Ali so razlike pomembne? Primerjalna študija pripravljenosti na vključevanje umetne inteligence med bodočimi učitelji različnih predmetnih področij in spolov
Povzetek
Hiter napredek tehnologij umetne inteligence (UI) sooblikuje prihodnost izobraževanja in na novo opredeljuje kompetence, ki se zahtevajo od učiteljev. V okviru nacionalnih reform indonezijskega sistema izobraževanja učiteljev je bilo v program Pendidikan Profesi Guru (PPG) vključeno digitalno usposabljanje, namenjeno izboljšanju pripravljenosti bodočih učiteljev na sprejemanje nastajajočih tehnologij, vključno z UI. Ta študija preučuje, ali se pripravljenost bodočih učiteljev na vključevanje UI, merjena s pomočjo okvira tehnološko-pedagoškega znanja o vsebini (TPACK), ter samoocena samoučinkovitosti in pripravljenosti na UI bistveno razlikujeta glede na spol in predmetno področje. Kvantitativni podatki so bili zbrani pri 200 bodočih učiteljih prek spletnega vprašalnika z Likertovo lestvico, ki je vseboval 52 validiranih postavk. Merjeni konstrukti so vključevali: TPACK, samoučinkovitost, povezano z UI, in pripravljenost na UI. Podatki so bili analizirani z uporabo neodvisnih vzorcev t-testov, da bi preučili razlike med spoloma, in enosmerne ANOVA, ki ji je sledil Tukeyjev HSD post-hoc test za analizo razlik med petimi predmetnimi področji: naravoslovje, družboslovje, matematika, vzgoja in izobraževanje v osnovni šoli in jezikovno izobraževanje. Izsledki niso pokazali nobenih pomembnih razlik v pripravljenosti na UI, samoučinkovitosti ali TPACK-u med skupinami po spolu, so se pa med predmetnimi področji pokazale znatne razlike v samoučinkovitosti, zlasti med udeleženci s področja družboslovja ter vzgoje in izobraževanja v osnovni šoli. Prikazi z grafikoni kvartilov so dodatno poudarili razlike v porazdelitvi točk, kar kaže na neenakomerno raven samozavesti znotraj posameznih ciljnih skupin. Ugotovitve poudarjajo potrebo po strategijah, ki upoštevajo posamezna predmetna področja, v izobraževanju učiteljev na področju UI. Čeprav se zdi, da je bila pri digitalni pripravljenosti dosežena enakost med spoloma, so diferencirani pedagoški ukrepi bistveni za odpravo razlik v samoučinkovitosti, značilnih za posamezna področja, in za zagotovitev pravičnega vključevanja UI v različnih izobraževalnih kontekstih.
Prenosi
Literatura
Alhamid, I. S. G., & Mohammad-Salehi, B. (2024). Examining EFL teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and their attitudes towards online teaching. Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 17(1), 715–733. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/index
Asio, J. M. R. (2024). AI literacy, self-efficacy, and self-competence among college students: Variances and interrelationships among variables. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 12(3), 44–60. https://doi.org/10.22452/aldad.vol12no3.4
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). Exploring the factor structure of the constructs of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20(3), 595–603.
Chen, J., He, M., & Sun, J. (2025). AI anxiety and knowledge payment: the roles of perceived value and self-efficacy. BMC Psychology, 13(1), Article 208. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02510-9
Chilla, S., Doetjes, G., Vogt, K., Tsagari, D., & Abed Ibrahim, L. (2024). Digital-inclusive transformation and teacher preparedness for foreign language education – A bilateral German-Norwegian perspective. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 15(1), 83–124. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1690
Chiu, T. K. F., Ahmad, Z., & Çoban, M. (2024). Development and validation of teacher artificial intelligence (AI) competence self-efficacy (TAICS) scale. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 6667–6685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13094-z
Danyaro, A., Aladesusi, A., Ajamu, A., Adegbite, A., & Attah, J. (2024). Pre-service teachers’ awareness and attitude towards the use of open educational resources for learning in kano state, nigeria.
Suluh Jurnal Bimbingan Dan Konseling, 9(2), 76–80. https://doi.org/10.33084/suluh.v9i2.6989
Hava, K., & Babayiğit, Ö. (2024). Exploring the relationship between teachers’ competencies in AITPACK and digital proficiency. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 3491–3508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12939-x
Holstein, K., Wortman Vaughan, J., Daumé III, H., Dudik, M., & Wallach, H. (2020). Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need? In R. Bernhaupt, F. F. Mueller, D. Verweij, J. Andres, J. McGrenere, A. Cockburn, I. Avellino, A. Goguey, P. Bjørn, S. Zhao, B. P. Samson, & R. Kocielnik (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–12). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376440
Howard, S. K., Tondeur, J., Ma, J., & Yang, J. (2021). What to teach? Strategies for developing digital competence in pre-service teacher training. Computers & Education, 165, Article 104149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104149
Ifenthaler, D., & Schumacher, C. (2016). Student perceptions of privacy principles for learning analytics. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(5), 923–938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9477-y
Lee, M. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World wide Web. Instructional Science, 38(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9075-4
Leite, A., & Blanco, S. A. (2020). Effects of human vs. automatic feedback on students’ understanding of AI concepts and programming style. In J. Zhang, M. Sherriff, S. Heckman, P. Cutter, A. Monge (Eds.), Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 44–50). Association for Computing Machinery.
Li, N., & Liang, Y. (2025). Teachers’ AI readiness in Chinese as a Foreign Language education: Scale development and validation. System, 129, Article 103597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103597
Luckin, R. and Cukurova, M. (2019). Designing educational technologies in the age of AI: a learning sciences‐driven approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 2824–2838. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12861
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Paneru, D. R. (2018). Information communication technologies in teaching English as a foreign language: Analysing EFL teachers’ TPACK in Czech elementary schools. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 8(3), 141–163. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.499
Perla, L., Vinci, V., & Agrati, L. S. (2024). The Italian way to the Europeanisation of teacher education: An analysis of reforms and the ongoing experience of digital transformation. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 15(1), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1714
Quiño, J. and Potane, J. (2023). Post-pandemic digital self-efficacy and online learning readiness of pre-service teachers. International Journal of Advanced Research, 11(05), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.21474/ijar01/16848
Ren, X., & Wu, M. L. (2025). Examining teaching competencies and challenges while integrating artificial intelligence in higher education. TechTrends, 69, 519–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-025-01055-3
Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education, 54(1), 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.010
Sembey, R., Hoda, R., & Grundy, J. (2024). Emerging technologies in higher education assessment and feedback practices: A systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software, 211, Article 111988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2024.111988
Teo, T. (2008). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards computer use: A Singapore survey. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1201
Teo, T. (2020). Technology acceptance in education: Research and issues. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5584-8
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65, 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2
Uka, A., Morina, M., & Kowch, E. G. (2024). Beyond learning by videoconference: Findings from a capacity-building study of Kosovan teachers in the post-Covid-19 era. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 15(1), 175–199. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1715
Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115–139. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250981
Wong, G. K. W., Chai, C. S., Zhang, X., & King, R. B. (2021). Demographic factors and competencies in digital learning: A comparative study between Hong Kong and mainland China pre-service teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6228=
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Zhou, C., & Hou, F. (2025). How do EFL teachers utilize AI tools in their language teaching? Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 15(2), 403–413. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1502.10
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
- The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
