Artificial Intelligence for All? Brazilian Teachers on Ethics, Equity, and the Everyday Challenges of AI in Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the perceptions of Brazilian K-12 education teachers regarding the use of AI in education, specifically General Purpose AI. This investigation employs a quantitative analysis approach, extracting information from a questionnaire completed by 346 educators from various regions of Brazil regarding their AI literacy and use. Educators vary in their educational level, years of experience, and type of educational institution. The analysis of the questionnaires shows that although most educators had only basic or limited knowledge of AI (80.3\%), they showed a strong interest in its application, particularly for the creation of interactive content (80.6%), lesson planning (80.2%), and personalized assessment (68.6%). The potential of AI to promote inclusion and personalized learning is also widely recognized (65.5%). The participants emphasized the importance of discussing ethics and digital citizenship, reflecting on technological dependence, biases, transparency, and responsible use of AI, aligning with critical education and the development of conscious students. Despite enthusiasm for the pedagogical potential of AI, significant structural challenges were identified, including a lack of training (43.4%), technical support (41.9%), and limitations of infrastructure, such as low access to computers, reliable Internet connections, and multimedia resources in schools. The study shows that Brazil is still in a bottom-up model for AI integration, missing official curricula to guide its implementation and structured training for teachers and students. Furthermore, effective implementation of AI depends on integrated public policies, adequate teacher training, and equitable access to technology, promoting ethical, inclusive, and contextually grounded adoption of AI in Brazilian 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".