Integrating Generative AI in Higher Education: Teachers’ Perceptions Through the TPACK Lens

Publication date

2026-03-27

Authors

Georgiou, DespoinaORCID 0000-0002-3376-4192ISNI 0000000512532415
Struyf, AnnemieORCID 0000-0002-9668-1271ISNI 0000000512624029
Wong, JacquelineORCID 0000-0002-5387-7696ISNI 0000000512658923

Editors

Advisors

Supervisors

Document Type

Article
Open Access logo

License

cc_by

Abstract

Generative AI (GenAI) in education has become a divisive topic. While some teachers view GenAI as a transformative tool, others caution against harms and impacts on teaching and learning. Since the usefulness of a tool depends on the user, how teachers view and use GenAI and their perceptions of its role in teaching and learning may influence its benefits and risks. The study adopts a qualitative approach, interviewing 23 higher education teachers with teaching experience across disciplines. Using the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) and sensemaking frameworks to guide and analyse the interviews, a set of opportunities, challenges, and threats associated with integrating GenAI in higher education was identified. Teachers highlighted opportunities, including using GenAI as a study buddy. Concerns were raised about students’ overreliance on GenAI, GenAI undermining the teaching and learning process, and issues like undetected plagiarism. The findings suggest a need for professional development to help teachers understand GenAI and how it can be effectively used in teaching. Some teachers warned against the paradox of using a tool to save time, only to find that it might increase workload and frustration. These insights contribute to developing guidelines and informing policymaking to ensure integration of GenAI in education.

Keywords

TPACK, generative AI, higher education, professional development, teachers’ perceptions

Citation

Georgiou, D, Struyf, A & Wong, J 2026, 'Integrating Generative AI in Higher Education: Teachers’ Perceptions Through the TPACK Lens', Education Sciences, vol. 16, no. 4, 531. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16040531