Journal of Culture and Values in Education https://cultureandvalues.org E-ISSN: 2590-342X Volume: 6 Issue: 2 2023 pp. 158-171 Language Education and Artificial Intelligence: An Exploration of Challenges Confronting Academics in Global South Universities Sive Makelenia, Bonginkosi Hardy Mutongoza*a, & Manthekeleng Agnes Linakea * Corresponding author: Email: bmutongoza@ufh.ac.za a. Faculty of Education, University of Fort Hare, East London, South Africa. Article Info Received: March 21, 2023 Accepted: June 2, 2023 Published: July 5, 2023 How to cite Makeleni, S., Mutongoza, B. H., & Linake, M. A. (2023). Language education and artificial intelligence: An exploration of challenges confronting academics in global South universities. Journal of Culture and Values in Education, 6(2), 158-171. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcve.2023.14 Copyright license This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. ABSTRACT While the global South universities have made significant strides in adopting digital technologies, there remain huge gaps, particularly when it comes to the acceptance of artificial intelligence (AI) in institutions of higher learning. As such, this study sought to explore global South academics’ reported AI-related challenges in the language education domain from published literature. To achieve this, the researchers employed a literature review methodology which entailed meticulous searches for published literature using key words. The challenges reported in literature revealed four broad challenges namely limited language options, academic dishonesty, biases and lack of accountability, and laziness among students and lecturers. Based on these findings, the study recommended that there be an urgent prioritisation of the development of AI-based language education tools that are specifically tailored to the needs and contexts of learners in the global South. The study also recommended the development of accessible and affordable AI- based language education tools, that will promote the development of digital literacy skills among educators and learners in the global South. KEYWORDS Artificial intelligence (AI); assessment; global South; language; learning; teaching. 10.46303/jcve.2023.14 mailto:bmutongoza@ufh.ac.za https://doi.org/10.46303/jcve.2023.14 159 JCVE 2023, 6(2): 158-171 INTRODUCTION While some African countries have made significant progress in adopting new digital technologies, there remain pertinent challenges that need to be addressed urgently if Africa is to reap the rewards promised by the fourth industrial revolution (4IR) (Ayanwale, 2023; Mkansi & Landman, 2021; Ostrowick, 2021). Studies conducted in this regard reveal that Africa remains the perennial weakling that continues to lag in the adoption of new technologies, scoring a paltry 3.3 out of 7, against a global average of 4.1 out of 7 in terms of technological readiness (Ayentimi & Burgess, 2019; Vashchenko et al., 2018). Nonetheless, there is a need to acknowledge the various systemic and endemic challenges that continue to stifle Africa’s (and indeed other developing countries’) adaptation to current trends in technological advancement (Kayembe & Nel, 2019; Mhlanga et al., 2021; Mkansi & Landman, 2021). Regrettably, the realities of globalisation have revealed that the problems of rapid technological advancement affect all contexts, more particularly the developing nations that are often reported to have a dearth of policies and resources that regulate use of these technologies (Lubinga et al., 2023; Ndung’u & Signé, 2020). In this study, ‘global South’ is used to refer to less industrially developed countries, generally located below the equator, and mainly in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, while ‘global North’ refers to the more developed countries that are in North America, Europe and Australia/New Zealand (Parnell, 2016). One such facet has been the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) into learning systems. AI is a computer science field that focuses on the development of non-human technologies that can perform tasks that have been traditionally known to require human intelligence such as decision-making, perception, and problem-solving (Mintz & Brodie, 2019; Zhang & Lu, 2021). Proponents of AI argue that using AI in language education offers numerous benefits that outweigh any potential or perceived costs. Firstly, some advocates contend that AI-powered language education tools can provide personalized learning paths, real-time feedback, gamification, and increased accessibility (Nazaretsky et al., 2022; Pokrivčáková, 2019; Ruan, et al., 2021). Since these tools can be used anywhere and anytime, they make language learning more accessible to learners who may not have access to traditional language classes (Chou et al., 2022; Fitria, 2021; Guilherme, 2019). Additionally, AI-powered language education tools can be less expensive than traditional language classes, saving students and educators lots of money (Pokrivčáková, 2019). In other contexts, AI has also been praised for saving time for educators by automating grading and assessment as became more evident during the COVID- 19 pandemic (Başar & Şahin, 2021; Yang & Kyun, 2022). Finally, AI-powered language education tools provide data-driven insights into learners' progress and areas for improvement, optimizing the learning process for both teachers and learners (Kholis, 2021; Marais, 2021; Zou et al., 2023). Unlike humans, AI systems are built to process large quantities of data, learn from patterns, and make predictions based on such data – this usually happens through techniques such as machine learning, natural language processing, and robotics (Guilherme, 2019; Holmes & Tuomi, 2022). AI has challenges, and this has led to technophobia among some academics. 160 JCVE 2023, 6(2): 158-171 Some of the principal concerns raised in some quarters include ethical and social concerns such as job displacements, biases, issues of privacy, and accountability among others (Berendt et al., 2020; Furey & Martin, 2019; Hamakali & Josua, 2023; Kim et al., 2022; Rudolph et al., 2023). While the benefits of AI in language education have been widely published globally, there are limited resources when it comes to how the global South is being negatively affected by the adoption of AI in education in general, and language education specifically. The purpose of this study was to investigate the difficulties that academics in the developing world encounter when incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) in language education. METHODOLOGY This study used the literature review methodology the framework, which involved analysing and synthesising existing peer-reviewed publications (Belur et al., 2021; Synder, 2019). To conduct this review, the researchers first defined the research question and set the scope of the study, as described by Templier and Paré (2015). The researchers investigated the challenges faced by academics in the global South in relation to the adoption and use AI in language education. According to Gough et al. (2017), the second step in a literature review is to identify identified relevant sources of information and collect data using appropriate search strategies. In this study, the researchers searched Google Scholar articles using the keywords (artificial intelligence, assessment, language, learning, teaching) and limited the search to the most recent 100 articles from global South contexts published between 2017 and 2023. Next, the researchers assessed the quality, relevance and reliability of the data collected, taking care to exclude publications from known predatory publishers. To uphold quality, the researchers only considered studies that were well-designed, used appropriate data collection and analysis methodologies, and had been conducted with high levels of rigour. Relevance was assessed in line with the studies’ ability to address the specific objective of the present study. On the other hand, reliability was upheld by considering the consistency of the findings with other studies. The researchers ended up with 53 articles that were utilised in this study. As prescribed by Paré and Kitsiou (2017), the researchers began the analysis process by organising and summarising the data, identifying patterns and trends, and drawing conclusions from the findings. Table 1 below represents an overview of the distribution of some of the literature that was utilised in this study. 161 JCVE 2023, 6(2): 158-171 Table 1 A snapshot of the literature distribution Theme Articles Setting of study Language problems Mackenzie (2022) Phiri (2022) Tshabangu & Salawu (2022) Brandt & Lageman (2022) Ngouo (2022) Zaugg et al. (2022) Onyenankeya (2022) Sharma et al. (2022) Colombia Zimbabwe Africa Turkey Cameroon Ethiopia & Eritrea Africa Developing countries Academic integrity Mutongoza (2021) Surahman & Wang (2022) Mutongoza & Olawale (2022) Sharma et al. (2022) Mphahlele & McKenna Afram et al (2022) Ismail & Jabri (2023) Okolo et al. (2023) Ngouo (2022) South Africa Taiwan Botswana, South Africa & Zimbabwe Developing countries South Africa Ghana & Ivory Coast Indonesia Africa Cameroon Bias and accountability Gupta & Krishnan (2020) Lee et al. (2020) Choi (2022) Kholis (2021) Mphahlele & McKenna (2019) Omari et al. (2022) Tehzeeb & Raza (2022) Vashchenko et al. (2018) India Republic of Korea Republic of Korea Indonesia South Africa Ghana Pakistan Switzerland, Ukraine, South Africa Laziness Tehzeeb & Raza (2022) Yalçin-Incik & Incik (2022) Omari et al., 2022 Wiratman & Rahmadani (2022) Yazici et al. (2023) Aziz & Silfiani (2020) Lubinga et al (2023) Pakistan Turkey Ghana Indonesia Turkey Indonesia South Africa 162 JCVE 2023, 6(2): 158-171 RESULTS and DISCUSSION The findings of this study revealed four broad categories of challenges faced by academics namely the limited language options in AI-powered systems, academic dishonesty, biases and lack of accountability, and issues of laziness. In the following subheadings, the study explores these challenges as presented in line with the literature. Limited language options Despite the positive advancements that were brought by the introduction of AI, many AI systems are developed primarily in English or other widely spoken languages to the detriment of the AI systems based on the languages spoken in the global South, (Mackenzie, 2022; Phiri, 2022; Tshabangu & Salawu, 2022). The lingua franca of business, academia, and technology are English, Chinese, Spanish, and French, and have a large user base and thus a larger market potential for AI developers (Brandt & Lagemann, 2022; Ngouo, 2022). The cumulative effect of this is that this prioritisation of the most-spoken languages makes it difficult for people in the Global South to access digital tools and services in their own language, which in turn impacts language education (Liang, et al., 2022; Zaugg et al., 2022). Language education in the global South has been reported to face multiple challenges related to resources, infrastructure, and funding, thus AI systems with limited language options can further exacerbate these challenges, making it harder for educators and students to access high-quality language learning materials (Onyenankeya, 2022; Taylor & Kochem, 2022). One must however note the advances that have been made concerning language options for the global South. Although slow-paced, there is growing recognition of the importance of developing AI systems for languages other than English, particularly for languages that are less widely spoken (Nemorin et al., 2023; Sharma et al., 2022). This is critical to ensure that students and lecturers benefit from the potential of AI technologies regardless of their languages being marginalised. The researchers recognise the various efforts being made to develop AI systems that can understand and generate text and speech in a variety of languages, and there has been progress in this area in recent years (Kim et al., 2022; Nemorin et al., 2023). Nonetheless, much more work needs to be done to ensure that AI systems are accessible and effective for speakers of all languages. Academic dishonesty on steroids Academics in the global South have argued that AI has led to the proliferation of automated cheating. With the rise of online learning and remote assessment practices, students have been known to use AI-powered tools to cheat in assignments and examinations (Mutongoza, 2021; Surahman & Wang, 2022). Students have been known to use AI-powered essay-writing tools that can generate essays that are indistinguishable from those written by humans, and some of these AI-powered tools have been known to fool plagiarism detectors by text-spinning tools that reword sentences to avoid detection (Cotton et al., 2023; Mutongoza & Olawale, 2022). Students have thus been known to complete high-quality assessments without putting any significant effort – in this regard, language lecturers sometimes witness work submissions that 163 JCVE 2023, 6(2): 158-171 contain errors from AI-software-generated tools (Rudolph et al., 2023; Sharma et al., 2022). Moreover, while these AI tools have improved significantly in recent years, they are not always accurate and can produce awkward or nonsensical translations (Afram et al., 2022). In these cases, language students in developing contexts sometimes use AI to cheat by using machine translation tools to translate their assignments from their native language to the target language (Klimova et al., 2023; Shiri, 2023; Straume & Anson, 2022). Unlike their counterparts in the developed contexts who can access AI-detection software, language academics in the global South have been known to lag in access owing to various reasons (Okolo et al., 2023). Many universities and research institutions in the global South have limited funding and resources, which can make it difficult to invest in expensive AI-detection technologies (Ismail & Jabri, 2023; Wylde et al., 2023). Equally instructional is the argument that AI technology is typically developed and trained using datasets in English, Mandarin, or other widely spoken languages (Ngouo, 2022; Zaugg et al., 2022). It is essential to emphasise that many African languages are not well-represented in AI datasets, and this has the potential to limit the accuracy and effectiveness of AI-detection software for African academics teaching indigenous languages (Mphahlele & McKenna, 2019; Mutongoza & Olawale, 2022). Biases and lack of accountability It is also argued that academics in the global South lament how AI biases significantly impact language education in various ways. These biases can occur through the training data used to develop AI-powered systems (Luengo-Oroz et al., 2021; Tehzeeb & Raza, 2022). While the researchers do not seek to make it appear as though there were no biases in language educators, we contemplate a principal concern raised by AI sceptics who argue that, unlike erstwhile human biases that were localised to limited geographical locations, the impact of AI biases spread more easily because of globalisation (Gupta & Krishnan, 2020; Kholis, 2021). According to Currie and Rohen (2022), this bias manifests as a result of a lack of diversity in teams that design and develop AI tools. We hasten to argue that because the global South continues to be underrepresented, indigenous languages spoken in these territories are not adequately represented. The result is usually that there is increased difficulty in recognizing or generating language patterns that are associated with non-standard varieties of a language or with non-native speakers (Gallacher et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2020; Vashchenko et al., 2022). This has grave repercussions when it comes to the use of AI systems for language proficiency assessments as this can lead to biases in evaluation, as certain systems may unfairly penalize students who use non-standard language varieties (Lawrence, 2023; Mphahlele & McKenna, 2019). Additionally, a lack of transparency and limited oversight can lead to unethical or inappropriate use of these technologies in language learning, which can negatively impact student learning outcomes (Omari et al., 2022; Silva et al., 2022; Winke & Isbell, 2017). As such, without accountability, there may be no recourse for educators or students if something goes wrong with these technologies, which can lead to dissatisfaction and frustration. 164 JCVE 2023, 6(2): 158-171 Classrooms on autopilot: Issues of laziness While AI-powered technologies have many benefits, they have been blamed for leading to laziness among students and lecturers. It is argued that AI-powered technologies make tasks easier and eliminate the need for students and lecturers to put in the same level of effort they would have had to previously (Tehzeeb & Raza, 2022; Yalçin-Incik & Incik, 2022). Through their ability to do things such as automatically grading exams, there is a general sentiment that AI tools leave lecturers with less work to do in comparison to other traditional tools (Omari et al., 2022; Wiratman & Rahmadani, 2022). On the other hand, students have also been known to generate essays, making it easier for them to produce work without putting in much effort (Cotton et al., 2023; Yazici et al., 2023). In the same breath, students and lecturers who over- rely on AI tools sometimes become too dependent on AI-powered technologies and may find it challenging to do things manually (Lubinga et al., 2023; Rudolph et al., 2023). Over-reliance can lead to a lack of critical thinking and problem-solving skills, which are essential for academic success, and restricts students’ and lecturers’ development of important skills that are critical for educational development (Mikalef et al., 2022; Stoica, 2022). One must also note that while AI-powered technologies are designed to make tasks more efficient, they are not designed to be creative (Omari et al., 2022), thus, students and lecturers who rely solely on these tools may fail to develop their creativity, which is an essential aspect of learning (Sharma et al., 2022). Because AI technologies can only perform specific tasks that they are programmed to do, their scope is sometimes limited, and this can lead to a lack of diversity in the types of assignments and projects that students and lecturers undertake (Aziz & Silfiani, 2020; Gallacher et al., 2021). As such, those who overly rely on AI-powered tools may not explore different approaches to problem-solving or develop innovative ideas. CONCLUSION: A Way Forward for Academics in the Global South The researchers do not claim that this study is comprehensive and gives the full picture of the challenges faced by academics in the global South in relation to AI and language education, however, the study offers a glimpse into the current state of technology adoption in this domain. Although the use of AI in language education has the potential to revolutionize the way we learn and teach languages, its implementation in the global South faces unique challenges that must be addressed to ensure that its benefits are widely accessible. The researchers are convinced that there is an urgent need to prioritize the development of AI-based language education tools that are specifically tailored to the needs and contexts of learners in the global South. This must involve working with local experts and educators to identify the linguistic and cultural characteristics of learners in the developing world to design AI tools that take these factors into account. The researchers further advocate for accessible AI-based language education tools that are equitable and affordable. This may involve partnering with governments, non-governmental organisations, and private sector organizations to provide funding and resources to universities and students in underserved global South education communities. Additionally, it is vital to promote the development of digital literacy skills among educators and learners in the global 165 JCVE 2023, 6(2): 158-171 South. This can include providing training and support for teachers to effectively integrate AI- based language education tools into their teaching practices, as well as developing programs to help learners develop the skills needed to effectively use these tools. Finally, it will be important to continuously evaluate the effectiveness and impact of AI-based language education tools in the global South. To achieve this, stakeholders will need to be involved in conducting research and evaluations to assess their effectiveness in improving language learning outcomes, as well as identifying any potential risks or unintended consequences that may arise. REFERENCES Afram, G. K., Benjamin, A. W., & Adebayo, A. F. (2022). Twieng: A multi-domain Twi-English parallel corpus for machine translation of the Twi language, A low-resource African language. Journal of Mathematical Techniques & Computational Mathematics, 1(1), 48- 57. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202203.0303.v1 Ayanwale, M. (2023). Can Experience Determine the Adoption of Industrial Revolution 4.0 Skills in 21st Century Mathematics Education?. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 8(1), 74-91. https://doi.org/10.46303/ressat.2023.6 Ayentimi, D., & Burgess, J. (2019). Is the fourth industrial revolution relevant to sub-Sahara Africa? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31(6), 641-652. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2018.1542129 Aziz, Z. A., & Silfiani, F. M. (2020). Plagiarism among junior lecturers in Indonesia: How and why? Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 8(3), 86-94. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.8310 Başar, T., & Şahin, L. (2021). Technology integration in teaching English as a foreign language: A content analysis study. Journal of Educational Technology & Online Learning, 5(1), 204-222. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.972577 Belur, J., Tompson, L., Thornton, A., & Simon, M. (2021). Interrater reliability in systemic review methodology: Exploring variation in coder decision-making. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 837-865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799372 Berendt, B., Littlejohn, A., & Blakemore, M. (2020). AI in education: learner choice and fundamental rights. Learning, Media & Technology, 45(3), 312-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1786399 Brandt, H., & Lagemann, M. (2022). Language Demands of the Labour Market: A Predictor of Students’ Investments into Multilingual Skills? In H. Brandt, M. Krause, & I. Usanova, Language Development in Diverse Settings (pp. 133-165). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-35650-7_5 Choi, L. J. (2022). Interrogating structural bias in language technology: Focusing on the case of voice chatbots in South Korea. Sustainability, 14(20), 13177. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013177 https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202203.0303.v1 https://doi.org/10.46303/ressat.2023.6 https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2018.1542129 https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.8310 https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.972577 https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799372 https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1786399 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-35650-7_5 https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013177 166 JCVE 2023, 6(2): 158-171 Chou, C. M., Shen, T. C., Shen, T. C., & Shen, C. H. (2022). Influencing factors on students’ learning effectiveness of AI-based technology application: Mediation variable of the human-computer interaction experience. Education & Information Technologies, 27(6), 8723-8750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10866-9 Cotton, D. R., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2023). Chatting and Cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 Currie, G., & Rohen, E. (2022). Social asymmetry, artificial intelligence and the medical imaging landscape. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, 52(4), 498-503. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2021.11.011 Fitria, T. N. (2021). Grammarly as AI-powered English writing assistant: Students’ alternative for writing English. Metathesis: Journal of English Language, Literature, & Teaching, 5(1), 65-78. https://doi.org/10.31002/metathesis.v5i1.3519 Furey, H., & Martin, F. (2019). AI education matters: a modular approach to AI ethics education. AI Matters, 4(4), 13-15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3299758.3299764 Gallacher, A., Thompson, A., & Howarth, M. (2021). "My robot is an idiot!" - Students' perceptions of AI in the L2 classroom. In P. Taalas, J. Jalkanen, L. Bradley, & S. Thouësny, Future-Proof CALL: Language Learning as Exploration and Encounters: Short Papers from EUROCALL (pp. 70-76). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2018.26.815 Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews (Vol. 2). Sage. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsptr.2017.23.2.95 Guilherme, A. (2019). AI and education: the importance of teacher and student relations. AI & Society, 34, 47-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0693-8 Gupta, D., & Krishnan, T. S. (2020). Algorithmic bias: Why bother. California Management Review, 63(3), 1-7. Hamakali, H., & Josua, L. (2023). Engendering Technology-Assisted Pedagogy for Effective Instructional Strategy in the University of Namibia Language Centre. Research in Educational Policy and Management, 5(1), 18-32. https://doi.org/10.46303/repam.2023.3 Holmes, W., & Tuomi, I. (2022). State of the art and practice in AI in education. European Journal of Education, 57(4), 542-570. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12533 Ismail, I., & Jabri, U. (2023). Academic integrity: Preventing students’ plagiarism with Turnitin. Edumaspul: Jurnal Pendidikan, 7(1), 28-38. https://doi.org/10.33487/edumaspul.v7i1.5392 Kayembe, C., & Nel, D. (2019). Challenges and opportunities for education in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. African Journal of Public Affairs, 11(3), 79-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10866-9 https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2021.11.011 https://doi.org/10.31002/metathesis.v5i1.3519 https://doi.org/10.1145/3299758.3299764 https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2018.26.815 https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsptr.2017.23.2.95 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0693-8 https://doi.org/10.46303/repam.2023.3 https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12533 https://doi.org/10.33487/edumaspul.v7i1.5392 167 JCVE 2023, 6(2): 158-171 Kholis, A. (2021). Elsa speak app: automatic speech recognition (ASR) for supplementing English pronunciation skills. Pedagogy: Journal of English Language Teaching, 9(1), 1- 14. https://doi.org/10.32332/joelt.v9i1.2723 Kim, H., Yang, H., Shin, D., & Lee, J. H. (2022). Design principles and architecture of a second language learning chatbot. Language Learning & Technology, 26(1), 1-18. Kim, J., Lee, H., & Cho, Y. H. (2022). Learning design to support student-AI collaboration: Perspectives of leading teachers for AI in education. Education & Information Technologies, 27(5), 6069-6104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10831-6 Klimova, B., Pikhart, M., Benites, A. D., Lehr, C., & Sanchez-Stockhammer, C. (2023). Neural machine translation in foreign language teaching and learning: a systematic review. Education & Information Technologies, 28(1), 663-682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11194-2 Lawrence, C. D. (2023). Hidden in white sight: How AI empowers and deepens systemic racism. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003368755 Lee, J. H., Yang, H., Shin, D., & Kim, H. (2020). Chatbots. ELT Journal, 74(3), 338-344. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccaa035 Liang, W., Tadesse, G. A., Ho, D., Fei-Fei, L., Zaharia, M., Zhang, C., & Zou, J. (2022). Advances, challenges and opportunities in creating data for trustworthy AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 4(8), 669-677. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-022-00516-1 Lubinga, S., Maramura, T. C., & Masiya, T. (2023). The fourth industrial revolution adoption: Challenges in South African higher education institutions. Journal of Culture & Values in Education, 6(2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcve.2023.5 Luengo-Oroz, M., Bullock, J., Pham, K. H., Lam, C. S., & Luccioni, A. (2021). From artificial intelligence bias to inequality in the time of COVID-19. IEEE Technology & Society Magazine, 40(1), 71-79. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2021.3056282 Mackenzie, L. (2022). Linguistic imperialism, English, and development: implications for Colombia. Current Issues in Language Planning, 23(2), 137-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2021.1939977 Marais, E. (2021). A journey through digital storytelling during COVID-19 Students preparedness to use technology for learning in the language classroom. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 6(2), 169-182. https://doi.org/10.46303/ressat.2021.17 Mhlanga, D., Ndhlovu, E., & Hofisi, C. (2021). Assessment of the 4IR challenges of radical innovation in service delivery in Africa. Journal of Public Administration, 56(4.1), 1002- 1017. Mikalef, P., Conboy, K., Lundström, J. E., & Popovič, A. (2022). Thinking responsibly about responsible AI and the 'dark side' of AI. European Journal of Information Systems, 31(3), 257-268. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2022.2026621 https://doi.org/10.32332/joelt.v9i1.2723 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10831-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11194-2 https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003368755 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccaa035 https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-022-00516-1 https://doi.org/10.46303/jcve.2023.5 https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2021.3056282 https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2021.1939977 https://doi.org/10.46303/ressat.2021.17 https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2022.2026621 168 JCVE 2023, 6(2): 158-171 Mintz, Y., & Brodie, R. (2019). Introduction to artificial intelligence in medicine. Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies, 28(2), 73-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2019.1575882 Mkansi, M., & Landman, N. (2021). The future of work in Africa in the era of 4IR–The South African perspective. African Journal of Management, 7(Sup1), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322373.2021.1930750 Mphahlele, A., & McKenna, S. (2019). The use of turnitin in the higher education sector: Decoding the myth. Assessment & Evaluation in HIgher Education, 44(7), 1079-1089. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1573971 Mutongoza, B. H. (2021). Impetuses for cheating in COVID-19-induced online assessments at a rural university in South Africa. 4th International Conference on Advanced Research in Social Sciences (pp. 29-40). Oxford: Diamond Publishing. Mutongoza, B. H., & Olawale, B. E. (2022). Safeguarding academic integrity in the face of emergency remote teaching and learning in developing countries. Perspectives in Education, 40(1), 234-249. https://doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v40.i1.14 Nazaretsky, T., Ariely, M., Cukurova, M., & Alexandron, G. (2022). Teachers' trust in AI‐ powered educational technology and a professional development program to improve it. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(4), 914-931. Ndung’u, N., & Signé, L. (2020). The fourth industrial revolution and digitalization will transform Africa into a global powerhouse. Foresight Africa. Nemorin, S., Vlachidis, A., Ayerakwa, H. M., & Andriotis, P. (2023). AI hyped? A horizon scan of discourse on artificial intelligence in education (AIED) and development. Learning, Media and Technology, 48(1), 38-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2022.2095568 Ngouo, H. R. (2022). Evaluating the pertinence of foreign languages (German, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Italian) in Cameroon’s education curriculum: needs for reform of the curriculum and language in education policy. Journal of the Cameroon Academy of Sciences, 18(1), 361-388. https://doi.org/10.4314/jcas.v18i1.6 Okolo, C. T., Aruleba, K., & Obaido, G. (2023). Responsible AI in Africa—Challenges and opportunities. In D. O. Eke, K. Wakunuma, & S. Akintoye, Responsible AI in Africa (pp. 35-64). Pelgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08215-3_3 Omari, E. B., Salifu Yendork, J., & Ankrah, E. (2022). University students’ perspectives on the benefits and challenges of emergency remote teaching during the Covid-19 pandemic in Ghana. Education & Information Technologies, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639- 022-11401-0 Onyenankeya, K. (2022). Indigenous language newspapers and the digital media conundrum in Africa. Information Development, 38(1), 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666920983403 https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2019.1575882 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322373.2021.1930750 https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1573971 https://doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v40.i1.14 https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2022.2095568 https://doi.org/10.4314/jcas.v18i1.6 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08215-3_3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11401-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11401-0 https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666920983403 169 JCVE 2023, 6(2): 158-171 Ostrowick, J. (2021). Moral risks and government policy in South Africa in the context of 4IR. South African Journal of Philosophy, 40(2), 195-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/02580136.2021.1921933 Paré, G., & Kitsiou, S. (2017). Methods for literature reviews. In F. Lau, & C. Kuziemsky, Handbook of ehealth evaluation: An evidence-based approach (internet) (pp. 157-180). University of Victoria. Parnell, S. (2016). Defining a global urban development agenda. World Development, 78, 529- 540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.028 Phiri, A. M. (2022). Experiences and challenges in pioneering the teaching and learning of formerly marginalised indigenous languages: The case of Nambya at the Great Zimbabwe University. Journal of African Languages & Literary Studies, 3(1), 75-100. https://doi.org/10.31920/2633-2116/2022/v3n1a4 Pokrivčáková, S. (2019). Preparing teachers for the application of AI-powered technologies in foreign language education. Journal of Language & Cultural Education, 7(3), 135-153. https://doi.org/10.2478/jolace-2019-0025 Ruan, S., Jiang, L., Xu, Q., Liu, Z., Davis, G. M., Brunskill, E., & Landay, J. A. (2021). Englishbot: An AI-powered conversational system for second language learning. 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 434-444). ACM Digital Library. https://doi.org/10.1145/3397481.3450648 Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 Sharma, H., Soetan, T., Farinloye, T., Mogaji, E., & Noite, M. D. (2022). AI adoption in universities in emerging economies: Prospects, challenges and recommendations. In E. Mogaji, V. Jain, F. Maringe, & R. E. Hinson, Re-imagining Educational Futures in Developing Countries: Lessons from Global Health Crises (pp. 159-174). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88234-1_9 Shiri, A. (2023). ChatGPT and academic integrity. Information Matters, 3(2), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4360052 Silva, S., Fernandes, J., Peres, P., Lima, V., & Silva, C. (2022). Teachers' perceptions of remote learning during the pandemic: A case study. Education Sciences, 12(10), 698. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100698 Stoica, E. (2022). A student's take on challenges of AI-driven grading in higher education. Unpublished Bachelor's thesis, University of Twente. Straume, I., & Anson, C. (2022). Amazement and trepidation: Implications of AI-based natural language production for the teaching of writing. Journal of Academic Writing, 12(1), 1- 9. https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v12i1.820 https://doi.org/10.1080/02580136.2021.1921933 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.028 https://doi.org/10.31920/2633-2116/2022/v3n1a4 https://doi.org/10.2478/jolace-2019-0025 https://doi.org/10.1145/3397481.3450648 https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88234-1_9 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4360052 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100698 https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v12i1.820 170 JCVE 2023, 6(2): 158-171 Surahman, E., & Wang, T. H. (2022). Academic dishonesty and trustworthy assessment in online learning: A systematic literature review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(6), 1535-1553. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12708 Synder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039 Taylor, J., & Kochem, T. (2022). Access and empowerment in digital language learning, maintenance, and revival: a critical literature review. Diaspora, Indigenous, & Minority Education, 16(4), 234-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/15595692.2020.1765769 Tehzeeb, N., & Raza, A. (2022). Understanding social and ethical implications of artificial intelligence. Pakistan Journal of Social Research, 4(4), 708-716. Templier, M., & Paré, G. (2015). A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(6), 112-137. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03706 Tshabangu, T., & Salawu, A. (2022). Indigenous-language media research in Africa: Gains, losses, towards a new research agenda. African Journalism Studies, 43(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/23743670.2021.1998787 Vashchenko, M., Taraniuk, L., Danko, Y., & Taraniuk, K. (2018). Assessment of the technological readiness of the countries of the world for the radical innovations. Marketing & Management of Innovations, 4, 86-97. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2018.4-08 Winke, P. M., & Isbell, D. R. (2017). Computer-assisted language assessment. In S. L. Thorne, & S. May, Language, Education and Technology (pp. 313-326). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02237-6_25 Wiratman, A., & Rahmadani, E. (2022). The COVID-19 pandemic and online learning: Challenges for university students. ETDC: Indonesian Journal of Research and Educational Review, 1(3), 316-325. Wylde, V., Prakash, E., Hewage, C., & Platts, J. (2023). Ethical challenges in the use of digital technologies: AI and big data. In R. Montasari, V. Carpenter, & A. J. Masys, Digital transformation in policing: The promise, perils and solutions. Advanced sciences and technologies for security applications (pp. 33-58). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09691-4_3 Yalçin-Incik, E., & Incik, T. (2022). Generation Z students' views on technology in education: What they want what they get. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 109-124. https://doi.org/10.52380/mojet.2022.10.2.275 Yang, H., & Kyun, S. (2022). The current research trend of artificial intelligence in language learning: A systematic empirical literature review from an activity theory perspective. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 180-210. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7492 https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12708 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039 https://doi.org/10.1080/15595692.2020.1765769 https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03706 https://doi.org/10.1080/23743670.2021.1998787 https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2018.4-08 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02237-6_25 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09691-4_3 https://doi.org/10.52380/mojet.2022.10.2.275 https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7492 171 JCVE 2023, 6(2): 158-171 Yazici, S., Yildiz Durak, H., Aksu Dünya, B., & Şentürk, B. (2023). Online versus face‐to‐face cheating: The prevalence of cheating behaviours during the pandemic compared to the pre‐pandemic among Turkish University students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(1), 231-254. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12743 Zaugg, I. A., Hossain, A., & Molloy, B. (2022). Digitally-disadvantaged languages. Internet Policy Review, 11(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.14763/2022.2.1654 Zhang, C., & Lu, Y. (2021). Study on artificial intelligence: The state of the art and future prospects. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 23, 100224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2021.100224 Zou, B., Guan, X., Shao, Y., & Chen, P. (2023). Supporting speaking practice by social network- based interaction in artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted language learning. Sustainability, 15(4), 2872. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042872 https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12743 https://doi.org/10.14763/2022.2.1654 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2021.100224 https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042872