Are pre-service teachers ready to teach the Alpha generation? The impact of pre-service teachers' ChatGPT literacy levels on behavioral intentions toward ChatGPT-4.0
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
This study seeks to enhance our understanding of how pre-service teachers working with the Alpha Generation (PSTAG) interact with the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in the context of ChatGPT. It specifically examines their perceptions of ease of use (PEOU), perceived usefulness (PU), and behavioral intention (BI) toward ChatGPT-4o, utilizing an extended version of the TAM. The survey method was used, and 450 PSTAG participated in the current study. Data were collected through a survey including the ChatGPT literacy scale (ChatGPT-LS) and TAM to determine PSTAG’s ChatGPT-4o literacy level and its relationship with PEOU, PU, and BI. Thirteen hypotheses are developed to test the proposed model. All but one of the hypotheses are supported. This study shows that PEOU and PU play a key role in BI’s use of ChatGPT-4o, and the sub-dimensions of the ChatGPT-LS have a statistically significant effect on PEOU and PU. Technical proficiency was found to have no positive effect on PU. It can be suggested that PSTAG’s ChatGPT literacy level should be improved through courses to increase their behavioral intention to use ChatGPT-4o for educational purposes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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