Tarek Shal
Norma Ghamrawi
Abdullah Abu-Tineh
Yousef Alshaboul- Social & Economic Survey Research Institute (SESRI), Qatar University, Doha, Qatar
Introduction: Education 4.0 is rapidly reshaping higher education through technology-enabled learning, curriculum realignment, and new ethical and professional demands. However, empirical evidence on how faculty members in the Arab States perceive and respond to these shifts remains limited.
Methods: This qualitative study examined faculty sense-making of Education 4.0 through semi-structured interviews with 12 university faculty members from six Arab countries. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.
Results: Participants conceptualised Education 4.0 as (a) strengthening curriculum relevance through closer alignment with labour-market needs, (b) widening access to knowledge through digital resources and networks, and (c) enabling more differentiated, student-centred pedagogy. Concurrently, they highlighted persistent challenges related to ethical governance, uneven institutional and individual readiness, and the necessity of continuous, context-responsive professional development.
Discussion: By foregrounding faculty perspectives across multiple national contexts, the study illuminates the opportunities and tensions shaping Higher Education 4.0 implementation in the Arab States and underscores the importance of supporting human-centred, ethically governed digital transformation.
Introduction
Education 4.0 marks a shift toward tech-driven learning, using tools like Virtual Reality (VR) to immerse students in realistic simulations (Kavanagh et al., 2017), and Augmented Reality (AR) to overlay digital content onto the real world, making complex concepts more accessible (Koumpouros, 2024). Moreover, Artificial Intelligence (AI) supports personalized learning by adapting to students’ needs and automating feedback, while the Internet of Things (IoT) connects smart devices to enhance classroom interaction and data-driven decision-making (Ghamrawi et al., 2024a, 2024b). Together, these technologies create more engaging, efficient, and future-ready educational experiences (Al-Othmany and Mahmoud, 2021; Le et al., 2018; Rane et al., 2023).
Education 4.0 marks a decisive break from traditional teaching methods, embracing student-centered approaches that prioritize critical thinking, creativity, and collaboration (Kangas et al., 2022; Moll, 2022; Matthew et al., 2021; Alam, 2023). Fueled by the technological advancements of Industry 4.0, this paradigm shift seeks to cultivate the skills necessary for individual growth and societal progress (Kaliraj and Devi, 2023; Napoleon and Ramanujam, 2023). However, its success hinges on the preparedness and active engagement of key stakeholders—most critically, university faculty—whose readiness shapes the pace and depth of implementation (Miranda et al., 2021; Salmon, 2019; Venkatesh et al., 2014).
The Arab States stands in the forefront in adopting Education 4.0, integrating technology to achieve pedagogical goals (Jain and Jain, 2022). Scalable technologies, including online platforms, virtual classrooms, and AI tools, are reshaping education (Becker et al., 2018; Ghamrawi and Tamim, 2023; Jaboob et al., 2024). These innovations promote personalized learning, accessibility to resources, and global collaboration in higher education. Despite progress, research on Education 4.0 in Arab states is limited (Al-Mughairi and Bhaskar, 2024; Ghamrawi and Tamim, 2023). This study addresses this gap by exploring faculty perceptions of Education 4.0, guided by the following research questions:
1. What are the perceptions of Arab university faculty members regarding Education 4.0?
2. How do Arab university faculty members address the challenges of implementing Education 4.0 in their teaching?
Literature review
Education 4.0
The current educational system has come under criticism for inadequately meeting students’ learning needs, often reflecting the outdated ‘Empty Container Paradigm’—a model in which students are treated as passive vessels for knowledge transmission (Goldin et al., 2022). Rooted in traditional classroom instruction and standardized testing, this approach emphasizes prerequisites and theoretical learning but often fails to translate knowledge into real-world application, resulting in rapid forgetting and disengagement (O’Connor, 2024). In contrast, the rise of Industry 4.0—with its emphasis on digital integration, automation, and rapid innovation—has accelerated the shift toward Education 4.0, a framework designed to equip learners with future-ready competencies (Mian et al., 2020). Although a universally accepted definition of Education 4.0 has yet to emerge, its core principles emphasize adaptability, responsiveness, and the development of skills aligned with the evolving demands of the digital age (Maisiri et al., 2019). In simpler terms, Education 4.0 is a future oriented approach to education aligned with the demands, challenges, and opportunities of the 21st century (González-Pérez and Ramírez-Montoya, 2022). Rather than being a fixed set of rules, it is a flexible vision that reimagines how teaching and learning can evolve to prepare both educators and students for a rapidly changing world (Pandey, 2025).
Core elements of Education 4.0
Studies in the field of Education 4.0, as illustrated in Table 1, suggest a list of core elements, which are indispensable for the actualization of this educational transformation. These elements, including personalization, technology integration, and lifelong learning, serve as pivotal facets that illuminate the profound changes taking place in education. Table 1 compares Scheer (2015), Fisk (2017), and Wallner and Wagner (2016) views on how education evolved to address the needs of varied learners in a globalized, technology-driven world. It provides a clear, comparative overview of these essential elements, providing valuable insights for educators, policymakers, and institutions to stimulate innovation, engagement, and continuous growth in both teaching and learning.
Table 1. Core elements of Education 4.0.
The elements in Table 1 highlight the need for a new educational approach, emphasizing digitalization, personalized learning, and practical applications to prepare students for evolving job market demands. This shift toward Education 4.0 grants students’ greater autonomy in shaping their educational paths, while instructors’ roles evolve into mentors providing comprehensive support. The focus is on developing competencies rather than solely disseminating knowledge (Scheer, 2015; Fisk, 2017; Wallner and Wagner, 2016).
Artificial intelligence and Education 4.0
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is foundational to Education 4.0, facilitating personalized learning experiences by enabling the adaptation of content and assessments to diverse learning styles (Chassignol et al., 2018; Ghamrawi et al., 2024a). AI also aids in identifying students’ strengths and weaknesses, enhancing engagement and learning outcomes (Tapalova and Zhiyenbayeva, 2022; Wang et al., 2022). Moreover, AI empowers students to manage their educational paths independently (Wang et al., 2020). AI-driven data analytics offer valuable insights into student performance, informing educational strategies and curriculum development (Kulkami, 2022). Through automation, AI streamlines administrative tasks, allowing educators to focus on mentoring and critical thinking development (Chan and Tsi, 2023). In Education 4.0, AI facilitates personalized, data-driven learning, empowering both students and educators to thrive in a rapidly evolving educational environment (Maryani et al., 2023).
Opportunities and challenges of Education 4.0 in higher education
Higher Education 4.0 (HE 4.0), also referred to as Education 4.0 in higher education, signifies a fundamental shift in reimagining traditional academic institutions to align with the demands of the digital era and the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Al Husseiny, 2023). The foundation of this transformation can be traced back to the early emphasis on computer literacy and IT proficiency for both professionals and students. For faculty, this transformation under Higher Education 4.0 goes beyond acquiring digital skills; it involves a fundamental shift in teaching philosophy and the purpose of education (Jones and Ravishankar, 2021). Faculty are expected to create inclusive, participatory environments that challenge assumptions and deepen student engagement. This process reflects Mezirow’s Transformative Learning Theory, where disorienting dilemmas—such as digital disruption, curriculum reform, or diverse student needs—prompt critical reflection, dialogue, and the adoption of new practices (Chasokela, 2025). Ultimately, faculty transformation is not only technical but also ontological, reshaping how educators view themselves, their students, and their role in higher education (Jin et al., 2024). This shift entails a more digital, interconnected, and flexible system, leveraging technology and innovative teaching methods. Online learning, supported by AI and other technologies, has become prevalent, democratizing access to education globally (Xie et al., 2020).
Personalized learning is facilitated through adaptive platforms, enhancing educational outcomes (Bhutoria, 2022), while reducing costs and fostering collaboration among students worldwide (Abu Talib et al., 2021). The integration of AI and Augmented Reality enhances understanding and practical applications across various fields (Ghamrawi et al., 2024a), aiding professionals in upskilling for evolving job roles (Ekuma, 2023). However, HE 4.0 encounters challenges including the digital divide, quality assurance in online programs, reduced social interaction, and the need for IT proficiency among students and faculty (Faloye and Ajayi, 2022; Gamage et al., 2020; Oleksiyenko, 2021; Mian et al., 2020). Additionally, managing copyrights and the financial burden of technological investments pose further complexities (Alenezi, 2021).
While many studies emphasize the transformative opportunities of HE 4.0, critical voices caution against an overly optimistic narrative. Bostrom (2014) warns of unintended consequences associated with the rapid integration of artificial intelligence, particularly the risks of over-reliance on autonomous systems and insufficient human oversight. Similarly, Brundage et al. (2018) highlight ethical concerns, issues of accountability, and the potential for exacerbating existing inequalities in access to higher education. These perspectives underscore the importance of critically evaluating the promises of HE 4.0, ensuring that technological adoption does not compromise equity, transparency, or the human dimension of learning.
HE 4.0 in the Arab States
HE 4.0 has gained prominence in the Arab States, prompting colleges and universities to adapt curricula and teaching approaches for the automation economy (Mishrif et al., 2023; Ashour et al., 2021). This modernization effort leverages digitalization, AI, and personalized learning to offer flexible education, including hybrid/online programs and smart campuses (Mohamed Hashim et al., 2021). However, challenges such as infrastructure, technology access, and digital literacy may hinder progress (Al-Ani, 2023).
Faculty perceptions in the Arab States show enthusiasm for AI and online platforms but also apprehension about rapid technological changes and maintaining traditional pedagogical values (Meccawy et al., 2021; Alam, 2022; Al-Haija and Mahamid, 2021). These concerns are significant in a culture valuing face-to-face interaction and community-based learning (Thaha Abdullateef, 2021). This paper examines faculty perceptions of the opportunities and challenges of HE 4.0 in the Arab states.
Theoretical framework
Conceptually, this study is anchored in three complementary lenses. First, transformative learning theory foregrounds how adults reinterpret their frames of reference through disorienting dilemmas, critical reflection, and dialogue (Mezirow, 1991; Mezirow, 1997). In the context of Education 4.0, rapid digitalisation, pandemic-induced disruption, and shifting learner expectations can be read as disorienting conditions that prompt faculty to question inherited pedagogical assumptions and experiment with new practices. Second, socio-technical perspectives conceptualise digital transformation not as a purely technological shift but as the reconfiguration of interdependent human, organisational, and technological elements (Mukul et al., 2023; Oliveira and de Souza, 2022). From this standpoint, faculty narratives about platforms, policies, infrastructure, and digital skills reflect how Education 4.0 is negotiated across interconnected socio-technical layers. Third, constructivist approaches, particularly constructive alignment, position effective higher education teaching as the alignment of intended learning outcomes, learning activities, and assessment in ways that support active knowledge construction (Biggs, 1996). Framing faculty accounts through these lenses allows us to interpret Education 4.0 not as the adoption of isolated tools, but as a transformative, socio-technical and constructivist re-design of teaching, learning, and assessment in Arab higher education.
Research methodology
This study examined the factors shaping faculty members’ acceptance or resistance to Higher Education 4.0 (HE 4.0) in the Arab region, with a focus on the influence of AI and emerging technologies on teaching practices, along with the associated challenges and opportunities. Qualitative research design was employed to gain deep, nuanced insights into participants’ perceptions, in line with Nassaji (2021) endorsement of qualitative inquiry for such purposes. Data were analyzed using an inductive content analysis approach, allowing patterns, themes, and concepts to emerge organically from the data rather than imposing predetermined hypotheses (Gerlach and Cenfetelli, 2020). Through careful coding and interpretation, the study generated new knowledge and insights, contributing to the growing understanding of HE 4.0 implementation in the region (Abdel-Karim et al., 2023). Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with faculty members from various higher education institutions across the Arab States. The interviews aimed to capture detailed insights into their experiences and perceptions, providing a comprehensive view of the opportunities and challenges of HE 4.0 in their contexts.
Participants
Participants were purposefully sampled from universities with at least 5 years of experience in integrating technology into education, ensuring that they possessed sufficient expertise to provide meaningful insights on Higher Education 4.0 practices. To facilitate recruitment across multiple countries in the Arab States region, the study engaged a virtual community of practice (vCoP) for educators. A vCoP is a digital platform that allows educators to collaborate virtually through webinars, discussion boards, shared resources, and joint projects (Ghamrawi, 2022). By leveraging this network, the study accessed a diverse pool of faculty members with practical experience in technology-enhanced teaching, representing different institutions, academic disciplines, and professional ranks. This approach ensured that participants could offer informed perspectives on both the opportunities and challenges associated with technology integration in higher education.
Participants were recruited using purposive sampling from a virtual community of practice (vCoP) through one of its sub-communities dedicated to higher education teaching and learning. An invitation post describing the study aims and time commitment was shared through the vCoP administration to members of this sub-committee and were invited to email researchers directly, should they felt interested in taking part in the study. Inclusion criteria, as evidenced through the platform analytics and member profiles, required that participants (a) held a current teaching appointment in a higher education institution, (b) had been active members of the vCoP for at least 1 year, and (c) had participated in at least one community activity such as a webinar, workshop, or discussion forum related to Higher Education 4.0. Faculty whose engagement in the vCoP was purely observational (e.g., those who only read posts without contributing) and individuals whose primary roles were administrative rather than instructional were excluded. This strategy did not aim for statistical representativeness but for information-rich cases of faculty who were actively reflecting on and enacting Higher Education 4.0 principles within a shared professional network.
Ethical clearance was obtained from the researchers’ university, and approval was secured from the vCoP’s governing board. vCoP administrators assisted in contacting potential participants. Faculty members were invited to participate if they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) employed as university faculty for more than 5 years, (2) actively using technology in teaching, and (3) holding the rank of assistant, associate, or full professor. All participants received a consent form outlining the study objectives, procedures, and their role in the research.
The vCoP comprised approximately 1,600 members, of whom 55 were university faculty. Among these, 15 expressed interests in participating. For the pilot study, the first three faculty members who signed up and met the inclusion criteria were selected. The pilot study was conducted to test the interview schedule for clarity, consistency, and appropriateness. The main study sample ultimately included 12 participants from six Arab States. The characteristics of this sample are summarized in Table 1.
Table 2 outlines the characteristics of the participants who completed the survey.
Table 2. Characteristics of the sample.
Research instrument
A semi-structured interview schedule was designed for this study to facilitate an in-depth exploration of the research topics. This format allowed for comprehensive coverage while providing flexibility to uncover valuable insights and emerging patterns (Yeong et al., 2018). The final list of interview questions was developed through a systematic process. First, a review of the relevant literature on Higher Education 4.0 informed the initial pool of questions. Second, the questions were refined in consultation with field experts to ensure content validity and contextual relevance. Third, a pilot test with three faculty members was conducted to assess clarity and appropriateness, leading to minor revisions. This iterative process ensured that the schedule captured diverse perspectives and generated rich qualitative data for thorough analysis (Wolff et al., 2019).
To further enhance consistency and minimize bias in data collection, the interview schedule was reviewed by two professors and subsequently piloted with three faculty members who shared characteristics with the study participants. Based on the pilot results, several questions were rephrased for greater clarity and coherence. These refinements strengthened comparability across interviews and improved the overall reliability of the instrument. On average, each interview was estimated to last approximately 35 min, as determined during the pilot phase.
The refined interview schedule is presented in Table 3 for reference.
Table 3. The interview schedule.
The interviews were conducted by one of the researchers, and each participant signed a consent form, ensuring they were fully informed about the research purpose, procedures, potential risks, benefits, and their right to withdraw at any time without penalty. The interviews explored the perceived opportunities and challenges of HE 4.0 for faculty members, delving into the impact on student learning, the professional development needs of faculty, and the evolving methods of assessment and evaluation. Ethical and cultural considerations specific to the Arab States, such as data privacy, AI bias, and equity in access, were also addressed. The interview concluded with an open-ended question, inviting participants to offer any additional comments or concerns, ensuring they felt comfortable, and their voices were fully heard.
Data analysis
Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with 12 faculty members from six Arab States, as described earlier. All 12 interviews were conducted via videoconference using Zoom between November 2023 and March 2024. Each interview lasted approximately 35 min and was audio-recorded with the participants’ informed consent. The recordings were transcribed verbatim by the research team using the ‘Otter’ transcription software, and all transcripts were subsequently reviewed for accuracy. In total, the 12 interviews yielded 127 pages of text, providing a rich and detailed dataset for qualitative analysis.
Data analysis followed stages of open, axial, and selective coding based on Mohajan and Mohajan (2022). During open coding, interview transcripts were systematically broken down into smaller meaningful units, each assigned descriptive codes that captured key ideas. Where participants’ own wording powerfully expressed a concept, in vivo codes were retained, such as “teaching in survival mode,” “the LMS as a double-edged sword,” and “students who live online but learn offline.” This phase was iterative, allowing researchers to refine, merge, or separate codes as patterns emerged. Peer debriefing involved two researchers independently coding data, then collaborating to verify and harmonize codes and themes for reliability and validity (Adeoye-Olatunde and Olenik, 2021).
In the axial coding phase, similar codes were grouped into broader conceptual categories, establishing relationships between them and forming structured patterns that reflected overarching themes. For example, codes relating to rapid course redesign, emergency online teaching, and assessment adaptations were brought together under a category labelled Pedagogical re-design under pressure; references to students’ uneven digital habits, screen fatigue, and conflicting expectations coalesced into Ambivalent digital studenthood; and comments about institutional demands, timelines, and platform policies informed the category Institutional acceleration and lag. These categories were documented in a shared coding matrix that linked each category to its underlying codes and illustrative excerpts and was iteratively refined through constant comparison across cases to ensure that themes were grounded in multiple participants’ accounts rather than single instances.
Finally, in selective coding, the most significant categories were synthesized into core themes, elevating them to a more abstract level to construct a coherent narrative that provided deeper insights into the research phenomenon (Vollstedt and Rezat, 2019). Theoretical saturation was monitored throughout the analytic process. After each interview, we examined whether new open codes or categories were required to capture the data, and we tracked changes in the coding matrix accordingly. Saturation, as recommended by Naeem et al. (2024) was judged to have been reached when (a) no substantively new open codes emerged that could not be accommodated within existing categories, (b) each axial category was supported by data from multiple participants and institutional contexts, and (c) further coding primarily added nuance and additional examples rather than altering the properties or relationships of the categories. By the twelfth interview, new data consistently reinforced the existing analytic structure without extending it, and we therefore considered the data sufficient for developing the grounded theoretical account presented in this manuscript.
Finally, throughout the process, strategies such as peer debriefing, investigator triangulation, and iterative refinement ensured trustworthiness, with researchers maintaining an audit trail to document coding decisions and reflections, enhancing the credibility, dependability, and validity of the findings.
Findings
Table 4 presents themes derived from the selective coding process mentioned earlier. This process involved analyzing interview data to identify recurring patterns, which were then categorized into key themes and sub-themes, ensuring a structured and rigorous analysis.
Table 4. Theme-based analysis of participants’ perceptions.
Benefits of Education 4.0 in higher education
Table 3 highlights benefits of Education 4.0 for students and professors. Participants noted extended learning opportunities and potential for global collaboration. They believed Education 4.0 offers personalized learning paths through AI, adapting content and pacing for better comprehension.
‘Education 4.0 offers transformative extended learning opportunities, igniting curiosity and empowering lifelong learners to explore endless possibilities.’ (P3).
Moreover, participants emphasized Education 4.0 tools’ role in promoting global collaboration and connected learning. They highlighted how technology breaks geographical barriers, enabling virtual collaborations, discussions, and knowledge-sharing among students worldwide.
‘We are excited that Education 4.0 enables global student collaboration, expanding horizons and fostering empathy to create a more interconnected world.’ (P7).
On the other hand, University Academicians emphasized AI’s role in unique professional development, improving instructional planning, and accessing a global network. They stated that AI serves as a catalyst for transforming teaching methods and fostering continuous improvement and growth in teaching practices.
‘Education 4.0's professional development opportunities energize us, driving us to embrace new technologies and teaching methods, evolving alongside our students through continuous learning and growth.’ (P3)
In terms of instructional planning, participants acknowledged that by integrating technology, Education 4.0 offers them innovative ways to enhance teaching and learning experiences. They reflected that it makes them more creative in crafting curricula and designing coursework.
‘As a professor, Education 4.0 boosted my ability to craft tailored learning experiences, foster innovative engagement, and refine my teaching continuously. It's my tool to create dynamic, student-centered classrooms where critical thinking thrives, paving the way for lifelong success.’(P5)
In the same vein, participants articulated that Education 4.0 allows them to connect easily with other researchers from across the globe. It enables them seamlessly to share resources, research and best practices enriching their teaching journey.
‘Education 4.0 gives me global collaboration and expertise through digital platforms, enriching teaching and research with diverse perspectives to drive innovation in higher education.’ (P11)
Challenges of Education 4.0 in higher education
On the other hand, participants noted challenges with Education 4.0 in their teaching journey, emphasizing the need for clear and transparent ethical frameworks to regulate its use in higher education settings.
‘Ensuring transparency in the use of emerging technologies and holding ourselves accountable for their ethical implications are not only academic pursuits but they are also moral imperatives shaping the integrity of our educational landscape.’ (P8)
As technology integrates into learning environments in Education 4.0, professors highlight heightened risks of misuse and exploitation, especially concerning data privacy, algorithmic biases, and intellectual property rights.
‘For me, Education 4.0's potential for abuse raises significant ethical concerns. It's our responsibility as educators to ensure that advancements serve students' best interests and uphold ethical standards in higher education.’ (P4)
Participants also expressed concern about bullying in Education 4.0. In virtual learning environments, students can exploit vulnerabilities to easily bully their peers.
‘Within Education 4.0 systems, there's always a risk that students may gain an unfair advantage or even harass their peers. We need to be vigilant in addressing these emerging challenges.’ (P10)
In the same vein, while Education 4.0 rapidly evolves in academia, efforts to identify and mitigate potential risks and threats are ongoing.
‘We are aware that there are risks associated with AI, but articulating and defining these risks in a concrete manner is still a work in progress.’ (P11)
Participants also expressed a significant challenge of Education 4.0: its unpredictable implementation. Despite promising transformations in teaching and learning through innovative methods, potential threats remain unclear.
‘I face uncertainty in its implementation. While its potential value is clear, navigating ambiguity demands constant adaptation and innovation to provide the best education for our students.’(P5)
Additionally, participants emphasized their lack of concrete and tangible evidence regarding the real value of education 4.0.
‘In Education 4.0, we require evidence showing how technological advancements can enhance efficiency and student outcomes. Without concrete examples, fully embracing these innovations poses significant challenges.’(P1)
On another hand, participants reflected those risks of unpredictable threats with Education 4.0. The rapid pace of technology evolution and its multi-integration into learning make it difficult for professors to anticipate future education needs the thing that complicates teaching adaptation, resource allocation and content relevancy.
‘In Education 4.0, as professors, our greatest challenge is the uncertainty of undefined threats. Yet, in this ambiguity lies our opportunity—to innovate, collaborate, and empower our students for an unpredictable future.’(P1)
Indeed, participants underscored that one of the main barriers Education 4.0 is having students digitally literate.
‘Integrating Education 4.0 into our courses is a challenge when students lack essential digital skills. There's a gap in digital literacy here that we need to address.’(P4)
Another significant challenge identified by participants revolves around the capacity building of professors themselves. Within the rapid evolution of technology, professors face the daunting task of staying abreast of the latest developments and incorporating them into their teaching and research practices.
An additional substantial difficulty expressed by participants is that professors must keep pace with rapidly evolving technology to integrate it effectively into their teaching and research practices.
‘There's a constant learning curve when it comes to Education 4.0. As professors, we need support and resources for continuous professional development to effectively integrate Education 4.0 principles into our work.’(P9)
Similarly, Participants consistently highlighted disparities in technology as a significant challenge for integrating AI in higher education among university academicians. Uneven resource distribution hinders some educators from adopting Education 4.0.
‘Not all professors have the same access to AI tools and platforms. It creates a gap where some educators are left behind, limiting their ability to explore and integrate these technologies into their teaching and research.’ (P10)
In addition to this, participants indicated that digital divide affect their ability of Education 4.0 usage in higher education. The varying levels of technological infrastructure and internet connectivity pose challenges for university academicians in this context.
‘The digital divide is a real concern. If some professors and their students lack access to high-speed internet or advanced devices, it creates a barrier to fully participate the enhanced learning environments of Education 4.0.’(P12)
Impact of Education 4.0 on students in higher education
Participants spotlighted the fact of the alignment of curricula with industry needs in higher education. They articulated the importance of aligning the curricula with the skills and knowledge demanded by the job market.
‘There's a gap between what we teach and what the industry demands. It's crucial to bridge this divide to ensure that students are adequately prepared for the workforce.’(P7)
In reality, participants stressed that Education 4.0 in higher education should focus on developing practical skills alongside theoretical knowledge for preparing students for future careers.
‘It's not just about what students know; it's about what they can do. Our job-related instruction should focus on skill development to prepare students for the challenges of the modern workplace.’(P6)
Education 4.0 has transformed higher education by providing unrestricted access to diverse educational resources, benefiting students from diverse backgrounds previously limited to traditional academic spaces.
‘Education 4.0 has democratized access to knowledge. The open access model allows students to explore a wealth of resources, enhancing the quality of their learning experience.’(P9)
Participants recognized Education 4.0’s impact in higher education, particularly in adopting personalized learning approaches to address diverse student needs and enhance teaching and learning quality.
‘The ability to differentiate instruction is a game-changer. Education 4.0 allows us to tailor learning experiences to the diverse needs of our students, promoting deeper understanding and engagement.’(P11)
In the same vein, participants emphasized that innovation in Education 4.0 drives quality learning experiences, engaging students as active participants rather than passive consumers of information. They highlighted technological advancements and novel teaching methodologies as key factors promoting this innovation.
‘Education 4.0 encourages us to think outside the box. The integration of technology and innovative teaching methods enhances the overall quality of education by making it more engaging and relevant.’(P12)
Professional development needed for university academicians
Participants emphasized that professional development should equip them with needed skills and requirements, ensuring more effective teaching and enriched learning experiences.
‘As professors, we need professional development tailored to our unique strengths and areas for growth, just as we offer individualized instruction to our students. One-size-fits-all approaches simply don't work.’(P4)
According to participants, professional development must be tailored, continuous, and responsive to technological advancements shaping higher education. They reflected it is crucial role in equipping educators with skills to meet evolving student needs.
‘The nature of education is dynamic. Continuous professional development is not a luxury; it is a necessity to keep up with the latest trends, technologies, and best practices in teaching.’(P10)
Parallel to this, participants in this study emphasized the importance of aligning with international standards as a foundational element of their professional development to achieve excellence in education.
‘Having internationally recognized standards in professional development provides a benchmark for excellence. It aligns us with global best practices and helps maintain a high standard of education across diverse academic settings.’(P5)
Moreover, participants emphasized the need to tailor professional development to the specific needs of individual universities and professors, ensuring it aligns with each educational setting’s unique context.
‘While international standards are crucial, we also need professional development that is adaptable to the unique challenges and contexts of our institutions. One size does not fit all.’(P9)
Assessment and evaluation of Education 4.0 in HE
When evaluating Education 4.0 in higher education, participants highlighted the transformative impact of project-based assessments. These assessments align with the dynamic nature of Education 4.0 by emphasizing both knowledge acquisition and its practical application in real-world situations.
‘Project-based assessments go beyond traditional exams. They allow students to apply theoretical knowledge to real-world scenarios, fostering a deeper understanding of the subject matter.’(P5)
Participants emphasized the importance of assessments that simulate real-life experiences, noting that this approach better prepares students for the demands of a rapidly evolving and competitive job market.
‘Simulating real-life experiences in assessments prepares students for the challenges they will face in their careers. It bridges the gap between academic knowledge and practical application.’(P11)
On another note, Participants stressed that Education 4.0 requires shifting to competency-based assessments to accurately reflect real-world scenarios and its dynamic nature.
‘Assessing competencies goes beyond testing what students know; it assesses what they can do. It aligns with the demands of a rapidly changing job market where skills are paramount.’(P7)
Furthermore, participants reflected that assessments in Education 4.0 should move beyond rote memorization to cultivate higher-order thinking skills, such as critical analysis, problem-solving, and creativity.
‘Education 4.0 demands more than just recalling facts. Our assessments should check higher-order thinking skills, challenging students to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information.’(P8)
Moreover, they underlined the importance of reflective practice in Education 4.0 assessments. They highlighted the need for assessments that encourage students to reflect on their learning, fostering self-awareness and a commitment to continuous improvement.
‘Assessments should not only measure what students know but also prompt them to reflect on how they've grown. It's about instilling a sense of self-awareness and a mindset of continuous learning.’(P6)
Discussion
This study examined university faculty members’ perceptions in the Arab States regarding the opportunities and challenges of implementing Education 4.0 in higher education, with particular attention to teaching, professional development, and assessment practices. The findings highlight that participants perceived Education 4.0 as transformative in expanding learning opportunities, enabling global collaboration, and supporting more personalized, student-centered pedagogies through AI and digital platforms. These perceptions are consistent with prior work emphasizing the potential of Education 4.0 to foster innovation, flexibility, and connectivity in higher education (Ramírez-Montoya et al., 2021; Griffith and Mangla, 2023).
Findings suggest that faculty are negotiating Education 4.0 less as a technical upgrade and more as an ongoing process of perspective transformation. Accounts of initial uncertainty, experimentation with new tools, and subsequent reframing of teaching purposes resonate with transformative learning’s emphasis on disorienting dilemmas, critical reflection, and shifts in meaning perspectives (Mezirow, 1997). Rather than passively complying with institutional directives, participants described selectively appropriating and re-purposing digital tools to preserve what they saw as core pedagogical values, aligning with global analyses that frame Education 4.0 as a contested evolution rather than a linear technological “revolution” (Bonfield et al., 2020; Oliveira and de Souza, 2022; Mukul et al., 2023).
At the same time, participants voiced clear concerns regarding ethical use, transparency, the potential for misuse of technologies, and emerging forms of online harm such as cyberbullying. These concerns resonate with scholarship that cautions against uncritical adoption of digital systems and calls for robust ethical and regulatory frameworks in technology-mediated learning environments (Dhakshan et al., 2024; Labanda-Jaramillo et al., 2022; Dami and Waluwandja, 2019). The theme of “lack of predictability” in the findings—where participants struggled to clearly define the added value and potential risks of Education 4.0—further underscores the sense of uncertainty surrounding rapidly evolving technologies and the need for evidence-informed, context-sensitive implementation.
Participants also emphasized persistent structural and capacity-related challenges, including disparities in technological infrastructure, unequal access to digital tools, and gaps in both student and faculty digital literacy. These concerns align with regional and international analyses that document how the digital divide and variable institutional readiness continue to shape the feasibility and equity of Education 4.0 reforms (Al-Ani, 2023; Ashour et al., 2021; Faloye and Ajayi, 2022). Within this landscape, aligning curricula with industry needs and foregrounding practical, skills-based learning were perceived as essential for ensuring the relevance of higher education in an evolving labor market—an emphasis echoed in previous work on Higher Education 4.0 and employability-driven agendas (Mian et al., 2020; Mishrif et al., 2023).
The ambivalence expressed by participants (viewing Education 4.0 as simultaneously enabling and burdensome) mirrors broader evidence that digital transformation in higher education is experienced as a socio-technical reconfiguration rather than a straightforward “solution” (Mukul et al., 2023; Sun and Yoon, 2025). Faculty concerns about misaligned platforms, inadequate support, and uneven student readiness echo regional studies from Arab and Gulf contexts, which highlight digital infrastructure, organisational culture, and staff readiness as critical mediators of Education 4.0 initiatives (Alkandari et al., 2024; Jemni et al., 2024). At the same time, the proactive strategies described by our participants—such as redesigning activities, curating digital resources, and leveraging vCoP support—converge with findings that productive digital transformation depends on faculty agency, institutional support, and fit between technological affordances and pedagogical tasks (Bonfield et al., 2020; Oliveira and de Souza, 2022; Sun and Yoon, 2025).
Moreover, participants’ attempts to re-design courses so that digital tools, learning activities, and assessment criteria worked together to support higher-order outcomes can also be read through constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996). Rather than treating platforms as add-ons, faculty described aligning synchronous and asynchronous tasks, multimodal resources, and digitally mediated assessments with what they wanted students to know and be able to do. This echoes research showing that Education 4.0 is most pedagogically powerful when digital innovations are embedded within coherent, outcomes-based designs rather than layered onto unchanged transmissive teaching (Biggs, 1996; Bonfield et al., 2020).
A further salient theme concerned the kind of professional development faculty members deemed necessary to navigate Education 4.0. Participants called for differentiated, continuous, and contextually responsive professional learning opportunities that both align with international standards and remain sensitive to institutional realities. This reflects a growing body of literature that positions sustained, tailored professional development as a prerequisite for meaningful digital transformation in higher education (Ghamrawi, 2013a, 2013b, 2018; Ghamrawi et al., 2023, 2025).
In relation to assessment, participants’ perceptions converged around the need to move beyond traditional examinations toward approaches that are entrepreneurial and holistic in nature. They endorsed project-based assessment, simulated real-life tasks, and competency-based evaluation as better aligned with the dynamic, practice-oriented ethos of Education 4.0, while also stressing the importance of cultivating higher-order thinking and reflective practice. These views parallel empirical and conceptual contributions advocating authentic assessment as a vehicle for bridging academic learning and complex real-world demands in technology-rich environments (Alam, 2022; Mohamed Hashim et al., 2021).
Taken together, the findings portray faculty members as cautiously optimistic: they recognize the promise of Education 4.0 for enhancing quality, relevance, and access, yet remain acutely aware of unresolved ethical questions, uneven readiness, and contextual constraints. This underscores the need for institutionally supported strategies that (a) build faculty and student capacities, (b) address infrastructural and equity gaps, and (c) develop clear regulatory and pedagogical frameworks to ensure that Education 4.0 strengthens rather than fragments the human-centered mission of higher education. The study’s qualitative design, focused sample, and reliance on self-reported perceptions suggest the importance of future research that incorporates additional stakeholders and mixed-methods designs to further interrogate how these dynamics unfold across diverse Arab higher education contexts. Finally, professional development emerged not as a generic recommendation but as the mechanism through which faculty negotiate ethics and alignment under Education 4.0. Calls for differentiated, continuous, contextually responsive learning—while referencing international standards—position professional development as a socio-technical support structure that sustains agency rather than as episodic training (Al-Jammal and Ghamrawi, 2013; Ghamrawi 2013a, 2013b, 2018; Ghamrawi et al., 2023, 2025). This finding strengthens existing scholarship by specifying what “support” must do: it must build practical capacity, cultivate ethical judgment, and enable redesign work (especially assessment) under real institutional constraints.
However, it is important to stress that these interpretations are grounded in the experiences of 12 highly engaged faculty members who are active in a single, long-standing Arabic-speaking vCoP. The data do not warrant claims about all academics in Arab higher education, nor about Education 4.0 implementation across the region more broadly. Rather, the study offers an analytically rich account of how one group of faculty, already invested in professional networking and digital practice, make sense of Education 4.0 within their specific institutional and national contexts. Broader trends at regional or global level should therefore be inferred only when supported by external evidence and comparative studies (e.g., Alkandari et al., 2024; Jemni et al., 2024; Mukul et al., 2023).
Theoretical and practical implications
This study is grounded in constructivism, contributing to the knowledge construction of learners through experiential and problem-solving learning supported by digital content (Voon et al., 2022). It also aligns with connectivism, emphasizing the role of technology-mediated networks in facilitating collaboration, sharing of knowledge, and real-time access to global expertise (Shal et al., 2018a, 2018b, 2019, 2024a, 2024b, 2024c). Together, these theories underscore how Education 4.0 creates adaptive learning environments that benefit both learners and educators.
Furthermore, the research supports technological determinism, asserting that technological advancements drive societal change and human behavior. In higher education, the integration of AI, machine learning, and immersive technologies necessitates a pedagogical shift that demands both technological proficiency and pedagogical flexibility. As more institutions adopt Education 4.0 principles, faculty adaptation becomes essential, influencing curriculum design, assessment models, and student engagement strategies.
From a managerial standpoint, university leaders and policymakers must enhance faculty digital competencies and pedagogical innovation by developing advanced professional development programs. Investing in robust digital infrastructure is crucial to bridge access gaps and ensure equitable opportunities for faculty and students. Additionally, fostering industry-academic partnerships is vital to align curricula with evolving labor market needs and to integrate practical, technology-driven learning models. Lastly, ethical frameworks and transparent policies must be established to safeguard data privacy, academic integrity, and student well-being in virtual learning environments.
Future research should adopt socio-technical and institutional perspectives to deepen the understanding of the challenges and opportunities related to Education 4.0. The socio-technical perspective highlights the balance between human agency and technological dependence, while institutional theory explores governance and policies that influence the effectiveness of digital learning strategies. This study reinforces the need for ongoing ethical reflection, adaptability, and strategic planning to fully harness the potential of Education 4.0 in transforming the future of higher education.
Limitations and recommendations
This study has several methodological and contextual limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the sample consisted of 12 self-selected faculty members drawn from a single virtual community of practice. While this vCoP provided a rich, information-dense context for examining how Higher Education 4.0 is interpreted and enacted, it also means that the findings are shaped by the particular culture, history, and governance of this community. Faculty who were not engaged in such networks, or who are more sceptical of digital transformation, are likely under-represented, and the sample remains indicative rather than representative of all academics in the region. Second, participation was voluntary and restricted to individuals who met relatively stringent inclusion criteria, which introduces self-selection bias toward highly engaged and digitally confident academics and potentially overlooks more marginal or digitally hesitant voices. Third, the study relied solely on qualitative, self-reported perceptions of faculty members. While interviews provided valuable, in-depth insights into the opportunities and challenges of Education 4.0, they may also reflect individual biases shaped by participants’ personal experiences, institutional contexts, and varying levels of digital readiness. Classroom observations, institutional documents, platform analytics, or learning analytics were not incorporated, which limits the extent to which reported practices can be triangulated through other forms of evidence.
A further limitation concerns the range of perspectives and contexts captured. The study focused exclusively on faculty voices; the absence of students’, administrators’, and policymakers’ perspectives restricts the ability to construct a more holistic understanding of how Education 4.0 is negotiated across the wider higher education ecosystem. Moreover, the study did not systematically account for cross-country differences in digital infrastructure, cultural attitudes toward technology, or higher education governance structures, even though these factors may significantly shape how Education 4.0 is enacted in practice. Although coding decisions were discussed collaboratively and documented in a shared coding matrix and analytic memos, we did not calculate formal inter-coder reliability coefficients; analytic rigour was supported instead through iterative team dialogue, constant comparison, and an audit trail of analytic decisions. Finally, the qualitative design and small sample size preclude statistical generalisation. The contribution of the study lies in its analytical, rather than statistical, generalisability: it offers context-specific yet potentially transferable insights that readers may adapt and interrogate in other higher education contexts.
In light of these limitations, several directions for future research are recommended. Subsequent studies should broaden the range of stakeholders by incorporating the perspectives of students, administrators, and policymakers to capture the multi-layered dynamics of Education 4.0. Mixed-methods designs that combine interviews with classroom observations, institutional or policy document analysis, and digital trace data (such as learning analytics or platform logs) would enable stronger triangulation and validation of findings. Comparative studies across different countries, institutional types, and professional networks— including faculty who are not part of vCoPs—could illuminate how variations in digital infrastructure, governance, and organisational culture shape faculty experiences of Education 4.0. Such extensions would help to test, refine, and extend the patterns identified in this study, moving toward a more comprehensive and contextually nuanced understanding of how higher education systems navigate the promises and tensions of Education 4.0.
Conclusion
This study illuminates the complex landscape of Education 4.0 in higher education, unraveling both promises and challenges as perceived by university faculty members. Envisioning a future where AI-driven personalized learning transforms education, participants foresee unparalleled opportunities for global collaboration and professional development. However, the study also underscores the complex nature of integrating AI, revealing concerns about transparency, ethical considerations, and the potential dehumanization of teaching. Despite these challenges, Education 4.0 emerges as a transformative force aligning curricula with industry needs and democratizing knowledge access. The findings emphasize the imperative for continuous reflection and adaptation, urging educators to navigate uncertainties, bridge digital literacy gaps, and maintain a delicate balance between AI and human-centric pedagogy. As we embrace the promises of Education 4.0, it is crucial to prioritize individualized professional development and innovative assessment methods, fostering higher-order thinking skills to meet the dynamic demands of the evolving educational landscape and prepare students for real-world challenges. Finally, the novelty of this research lies in its achievement of a dynamic balance between human pedagogy and technology within the context of Education 4.0. While the study explores the integration of AI technologies in higher education, it also highlights the ethical challenges these innovations present, including concerns about transparency, the dehumanization of education, and the preservation of the human element in learning. Additionally, the research addresses how technological transformations must be carefully managed to ensure that AI serves as an empowering tool for both teachers and students, rather than undermining human interaction and critical thinking.
Data availability statement
The datasets presented in this article are not readily available for confidentiality reasons. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to TS, dGVsY2hhbGxAcXUuZWR1LnFh.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Qatar University Institutional Review Board. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
TS: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. NG: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AA-T: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. YA: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Abdel-Karim, B. M., Pfeuffer, N., Carl, K. V., and Hinz, O. (2023). How AI-based systems can induce reflections: the case of AI-augmented diagnostic work. MIS Q. 47, 1447–1472. doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2023/17121
Abu Talib, M., Bettayeb, A. M., and Omer, R. I. (2021). Analytical study on the impact of technology in higher education during the age of COVID-19: a systematic literature review. Educ. Inf. Technol. 26, 6719–6746. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10570-8,
Adeoye-Olatunde, O. A., and Olenik, N. L. (2021). Research and scholarly methods: semi-structured interviews. J. Am. Coll. Clin. Pharm. 4, 1358–1367. doi: 10.1002/jac5.1441
Alam, A. (2022). “Employing adaptive learning and intelligent tutoring robots for virtual classrooms and smart campuses: reforming education in the age of artificial intelligence” in Advanced computing and intelligent technologies: Proceedings of ICACIT 2022. eds. S. C. Satapathy, J. K. Mandal, and V. Bhateja (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore), 395–406.
Alam, M. A. (2023). From teacher-centered to student-centered learning: the role of constructivism and connectivism in pedagogical transformation. J. Educ. 11, 12–23. doi: 10.5296/je.v11i2.19912
Al-Ani, T. (2023). “GCC’S higher education in industry 4.0: preparing lifelong learners” in Nationalization of gulf labour markets. eds. A. Mishrif, M. Karolak, and C. Mirza (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan), 27–58.
Alenezi, M. (2021). Deep dive into digital transformation in higher education institutions. Educ. Sci. 11:770. doi: 10.3390/educsci11120770
Al-Haija, Y. A., and Mahamid, H. (2021). Trends in higher education under neoliberalism: between traditional education and the culture of globalization. Educ. Res. Rev. 17, 103–108. doi: 10.5897/ERR2020.4099,
Al Husseiny, F. (2023). “Artificial intelligence in higher education: a new horizon” in Handbook of research on AI methods and applications in computer engineering. ed. M. A. Hossain (London: IGI Global), 295–315.
Al-Jammal, K., and Ghamrawi, N. (2013). Teacher professional development in Lebanese schools. Basic Res. J. Educ. Res. Rev. 2, 104–128.
Alkandari, F., Alsaber, A., Al-Kandari, A., Alboloushi, B., and AlMutairi, S. (2024). Enhancing the effectiveness of digital transformation on teaching in higher education in Kuwait. Front. Educ. 9:1417062. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1417062
Al-Mughairi, H., and Bhaskar, P. (2024). Exploring the factors affecting the adoption of AI techniques in higher education: insights from teachers’ perspectives on ChatGPT. J. Res. Innov. Teach. Learn. 17, 45–63. doi: 10.1108/JRIT-09-2023-0107
Al-Othmany, D. S., and Mahmoud, S. S. (2021). New challenges facing curricula in KSA in light of vision 2030: major objectives and curriculum design. Arch. Curr. Res. Int. 8, 1–13. doi: 10.9734/acri/2021/v21i830260
Ashour, S., El-Refae, G. A., and Zaitoun, E. A. (2021). Post-pandemic higher education: perspectives from university leaders and educational experts in the United Arab Emirates. High. Educ. Future 8, 219–238. doi: 10.1177/23476311211007261
Becker, S. A., Brown, M., Dahlstrom, E., Davis, A., DePaul, K., Diaz, V., et al. (2018). NMC horizon report: 2018 higher education edition. London: Educause.
Bhutoria, A. (2022). Personalized education and artificial intelligence in the United States, China, and India: a systematic review using a human-in-the-loop model. Comput. Educ. Artif. Int. 3:100068. doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100068,
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. High. Educ. 32, 347–364. doi: 10.1007/BF00138871
Bonfield, C. A., Salter, M., Longmuir, A., Benson, M., and Adachi, C. (2020). Transformation or evolution? Education 4.0, teaching and learning in the digital age. High. Educ. Pedagog. 5, 223–246. doi: 10.1080/23752696.2020.1816847
Brundage, M., Avin, S., Clark, J., Toner, H., Eckersley, P., Garfinkel, B., et al. (2018). The malicious use of artificial intelligence: forecasting, prevention, and mitigation. Cham: Springer. [Preprint]. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1802.07228
Chan, C. K. Y., and Tsi, L. H. (2023). The AI revolution in education: will AI replace or assist teachers in higher education? arXiv. [Preprint] doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.01185
Chasokela, D. (2025). Transformative learning theory. Exploring adult education through learning theory. London: IGI Global, 99–134.
Chassignol, M., Khoroshavin, A., Klimova, A., and Bilyatdinova, A. (2018). Artificial intelligence trends in education: a narrative overview. Procedia Comput. Sci. 136, 16–24. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.233
Dami, Z. A., and Waluwandja, P. A. (2019). Counselee satisfaction in face-to-face and cyber-counseling approaches to help cyber-bullying victims in the era of industrial revolution 4.0: a comparative analysis. Eur. J. Educ. Stud. 6, 192–210. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3255291
Dhakshan, S., Balamurugan, G., Mohan, J. S., and Tyagi, A. K. (2024). “Role of emerging technologies in education 4.0: challenges and future research directions” in Architecture and technological advancements of education 4.0 (Cham: Springer), 131–154.
Ekuma, K. J. (2023). Rethinking upskilling and reskilling in the age of AI and automation: a fsQCA approach. J. Educ. Work. 36, 445–463. doi: 10.1080/13639080.2023.2234567
Faloye, S. T., and Ajayi, N. (2022). Understanding the impact of the digital divide on south African students in higher educational institutions. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 14, 1734–1744. doi: 10.1080/20421338.2021.1955868
Fisk, P. (2017). Education 4.0: The future of learning will be dramatically different, in school and throughout life. London, NY: GeniusWorks.
Gamage, K. A. A., Silva, E. K. D., and Gunawardhana, N. (2020). Online delivery and assessment during COVID-19: safeguarding academic integrity. Educ. Sci. 10:301. doi: 10.3390/educsci10110301
Gerlach, J. P., and Cenfetelli, R. T. (2020). Constant checking is not addiction: a grounded theory of IT-mediated state-tracking. MIS Q. 44, 1859–1897. doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2020/16350
Ghamrawi, N. A. (2018). Schooling for digital citizens. Open J. Leadersh. 7, 209–224. doi: 10.4236/ojl.2018.73012
Ghamrawi, N. (2013a). Leadership styles of school principals and their multiple intelligences profiles: any relationship? Int. J. Res. Stud. Educ. 2, 37–49. doi: 10.5861/ijrse.2013.277
Ghamrawi, N. (2013b). Never underestimate the power of the sandwiched: middle leaders and school culture. Basic Res. J. Educ. Res. Rev. 2, 29–41.
Ghamrawi, N. (2022). Teachers’ virtual communities of practice: a strong response in times of crisis or just another fad? Educ. Inf. Technol. 27, 5889–5915. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10836-y,
Ghamrawi, N., and Tamim, R. (2023). A typology for digital leadership in higher education: the case of a large-scale mobile technology initiative (using tablets). Educ. Inf. Technol. 28, 7089–7110. doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-11621-2,
Ghamrawi, N., Naccache, H., and Shal, T. (2023). Teacher leadership and teacher wellbeing: any relationship? Int. J. Educ. Res. 122:102261. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102261
Ghamrawi, N., Shal, T., and Ghamrawi, N. A. (2024a). School leadership 4.0: are we ready? IoT, AI, and ICT for educational applications: Technologies to enable education for all. Berlin: Springer Nature Switzerland, [Preprint]. 173–190.
Ghamrawi, N., Shal, T., and Ghamrawi, N. A. (2024b). Leadership development in virtual communities of practice: the case of school principals from the GCC region. Educ. Inf. Technol. doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-12394-8
Ghamrawi, N., Abu-Tineh, A., Shal, T., Al-Shaboul, Y. M., and Sellami, A. (2025). Illuminating the obscure: teacher leaders confronting the adverse impact of their subject leaders/coordinators. Educ. Forum 89, 113–129. doi: 10.1080/00131725.2024.2312298
Goldin, T., Rauch, E., Pacher, C., and Woschank, M. (2022). Reference architecture for an integrated and synergetic use of digital tools in education 4.0. Procedia Comput. Sci. 200, 407–417. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2022.01.246
González-Pérez, L. I., and Ramírez-Montoya, M. S. (2022). Components of education 4.0 in 21st century skills frameworks: a systematic review. Sustainability 14:1493. doi: 10.3390/su14031493
Griffith, T. L., and Mangla, U. (2023). “Virtual collaboration: human foundations augmented by intelligent technology” in Handbook of virtual work. eds. D. Wheatley, E. Mutluturk, and R. Battisti (New York, NY: Edward Elgar Publishing), 41–66.
Jaboob, M., Hazaimeh, M., and Al-Ansi, A. M. (2024). Integration of generative AI techniques and applications in student behavior and cognitive achievement in Arab higher education. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 41, –366. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2023.2300016
Jain, V., and Jain, P. (2022). From Industry 4.0 to Education 4.0: Acceptance and use of videoconferencing applications in higher education of Oman. Appl. Res. High. Educ 14, 1079–1098. doi: 10.1108/JARHE-10-2020-0378
Jemni, M., Kammoun, F., Marrakchi, M., and Chaabouni, J. (2024). Review of Digital Transformation in Higher Education in Arab Countries In: Burgos, D., et al. Radical Solutions for Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation in Education. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-8638-1_15
Jin, Z., Goyal, S. B., and Rajawat, A. S. (2024). The informational role of artificial intelligence in higher education in the new era. Procedia Comput. Sci. 235, 1008–1023. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2024.01.089
Jones, K. A., and Ravishankar, S. (2021). Higher education 4.0: The digital transformation of classroom lectures to blended learning. Cham: Springer Nature.
Kaliraj, P., and Devi, T. (2023). Innovating higher education 4.0 in the era of Industry 4.0. In P. Kaliraj and T. Devi (Eds.), Industry 4.0 technologies for education: Transformative technologies and applications. Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach Publications. 1–10. doi: 10.1201/9781003318378-1.
Kangas, O., Koskinen, N., and Niemelä, M. (2022). The importance of education and training policies in supporting technological revolutions: a comparative and historical analysis of UK, US, Germany, and Sweden (1830–1970). Educ. Policy Anal. Arch. 30, 1–23.
Kavanagh, S., Luxton-Reilly, A., Wuensche, B., and Plimmer, B. (2017). A systematic review of virtual reality in education. Themes Sci. Technol. Educ. 10, 85–119.
Koumpouros, Y. (2024). Revealing the true potential and prospects of augmented reality in education. Smart Learn. Environ. 11:2. doi: 10.1186/s40561-023-00288-0
Labanda-Jaramillo, M., Coloma, M. D. L. A., and Michay, G. C. (2022). “Academic management in higher education 4.0 facing the challenges of industry 4.0” in In doctoral symposium on information and communication technologies. eds. K. Abad and S. Berrezueta (London: CRC Press), 57–70.
Le, D. N., Van Le, C., Tromp, J. G., and Nguyen, G. N. (2018). Emerging technologies for health and medicine: Virtual reality, augmented reality, artificial intelligence, internet of things, robotics, industry 4.0. Cham: Springer.
Maisiri, W., Darwish, H., and Van Dyk, L. (2019). An investigation of industry 4.0 skills requirements. S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 30, 90–105. doi: 10.7166/30-3-2276
Maryani, L., Nur, J., Utami, S., and Nurnaifah, I. I. (2023). Strengthening school management with digital education technology to improve the quality of educational output. Indones. J. Educ. Res. Rev. 6, 446–465. doi: 10.23887/ijerr.v6i2.66039,
Matthew, U. O., Kazaure, J. S., and Okafor, N. U. (2021). Contemporary development in e-learning education, cloud computing technology & internet of things. EAI Endorsed Trans. Cloud Syst. 7:e3. doi: 10.4108/eai.31-3-2021.169173
Meccawy, Z., Meccawy, M., and Alsobhi, A. (2021). Assessment in ‘survival mode’: student and faculty perceptions of online assessment practices in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Educ. Integr. 17, 1–24. doi: 10.1007/s40979-021-00075-4
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: theory to practice. New Dir. Adult Contin. Educ. 1997, 5–12. doi: 10.1002/ace.7401
Mian, S. H., Salah, B., Ameen, W., Moiduddin, K., and Alkhalefah, H. (2020). Adapting universities for sustainability education in industry 4.0: channels of challenges and opportunities. Sustainability 12:6100. doi: 10.3390/su12156100
Miranda, J., Navarrete, C., Noguez, J., Molina-Espinosa, J. M., Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., Navarro-Tuch, S. A., et al. (2021). The core components of education 4.0 in higher education: three case studies in engineering education. Comput. Electr. Eng. 93:107278. doi: 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2021.107278
Mishrif, A., Karolak, M., and Mirza, C. (2023). “The nexus between higher education, labour market, and industry 4.0 in the context of the Arab Gulf States” in Nationalization of gulf labour markets (Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan), 1–23.
Mohajan, D., and Mohajan, H. (2022). Exploration of coding in qualitative data analysis: grounded theory perspective. J. Educ. Pract. 13, 1–10. doi: 10.56397/RAE.2022.12.07
Mohamed Hashim, M. A., Tlemsani, I., and Matthews, R. (2021). Higher education strategy in digital transformation. Educ. Inf. Technol. 26, 1–25. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10685-4
Moll, I. (2022). Debunking the myth of the fourth industrial revolution. Technol. Soc. 68:101841. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101841
Mukul, E., and Büyüközkan, G. (2023). Digital transformation in education: A systematic review of education 4.0. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 194:122664. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122664
Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K., and Ranfagni, S. (2024). Demystification and actualisation of data saturation in qualitative research through thematic analysis. Int J Qual Methods 23:16094069241229777. doi: 10.1177/16094069241229777
Nassaji, H. (2021). Effect sizes in quantitative and qualitative research. Lang. Teach. Res. 25, 681–684. doi: 10.1177/13621688211040882
Napoleon, D., and Ramanujam, V. (2023). Education 4.0: Curriculum development for the educational framework. In P. Kaliraj & D. Thirupathi (Eds.), Industry 4.0 technologies for education: Transformative technologies and applications, Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach Publications.
O’Connor, S. (2024). Nursing students’ engagement in online learning. Br. J. Nurs. 33, 630–634. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2023.0161
Oleksiyenko, A. (2021). Online teaching and learning in higher education during COVID-19: International perspectives and experiences. Global higher education and COVID-19. Cham: Springer, 1–25.
Oliveira, K. K. S., and de Souza, R. A. C. (2022). Digital transformation towards education 4.0. Inf. Educ. [Preprint]. doi: 10.15388/infedu.2022.13
Pandey, A. (2025). “Education reimagined: emerging digital transformation in the era of education 4.0” in Innovative technologies and its applications in higher education. eds. A. Z. Sapargaliyeva, A. S. Shynybekova, and Z. Molbassynova (Cham: Springer), 25–45.
Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., Loaiza-Aguirre, M. I., Zúñiga-Ojeda, A., and Portuguez-Castro, M. (2021). Characterization of the teaching profile within the framework of education 4.0. Future Internet 13:91. doi: 10.3390/fi13040091
Rane, N., Choudhary, S., and Rane, J. (2023). Education 4.0 and 5.0: integrating artificial intelligence (AI) for personalized and adaptive learning. SSRN. [Preprint]. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4638365
Salmon, G. (2019). May the fourth be with you: creating education 4.0. J. Learn. Dev. 6, 95–115. doi: 10.56059/jl4d.v6i2.352
Scheer, A.-W. (2015). Whitepaper – Hochschule 4.0. Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281116948_Whitepaper_-_Hochschule_40 (Accessed August 15, 2024).
Shal, T., El Kibbi, I., Ghamrawi, N., and Ghamrawi, N. A. (2018a). Web 2.0—a tool for learning or socialization only? Perspectives & experiences of Lebanese school principals. Int. J. Res. Econ. Soc. Sci. 8, 315–347.
Shal, T., El Kibbi, I., Ghamrawi, N., and Ghamrawi, N. A. (2018b). Principals’ differentiated learning through social media: practices and obstacles. Int. J. Educ. Appl. Res. 8, 19–29.
Shal, T., Ghamrawi, N., and Ghamrawi, N. (2019). Mobile learning for differentiated school leadership development. J. Pedagog. Sociol. Psychol. 1, 88–103.
Shal, T., Ghamrawi, N., and Ghamrawi, N. A. (2024a). Webinars for teacher professional development: perceptions of members of a virtual professional community of practice. Open Learning J. Open Distance e-Learning 40, 91–107. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2023.2296645,
Shal, T., Ghamrawi, N., and Naccache, H. (2024b). Leadership styles and AI acceptance in academic libraries in higher education. J. Acad. Librariansh. 50:102849. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2024.102849
Shal, T., Ghamrawi, N., Abu-Tineh, A., Al-Shaboul, Y. M., and Sellami, A. (2024c). Teacher leadership and virtual communities: unpacking teacher agency and distributed leadership. Educ. Inf. Technol. 29, 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-12446-5,
Sun, T. Y., and Yoon, M. (2025). The impact of digital transformation on faculty performance in higher education: the mediating role of digital self-efficacy and the moderating role of task-technology fit. Front. Psychol. 16:1693375. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1693375,
Tapalova, O., and Zhiyenbayeva, N. (2022). Artificial intelligence in education: AIEd for personalised learning pathways. Electron. J. E-Learn. 20, 639–653. doi: 10.34190/ejel.20.5.2597
Thaha Abdullateef, S. (2021). Remote learning: fostering learning of 21st century skills through digital learning tools. AWEJ Spec. Issue CALL 7, 190–201. doi: 10.24093/awej/call7.14
Venkatesh, V., Croteau, A. M., and Rabah, J. (2014). “Perceptions of effectiveness of instructional uses of technology in higher education in an era of web 2.0,” in 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 110–119. IEEE.
Vollstedt, M., and Rezat, S. (2019). An introduction to grounded theory with a special focus on axial coding and the coding paradigm. Compendium Early Career Res. Mathematics Educ. 13, 81–100. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-15636-7_4,
Voon, X. P., Wong, S. L., Wong, L. H., Khambari, M. N. M., and Abdullah, S. I. S. S. (2022). Developing computational thinking competencies through constructivist argumentation learning: a problem-solving perspective. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 12, 293–301. doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2022.12.6.1683
Wallner, T., and Wagner, G. (2016). Academic education 4.0. In international conference on education and new developments 2016. New York, NY: IATED Academy, 155–159.
Wang, C., Mirzaei, T., Xu, T., and Lin, H. (2022). How learner engagement impacts non-formal online learning outcomes through value co-creation: an empirical analysis. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 19, 1–26. doi: 10.1186/s41239-022-00358-0
Wang, S., Yu, H., Hu, X., and Li, J. (2020). Participant or spectator? Comprehending the willingness of faculty to use intelligent tutoring systems in the artificial intelligence era. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 51, 1657–1673. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12957
Wolff, B., Mahoney, F., Lohiniva, A. L., and Corkum, M. (2019). Collecting and analyzing qualitative data. The CDC field epidemiology manual. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 213–228.
Xie, X., Siau, K., and Nah, F. F. H. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic—online education in the new normal and the next normal. J. Inf. Technol. Case Appl. Res. 22, 175–187. doi: 10.1080/15228053.2020.1824885
Keywords: Higher Education 4.0, artificial intelligence, educational innovation, faculty perceptions, transformative higher education
Citation: Shal T, Ghamrawi N, Abu-Tineh A and Alshaboul Y (2026) Higher Education 4.0: capturing the voices of faculty members. Front. Educ. 10:1626340. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1626340
Edited by:
Walter Alexander Mata López, University of Colima, MexicoReviewed by:
Katerina Kedraka, Democritus University of Thrace, GreeceShafinah Kamarudin, Putra Malaysia University, Malaysia
Verónica Aguilar Esteva, Universidad del Istmo, Mexico
Copyright © 2026 Shal, Ghamrawi, Abu-Tineh and Alshaboul. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Tarek Shal, dGVsY2hhbGxAcXUuZWR1LnFh