adoption of AI. This qualitative research explores the complex realities of the deployment of AI in the educational department in South Africa. Using a phenomenological approach, data were collected from semi structured interviews with educators, students, and educational technology specialists (total number of participants were 21) at three universities. thematic analysis delved into the four major themes: (1) AI as a tool to enable personalised, flexible, and interactive learning; (2) AI driven efficiencies in teaching and administration; (3) ethical and data related concerns about surveillance, privacy, and algorithmic bias; (4) and structural issues related to digital inequality and institutional readiness. The research decides that AI can give learners a huge advantage in terms of better learning outcomes, but the question of how to use it effectively remains. Among the recommendations are (i) putting in place reliable data governance frameworks, (ii) ensuring continuous capacity building among teachers, and (iii) adopting participatory, ethical approaches to designing AI policy. The study fuels the debate around the topic of AI in higher education by providing local insights into its integration, its potentials, and its hazards, particularly in areas with digital inequality.
References
Aregbesola, B.G. and Hur-Yagba, N.C., 2025. Understanding Nigerian Public Universities Capacity for AI Adaptation in Science Education Research. Spanish Journal of Innovation and Integrity, 45, pp.1-15. https://www.sjii.es/index.php/journal/article/view/766
Bawack, R.E., Fosso Wamba, S. and Carillo, K.D.A., 2021. A framework for understanding artificial intelligence research: insights from practice. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 34(2), pp.645-678. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-07-2020-0284
Benjamin, R., 2019. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Medford: Polity Press. Science & Technology Studies, 34(2), pp.92-94.
Bond, M., Zawacki Richter, O., & Nichols, M., 2023. AI driven immersive learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 194, pp.104-678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104678
Braun, V., & Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp.77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V., 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), pp.589-597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Chen, G., Sun, H., Liu, X. and Xiao, L., 2025. Revealing the research differences of AI between China and the US using semantic deviation. Journal of Informetrics, 19(4), p.101728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2025.101728
Creswell, J.W. and Poth, C.N., 2016. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications. https://books.google.co.za/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DLbBDQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Creswell,+J.+W.,+%26+Poth,+C.+N.+(2018).+Qualitative+inquiry+and+research+design:+Choosing+among+five+approaches+(4th+ed.).+Sage&ots=-it84fGNTu&sig=ceQOzLUuyz28LZ7rZ6Xtu-yNznc&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S., 2016. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), pp.1-4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Eynon, R. and Gillani, N., 2025. Computational social science and critical studies of education and technology: an improbable combination?. Learning, Media and Technology, pp.1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2025.2552273
Fereday, J., & Muir Cochrane, E., 2006. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), pp.80-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107
Greening, N., 2019. Phenomenological research methodology. Scientific Research Journal, 7(5), pp.88-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.31364/SCIRJ/v7.i5.2019.P0519656
Holmes, W., Bialik, M. and Fadel, C., 2019. Artificial intelligence in education promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign. https://circls.org/primers/artificial-intelligence-in-education-promises-and-implications-for-teaching-and-learning
Ifenthaler, D., & Yau, J. Y. K., 2022. Utilising learning analytics for early intervention in higher education: A review of literature. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70, pp.275-298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423 021 10063 9
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M., 2016. Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a semi structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), pp.2954-2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031
Lewis, T., 2022. Critical digital pedagogy and the politics of automation. Learning, Media and Technology, 47(3), pp.267-281. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2022.2036005
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. https://books.google.co.za/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2oA9aWlNeooC&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=Lincoln,+Y.+S.,+%26+Guba,+E.+G.+(1985).+Naturalistic+inquiry.+Sage&ots=0vpBSfPavs&sig=Vc7ZcusIu7FXP9zv1Y_Si85otEM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Lincoln%2C%20Y.%20S.%2C%20%26%20Guba%2C%20E.%20G.%20(1985).%20Naturalistic%20inquiry.%20Sage&f=false
Mishra, P. and Koehler, M.J., 2006. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), pp.1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Moloi, T., & Maringe, F., 2022. Institutional readiness for digital technologies in higher education: Challenges and strategies. Higher Education Policy, 35, pp.293-311. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307 020 00203 4
Msomi, A.M. and Mthethwa, T.M., 2024, December. Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education Mathematics: A Systematic Review of Trends, Benefits, and Challenges. In The Focus Conference (TFC 2024) (pp. 88-118). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-630-7_6
Noble, S.U., 2018. Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. In Algorithms of oppression. New York university press. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.18574/nyu/9781479833641.001.0001/html
Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L. and Wynaden, D., 2001. Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of nursing scholarship, 33(1), pp.93-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547 5069.2001.00093.x
Palinkas, L.A., Horwitz, S.M., Green, C.A., Wisdom, J.P., Duan, N. and Hoagwood, K., 2015. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and policy in mental health and mental health services research, 42(5), pp.533-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488 013 0528y
Perrotta, C., & Selwyn, N., 2020. The educational implications of AI in schools: Critical perspectives. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), pp. 199-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1752020
Roble, J., 2024. Rethinking Teacher Workload: A Phenomenological Study of Generative Artificial Intelligence and Educator Well-Being (Doctoral dissertation, Lamar University-Beaumont). https://www.proquest.com/openview/15024609303d90a095a019100d8eac11/1?cbl=18750&diss=y&pq-origsite=gscholar
Saldana, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage. https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/5018667
Selwyn, N., 2019. Should robots replace teachers?: AI and the future of education. John Wiley & Sons. https://books.google.co.za/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wcm1DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT6&dq=Selwyn,+N.+(2023).+Should+robots+replace+teachers%3F+AI+and+the+futures+of+education.+Polity+Press.+&ots=KJzH7BTbgY&sig=QHorGHroW52JW-sH_RSDzlNp8UY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Shenton, A.K., 2004. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for information, 22(2), pp.63-75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
Shulner-Tal, A., Kuflik, T. and Kliger, D., 2023. Enhancing fairness perception–Towards human-centred AI and personalized explanations understanding the factors influencing laypeople’s fairness perceptions of algorithmic decisions. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(7), pp.1455-1482.
Williamson, B., & Eynon, R., 2020. AI in education: Critical perspectives. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), pp.239-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1764143
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V.I., Bond, M. and Gouverneur, F., 2019. Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the educators?. International journal of educational technology in higher education, 16(1), pp.1-27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Zeide, E., 2022. Big Proctor: Online Proctoring Problems and How FERPA Can Promote Student Data Due Process. Notre Dame J. on Emerging Tech., 3, p.74. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/ndjet3&id=70&men_tab=srchresults
Zhao, H., Zhang, H., Li, J. and Liu, H., 2025. Performance motivation and emotion regulation as drivers of academic competence and problem‐solving skills in AI‐enhanced preschool education: A SEM study. British Educational Research Journal, 00, pp.1-22 https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.4196
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dr Mathebula, Mohammed Ntshangase, Lulama L Mbatha (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0)
