Behavioral and Ethical Dimensions of Generative Artificial Intelligence Use in Libyan Higher Education: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study
This descriptive cross-sectional study of 313 Libyan university students and faculty reveals that while GenAI use is prevalent and often viewed positively for learning, it is frequently associated with academic misconduct concerns and hindered by a lack of clear institutional guidance and detection capabilities.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the last few years, a new kind of computer program has arrived in classrooms around the world. These tools, often called generative artificial intelligence, can write essays, solve math problems, and explain complex ideas in seconds. They act like a tireless tutor that never sleeps, ready to help a student understand a difficult concept or draft a paragraph. However, this speed brings a difficult question: if a student uses the tool to do the work, who actually did the learning? Schools have always relied on the idea that when a student turns in an assignment, it represents their own thinking and effort. When a machine can produce that work, the line between helpful study aid and academic misconduct becomes blurry. Many universities are still figuring out where that line should be, and in some places, there are no rules at all yet.
A recent study set out to understand how this situation is playing out in Libya, a country that had never before been part of this global conversation. Researchers from the University of Elmergib wanted to see how students and teachers were actually using these tools, what they thought about the ethics of using them, and whether the schools had given them any clear instructions. They surveyed 313 people from 14 different universities across the country, asking 240 students and 73 faculty members to share their experiences and opinions. The goal was not to prove a specific theory, but simply to take a snapshot of the current reality, documenting what was happening on the ground before any new policies were written.
The results showed that these tools have become a daily part of life for most students in the sample. Nearly all of the students surveyed, about 90 percent, reported using these artificial intelligence tools every day or several times a week. For many, the most popular use was as a virtual tutor. Students described asking the computer to explain a concept they missed in a lecture or to help them understand a difficult reading. This kind of use was widely accepted, with three-quarters of the students agreeing that it was a helpful way to learn. It is the kind of interaction that feels like having a knowledgeable friend explain a tricky idea, rather than having the friend write the answer for you.
However, the study also found that a significant number of students were using the tools in ways that crossed into academic misconduct. About 36 percent of the students admitted to using the AI to draft sections of their major assignments. Another 24 percent said they used summaries generated by the AI instead of reading the original texts themselves. While these were not the majority behaviors, they represented a large enough group to be a serious concern. The students themselves seemed aware of the tension; only about one-third of them felt that their university had provided clear written rules about what was allowed and what was forbidden. Without clear guidance, many students were left guessing, with nearly 31 percent saying they were unsure if their specific use of the technology was permitted.
The teachers, for their part, were noticing the effects of this widespread use, even without special software to help them detect it. Almost all of the faculty members surveyed, about 95 percent, reported seeing signs that students were relying too heavily on the technology. They described two main problems: students seemed to have a shallow understanding of the material, and the writing style in their submissions often sounded inconsistent, as if different parts were written by different people. When asked if a submission written entirely by an AI should be considered plagiarism, nearly 80 percent of the teachers said yes. Yet, despite these concerns, the teachers felt ill-equipped to catch it. Only about 31 percent felt confident that they could spot AI-generated work on their own without the help of a detection program.
The study highlights a gap between what is happening in the classroom and the rules that govern it. The researchers found that while students are using these tools constantly, the institutions have not yet caught up with clear policies. The teachers are seeing the results of this lack of direction in the form of superficial learning and inconsistent writing, but they feel they lack the tools to address it fairly. The study concludes that the most urgent step for Libyan universities is not to ban the technology, but to create clear, specific guidelines that tell students exactly how they can use these powerful tools without compromising their own learning. Until those rules are written, both students and teachers are navigating a complex new landscape without a map.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.