The DOI matches its Crossref record; 80 of the 87 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Integrating generative artificial intelligence in K–12 education: Examining teachers’ preparedness, practices, and barriers
Open accessAbstract
Despite the growing body of research on developing K-12 teachers' generative AI (GenAI) knowledge and skills, its integration into daily teaching practices remains underexplored. Using a snowball sampling method, this study examined the preparedness, practices, and barriers encountered by 89 U.S. teachers in the state of Idaho. Participants were predominantly White, female teachers serving in rural schools. A mixed-methods analysis of survey responses revealed that teachers were generally underprepared for integrating GenAI, with fewer than half incorporating it into their educational practices. Unlike the widespread classroom integration patterns observed with general educational technologies, teachers in this study tended to use GenAI for out-of-classroom duties (i.e., lesson preparation, assessment, and administrative tasks) rather than for real-time teaching and learning. These preferences could be attributed to key barriers teachers faced, including doubts about GenAI's ability to manage risks (i.e., technology value beliefs), reduced human interaction in instruction (i.e., pedagogical beliefs), ethical considerations, and the absence of policies and guidance. This study highlights the need to develop support systems and targeted policies to facilitate teachers' GenAI integration, offering implications for Idaho's education system and the broader U.S. context.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Teachers and parents are likewise introducing conversational AI into classrooms and homes-to generate teaching materials, orchestrate chained questioning, co-author stories, and automate grading [8,9].”
From A Systematic Review of Generative AI in K–12: Mapping Goals, Activities, Roles, and Outcomes via the 3P Model (2025) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“Yet systematic frameworks that verify how well GenAI addresses these varied needs are still scarce [8].”
From A Systematic Review of Generative AI in K–12: Mapping Goals, Activities, Roles, and Outcomes via the 3P Model (2025) · cites this paper as [8]
Citations
Cites
Teachers' beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct
Pajares, M. F. (1992) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543062003307 · Cited by 9,007
The Psychology of Survey Response
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511819322 · Cited by 4,734
Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed‐Mode Surveys
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394260645 · Cited by 4,666
Goodman, L. A. (1961) · The Annals of Mathematical Statistics · doi:10.1214/aoms/1177705148 · Cited by 3,606
Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration
Ertmer, P. A. (1999) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/bf02299597 · Cited by 2,189
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001 · Cited by 2,107
Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research
Kimberlin, C. L., & Winterstein, A. G. (2008) · American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy · doi:10.2146/ajhp070364 · Cited by 1,805
The promises and challenges of artificial intelligence for teachers: A systematic review of research
Celik, I., Dindar, M., Muukkonen, H., & Järvelä, S. (2022) · TechTrends · doi:10.1007/s11528-022-00715-y · Cited by 984
Comment: Snowball versus Respondent-Driven Sampling
Heckathorn, D. D. (2011) · Sociological Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9531.2011.01244.x · Cited by 934
Sang, G., Valcke, M., Braak, J. V., & Tondeur, J. (2010) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.010 · Cited by 840
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- 2019, Opportunities in rural and Underserved schools report and recommendations, Idaho State Board of Education
- Sebesta, 2023, Supporting instruction and learning through artificial intelligence: A survey of institutional practices & policies, WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
- Watson, 2006, Technology professional development: Long-term effects on teacher self-efficacy, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 151
- Wozney, 2006, Implementing computer technologies: Teachers' perceptions and practices, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 173
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Çelik, İ., Kontkanen, S., Laru, J., & Dalyanci, A. A. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105485 · Cited by 56
Song, Z., Qin, J., Jin, F., Cheung, W. M., & Lin, C. (2025) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2025.105157 · Cited by 66
Empowering educational leaders for AI integration in rural STEM education: Challenges and strategies
Kim, J., & Wargo, E. S. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1567698 · Cited by 54
Self-citationTeacher training in the age of AI: impact on AI literacy and teachers’ attitudes
Lademann, J., Henze, J., Honke, N., Wollny, C., & Becker, S. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1671306 · Cited by 52
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES: INTEGRATING DIGITAL RESOURCES INTO PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES IN BASIC EDUCATION
de Sousa, F. P. (2025) · Educação & Inovação · doi:10.64326/educao.v1i18.243 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Cheah, Y. H., Lu, J., & Kim, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Idaho (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cheah, Yin Hong
- Venue
- Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2025-06
- Volume
- 8
- Pages
- 100363
- ISSN
- 2666-920X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4406107150
- Semantic Scholar
- d3763ddd57df3b216c4d2844777a1d04d62bb1c2
- Cited by
- 134
- References
- 87
- Citations by year
- 2026: 87 · 2025: 47
- FWCI
- 86.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- University of Idaho
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Technology Integration
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- generative AI, K-12 education, teacher readiness, AI in teaching, teacher practices, AI adoption barriers, rural schools, pedagogical beliefs, AI ethics, AI policy, lesson planning, Idaho
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