Preparing Educators to Teach and Create With Generative Artificial Intelligence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teachers skilled in using generative artificial intelligence (GAI) have advantages in terms of increased productivity and augmented instructional capabilities. Alongside the rapid advancement of GAI, teachers require authentic learning opportunities to build the confidence and expertise necessary for engaging with these technologies creatively and responsibly. This article provides an illustrative case of preparing preservice and in-service teachers with the knowledge, skills, and mindsets to teach and create with GAI. Using a self-study method to investigate professional practices, we analyzed the curriculum, instruction, and assessment in an upper-level undergraduate course in multimedia design and production. Thirty-five teachers engaged in experiential activities focussed on developing artificial intelligence (AI) literacy, alongside a collaborative assignment to co-author an open-access textbook, Teaching and Creating With Generative Artificial Intelligence. To support equitable and inclusive access to the educational benefits offered by AI, the Student Artificial Intelligence Literacy (SAIL) framework was developed. SAIL facilitates student AI literacy through curriculum engagement and three distinct types of interactions: cognitive, socio-emotional, and instructor-guided. Building on lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic regarding the issues with technology training for teachers in Canada, five recommendations are offered to facilitate the meaningful integration of AI literacy in teacher education programs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it