Teachers' Early Uptake of genAI in Teaching and Learning: Important Questions and Answers
Saved in:
| Title: | Teachers' Early Uptake of genAI in Teaching and Learning: Important Questions and Answers |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Rebecca J. Collie (ORCID |
| Source: | Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal. 2025 28(1). |
| Availability: | Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Teaching Methods, Learning Processes, Artificial Intelligence, Computer Software, Teacher Attitudes, Task Analysis, Foreign Countries, Instructional Effectiveness, Technology Integration, Incidence, Technology Uses in Education |
| Geographic Terms: | Australia |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11218-025-10052-6 |
| ISSN: | 1381-2890 1573-1928 |
| Abstract: | Educational bodies are weighing up the extent to which generative artificial intelligence (genAI) is embedded within educational settings. Although researchers have examined how (generative) AI can be used for effective teaching and learning, less is known about how genAI was being integrated within teachers' practice shortly after the wide-scale release of the technology. In this short report, we consider genAI integration among teachers. Our aim is to provide understanding about teachers' early patterns-of-use. We pose four research questions helpful for taking stock of early uptake: (1) What was the prevalence of teachers integrating genAI into their work? (2) Which genAI tools were being used by teachers in their work? (3) How were teachers using genAI in their work? and (4) Why were some teachers not using genAI in their work? Using a descriptive mixed methods approach and with data collected in mid-2023 from 339 Australian teachers, we present summations and descriptors that answer the four questions. Findings revealed that almost half of teachers were using genAI in their teaching-related tasks, but far fewer were using it for student learning activities. Most teachers were using ChatGPT. Teaching-related tasks centered on content creation and generation, whereas student learning activities focused on learning activities in class and content generation. Finally, the most common reason for not using genAI was a lack of knowledge about the technology. Our article concludes by raising implications for research, policy, and practice (e.g., guideline development). |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1464941 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Educational bodies are weighing up the extent to which generative artificial intelligence (genAI) is embedded within educational settings. Although researchers have examined how (generative) AI can be used for effective teaching and learning, less is known about how genAI was being integrated within teachers' practice shortly after the wide-scale release of the technology. In this short report, we consider genAI integration among teachers. Our aim is to provide understanding about teachers' early patterns-of-use. We pose four research questions helpful for taking stock of early uptake: (1) What was the prevalence of teachers integrating genAI into their work? (2) Which genAI tools were being used by teachers in their work? (3) How were teachers using genAI in their work? and (4) Why were some teachers not using genAI in their work? Using a descriptive mixed methods approach and with data collected in mid-2023 from 339 Australian teachers, we present summations and descriptors that answer the four questions. Findings revealed that almost half of teachers were using genAI in their teaching-related tasks, but far fewer were using it for student learning activities. Most teachers were using ChatGPT. Teaching-related tasks centered on content creation and generation, whereas student learning activities focused on learning activities in class and content generation. Finally, the most common reason for not using genAI was a lack of knowledge about the technology. Our article concludes by raising implications for research, policy, and practice (e.g., guideline development). |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1381-2890 1573-1928 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11218-025-10052-6 |
