MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200365521 · doi:10.35542/osf.io/bcjme

An Instrument for Measuring Teachers’ Trust in AI-Based Educational Technology

2021· preprint· en· W4200365521 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tanya Nazaretsky, Mutlu Cukurova, Giora Alexandron

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of ChemistryCouncil for Higher EducationAzrieli FoundationWeizmann Institute of Science
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)PsychologyExploratory factor analysisKnowledge managementProcess (computing)Computer scienceArtificial intelligencePsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence from various domains underlines the key role that human factors, and especially, trust, play in the adoption of technology by practitioners. In the case of Artificial Intelligence (AI) driven learning analytics tools, the issue is even more complex due to practitioners’ AI-specific misconceptions, myths, and fears (i.e., mass unemployment and ethical concerns). In recent years, artificial intelligence has been introduced increasingly into K-12 education. However, little research has been conducted on the trust and attitudes of K-12 teachers regarding the use and adoption of AI-based Educational Technology (EdTech). The present study introduces a new instrument to measure teachers' trust in AI-based EdTech, provides evidence of its internal structure validity, and uses it to portray secondary-level school teachers' attitudes toward AI. First, we explain the instrument items creation process based on our preliminary research and review of existing tools in other domains. Second, using Exploratory Factor Analysis we analyze the results from 132 teachers’ input. The results reveal eight factors influencing teachers’ trust in adopting AI-based EdTech: Perceived Benefits of AI-based EdTech, AI-based EdTech's Lack of Human Characteristics, AI-based EdTech's Perceived Lack of Transparency, Anxieties Related to Using AI-based EdTech, Self-efficacy in Using AI-based EdTech, Required Shift in Pedagogy to Adopt AI-based EdTech, Preferred Means to Increase Trust in AI-based EdTech, and AI-based EdTech vs Human Advice/Recommendation. Finally, we use the instrument to discuss 132 high-school Biology teachers' responses to the survey items and to what extent they align with the findings from the literature in relevant domains.The contribution of this research is twofold. First, it introduces a reliable instrument to investigate the role of teachers’ trust in AI-based EdTech and the factors influencing it. Second, the findings from the teachers’ survey can guide creators of teacher professional development courses and policymakers on improving teachers’ trust in, and in turn their willingness to adopt, AI-based EdTech in K-12 education.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207