Teachers' trust in <scp>AI</scp> ‐powered educational technology and a professional development program to improve it
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".