CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 179Artificial Intelligence in EducationTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourEducation and Technology Integration

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 61 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

What Explains Teachers’ Trust in AI in Education Across Six Countries?

Open access
Viberg, Olga, Cukurova, Mutlu, Feldman-Maggor, Yael, Alexandron, Giora, Shirai, Shizuka, Kanemune, Susumu, Wasson, Barbara, Tømte, Cathrine, Spikol, Daniel, Milrad, Marcelo, Coelho, Raquel, Kizilcec, René F.·2025·International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education
DOI 10.1007/s40593-024-00433-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

With growing expectations to use AI-based educational technology (AI-EdTech) to improve students’ learning outcomes and enrich teaching practice, teachers play a central role in the adoption of AI-EdTech in classrooms. Teachers’ willingness to accept vulnerability by integrating technology into their everyday teaching practice, that is, their trust in AI-EdTech, will depend on how much they expect it to benefit them versus how many concerns it raises for them. In this study, we surveyed 508 K-12 teachers across six countries on four continents to understand which teacher characteristics shape teachers’ trust in AI-EdTech, and its proposed antecedents, perceived benefits and concerns about AI-EdTech. We examined a comprehensive set of characteristics including demographic and professional characteristics (age, gender, subject, years of experience, etc.), cultural values (Hofstede’s cultural dimensions), geographic locations (Brazil, Israel, Japan, Norway, Sweden, USA), and psychological factors (self-efficacy and understanding). Using multiple regression analysis, we found that teachers with higher AI-EdTech self-efficacy and AI understanding perceive more benefits, fewer concerns, and report more trust in AI-EdTech. We also found geographic and cultural differences in teachers’ trust in AI-EdTech, but no demographic differences emerged based on their age, gender, or level of education. The findings provide a comprehensive, international account of factors associated with teachers’ trust in AI-EdTech. Efforts to raise teachers’ understanding of, and trust in AI-EdTech, while considering their cultural values are encouraged to support its adoption in K-12 education.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40593-024-00433-x

Cites

61 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 62 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Slovic, 1993, Perceived risk, trust, and democracy, Risk Analysis, 13, 675, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01329.x · DOI
  2. Wang, 2021, Factors affecting the adoption of ai-based applications in higher education, Educational Technology & Society, 24, 116

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Viberg, O., Cukurova, M., Feldman-Maggor, Y., Alexandron, G., Shirai, S., Kanemune, S., Wasson, B., Tømte, C., Spikol, D., Milrad, M., Coelho, R., & Kizilcec, R. F.
Affiliations
  • Digital Futures (SE)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Weizmann Institute of Science (IL)
  • The University of Osaka (JP)
  • Osaka Electro-Communication University (JP)
  • University of Bergen (NO)
  • University of Agder (NO)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Linnaeus University (SE)
  • Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Viberg, Olga
  • Kizilcec, René F.
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-09
Volume
35
Issue
3
Pages
1288-1316
ISSN
1560-4292 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1007/s40593-024-00433-x
OpenAlex
W4403422104
Cited by
179
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 115 · 2025: 60
FWCI
67.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Diva portal (Dalarna University Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Trond Mohn Research Foundation, Norway (Artificial Intelligence in Education: Layers of Trust (EduTrust AI))
  • National Science Foundation, US (award no. 2237593)
  • Royal Institute of Technology
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Technology Integration
Keywords
K-12 teachers, technology acceptance, self-efficacy, AI understanding, cultural values, Hofstede cultural dimensions, cross-national comparison, teacher characteristics, technology adoption in classrooms

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review