Using video-elicitation focus group interviews to explore pre-service science teachers’ views and reasoning on artificial intelligence
Open accessAbstract
Using video-elicitation focus group interviews, this study aims to reveal pre-service science teachers’ perspectives and reasoning on artificial intelligence as a socioscientific issues-based scenario. Hence, it illustrates the ways the video data were used in the focus group elicitation interviews to understand their interpretations of how their beliefs align with a hypothetical future scenario around artificial intelligence. To demonstrate the phenomenon in depth, a case study design was used. The participants of the study involved 45 third and fourth-year undergraduate students enrolled in a science teacher education programme. For this study, the researcher conducted six open-ended, unstructured video-elicitation focus group interviews. The data was analysed using Dey’s (1993. Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. Routledge) qualitative analysis steps of description, qualification, and association. The findings indicated that the participants’ views and reasoning vary in the context of artificial intelligence technologies. The fictional scenario depicted in the video-elicitation interviews both helped and challenged them to share their perspectives on the issue. Moreover, several aspects of SSI were thoroughly discussed during the interviews.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Pre-service teachers with higher AI literacy tend to demonstrate a higher level of autonomy in decision-making regarding how to utilise AI tools effectively.
“PSTs with higher AI literacy tend to demonstrate a higher level of autonomy in decision-making regarding how to utilise AI tools effectively (Karahan, 2023; Samarescu et al., 2024).”
From Mentorship in the Age of Generative AI: ChatGPT to Support Self-Regulated Learning of Pre-Service Teachers Before and During Placements (2025) · cites this paper as Karahan, 2023
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 68 · Cited by 18
- Authors
- Karahan, E.
- Affiliations
- Middle East Technical University (TR)
- Corresponding author
- Karahan, Engin
- ORCID
- Karahan, Engin
- Venue
- International Journal of Science Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2023-04-25
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 1283-1302
- ISSN
- 0950-0693 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5289
- OpenAlex
- W4366991456
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 68
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4
- FWCI
- 13.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- International Journal of Science Education (publishedVersion)
- OpenMETU (Middle East Technical University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Science Education and Perceptions
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Evolution and Science Education
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence, pre-service science teachers, socioscientific issues, focus groups, teacher beliefs, science teacher education, student reasoning
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