Faculty Readiness for AI-Supported Teaching and Scalable Online Program Delivery in Higher Education: The EPIQ-AI Framework for Epistemic Integrity

Background: Higher education institutions are expanding online delivery and integrating generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), yet faculty readiness remains uneven, raising concerns about assessment validity, academic integrity, institutional legitimacy, and the quality of scalable online provision.

Objective: This study develops the EPIQ-AI Readiness Framework, a multidimensional model that defines readiness for AI-supported teaching and online higher education across four aligned domains: epistemic, pedagogical, institutional, and quality-and-compliance readiness.

Methods: Using an integrative secondary evidence synthesis, the study triangulates recent official statistics, large-scale faculty and institutional surveys, peer-reviewed studies, and policy frameworks published between 2020 and 2025. The analysis is organized across four readiness domains: epistemic, pedagogical, institutional, and quality-and-compliance readiness.

Results: The evidence converges on four main findings. First, faculty adoption of AI is increasingly widespread, but confidence, pedagogical clarity, and depth of use remain limited. Second, institutional ambitions for online scale and AI integration are advancing faster than policy maturity, professional development, and support capacity. Third, assessment has become the central pressure point, with growing evidence that detection-centered academic integrity regimes are unreliable, potentially biased, and insufficient for high-stakes decisions. Fourth, faculty readiness is best understood not as an individual skills deficit but as a sociotechnical alignment problem shaped by governance, incentives, workload, literacy, course design support, and equity-sensitive implementation.

Conclusions: The EPIQ-AI framework reframes readiness as a multidimensional condition for credible AI-enabled and online higher education by aligning epistemic judgment, pedagogical competence, institutional support, and quality-and-compliance safeguards. It offers a theoretically grounded and operationally actionable model for institutions seeking to strengthen AI literacy, redesign assessment, improve governance, and sustain epistemic integrity while advancing scalable, policy-compliant online delivery.

generative artificial intelligence; faculty readiness; AI-supported teaching; online program delivery; higher education; assessment redesign; academic integrity

1. Balalle, H., & Pannilage, S. (2025). Reassessing academic integrity in the age of AI: A systematic literature review on AI and academic integrity. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 11, 101299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101299 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, Article 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Council of the European Union. (2024, May 21). Artificial intelligence (AI) act: Council gives final green light to the first worldwide rules on AI (Press release 409/24). https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/05/21/artificial-intelligence-ai-act-council-gives-final-green-light-to-the-first-worldwide-rules-on-ai/pdf/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Digital Education Council. (2025). AI meets academia: What faculty think: Global AI Faculty Survey 2025. https://www.digitaleducationcouncil.com/post/digital-education-council-global-ai-faculty-survey [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. eCFR. (n.d.). 34 CFR § 600.2—Definitions. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-VI/part-600/subpart-A/section-600.2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. EDUCAUSE. (2025, March 10). Higher education generative AI readiness assessment. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2024/4/higher-education-generative-ai-readiness-assessment [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Elkhatat, A. M., Elsaid, K., & Almeer, S. (2023). Evaluating the efficacy of AI content detection tools in differentiating between human and AI-generated text. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19, Article 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00140-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. European Commission. (2024, August 1). European Artificial Intelligence Act comes into force (Press release IP/24/4123). https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/ov/ip_24_4123/IP_24_4123_EN.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. European Commission. (2024, August 1). AI Act enters into force. https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/ai-act-enters-force-2024-08-01_en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union, L 2024/1689. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Liang, W., Yuksekgonul, M., Mao, Y., Wu, E., & Zou, J. (2023). GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers. Patterns, 4(7), 100779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100779 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. National Center for Education Statistics. (2025). Digest of education statistics, Table 311.15: Number and percentage of students enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by distance education participation, location of student, level of enrollment, and control and level of institution: Fall 2022 and fall 2023. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d25/tables/dt25_311.15.asp [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) (NIST AI 100-1). https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. OpenAI. (2023, July 20). New AI classifier for indicating AI-written text. https://openai.com/index/new-ai-classifier-for-indicating-ai-written-text/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Robert, J. (2024). 2024 EDUCAUSE AI Landscape Study. EDUCAUSE. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2024/2/2024-educause-ai-landscape-study [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Robert, J., & McCormack, M. (2025, February 17). 2025 EDUCAUSE AI landscape study: Into the digital AI divide. EDUCAUSE. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2025/2/2025-educause-ai-landscape-study [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Robert, J., & McCormack, M. (2024). 2024 EDUCAUSE Action Plan: AI Policies and Guidelines. EDUCAUSE. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2024/5/2024-educause-action-plan-ai-policies-and-guidelines [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Ruediger, D., Blankstein, M., & Love, S. (2024). Generative AI and postsecondary instructional practices: Findings from a national survey of instructors. Ithaka S+R. https://sr.ithaka.org/publications/generative-ai-and-postsecondary-instructional-practices [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Sangwa, D., Butera, A., & Mutabazi, P. (2025). Digital Transformation of Higher Education: A Post-COVID Review of Adoption, Quality Assurance, and Governance Challenges. Current Research Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.55677/CRB/I07-07-CRB2025 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Scherer, R., Howard, S. K., Tondeur, J., & Siddiq, F. (2021). Profiling teachers’ readiness for online teaching and learning in higher education: Who’s ready? Computers in Human Behavior, 118, 106675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106675 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., Howard, S. K., & Tondeur, J. (2023). The more experienced, the better prepared? New evidence on the relation between teachers’ experience and their readiness for online teaching and learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107530 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Shea, C. M., Jacobs, S. R., Esserman, D. A., Bruce, K., & Weiner, B. J. (2014). Organizational readiness for implementing change: A psychometric assessment of a new measure. Implementation Science, 9, Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Simunich, B., Garrett, R., Fredericksen, E. E., McCormack, M., Robert, J., & Ubell, R. (2024). CHLOE 9: Strategy shift: Institutions respond to sustained online demand (The Changing Landscape of Online Education, 2024). Quality Matters, Eduventures Research, & EDUCAUSE. https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/research-docs-pdfs/QM-Eduventures-EDUCAUSE-CHLOE%209-Report-2024.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/guidance-generative-ai-education-and-research [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence and the future of teaching and learning: Insights and recommendations. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/documents/ai-report/ai-report.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. U.S. Department of Education. (2020). Distance education and innovation. Federal Register, 85(171), 54742–54818. https://fsapartners.ed.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/2020-09/FR090220_0.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4, 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-67 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Xia, Q., Weng, X., Ouyang, F., Lin, T. J., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2024). A scoping review on how generative artificial intelligence transforms assessment in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21, Article 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00468-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Performance Analysis of Silicon PV Array Using Infrared Thermography and Detecting Temperature Non-Uniformities
• Dynamic Capabilities and Digital Transformation Performance: The Role of Organizational Agility in the Public Sector
• Comparative Effectiveness of Neural Mobilization Versus Positional Release Technique in Cervical Radiculopathy – An Experimental Study
• Soil Moisture Mapping of Solano Nueva Vizcaya: A Comparison and Review
• Silent Assistance for Emergencies (SAFE): A Mobile-Based Emergency Reporting Application for the Deaf and Mute Community