Teachers' trust in <scp>AI</scp> ‐powered educational technology and a professional development program to improve it
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Evidence from various domains underlines the critical role that human factors, and especially trust, play in adopting technology by practitioners. In the case of Artificial Intelligence (AI) powered tools, the issue is even more complex due to practitioners' AI‐specific misconceptions, myths and fears (e.g., mass unemployment and privacy violations). In recent years, AI has been incorporated increasingly into K‐12 education. However, little research has been conducted on the trust and attitudes of K‐12 teachers towards the use and adoption of AI‐powered Educational Technology (AI‐EdTech). This paper sheds light on teachers' trust in AI‐EdTech and presents effective professional development strategies to increase teachers' trust and willingness to apply AI‐EdTech in their classrooms. Our experiments with K‐12 science teachers were conducted around their interactions with a specific AI‐powered assessment tool (termed AI‐Grader) using both synthetic and real data. The results indicate that presenting teachers with some explanations of (i) how AI makes decisions, particularly compared to the human experts, and (ii) how AI can complement and give additional strengths to teachers, rather than replacing them, can reduce teachers' concerns and improve their trust in AI‐EdTech. The contribution of this research is threefold. First, it emphasizes the importance of increasing teachers' theoretical and practical knowledge about AI in educational settings to gain their trust in AI‐EdTech in K‐12 education. Second, it presents a teacher professional development program (PDP), as well as the discourse analysis of teachers who completed it. Third, based on the results observed, it presents clear suggestions for future PDPs aiming to improve teachers' trust in AI‐EdTech. Practitioner notes What is already known about this topic Human factors, and especially trust, play a critical role in practitioners' adoption of technology. In recent years, AI has been incorporated increasingly into K‐12 education. Little research has been conducted on the trust and attitudes of K‐12 teachers towards the use and adoption of AI‐powered Educational Technology. What this paper adds This research emphasizes the importance of increasing teachers' theoretical and practical knowledge about AI in educational settings to gain their trust in AI‐EdTech in K‐12 education. It presents a teacher professional development program (PDP) to increase teachers' trust in AI‐EdTech, as well as the discourse analysis of teachers who completed it. It presents clear suggestions for future PDPs aiming at improving teachers' trust in AI‐EdTech. Implications for practice and/or policy Pre‐ and in‐service teacher education programs that aim to increase teachers' trust in AI‐EdTech should include a section providing teachers with a basic understanding of AI. PDPs aimed to increase teachers' trust in AI‐EdTech should focus on concrete pedagogical tasks and specific AI‐powered tools that are considered by teachers as helpful and worth the effort to learn. AI‐EdTech should not restrict teachers to follow specific pedagogical scenarios, but rather provide teachers with the freedom to design and implement various types of pedagogies that meet their preferences, students' needs, and classroom reality. Teacher agency is key to gaining their trust. AI‐EdTech should allow teachers to review, modify, and if necessary, override AI‐based recommendations before they are sent to students.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,058 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».