Exploring Educators' Multidimensional Perspectives on Generative AI's Impact in Education: A Study Using Q Methodology
Abstract
The rapid development of generative AI has attracted significant attention in education. This study uses Q methodology to explore educators' views on AI's impact across five key dimensions: educational theory, learning outcomes, educational technology, educational ethics, and pedagogy. The analysis identifies three educator groups: (1) Education Stalwarts Emphasizing Humanistic Care (F1), who prioritize values like critical thinking, self-motivation, and social responsibility; (2) Education Reformers Advocating Technological Integration (F2), who support AI-driven innovations; and (3) Education Explorers Focused on Learning Experiences (F3), who emphasize personalized, technology-enhanced learning. Although perspectives on AI integration vary, there is agreement that education should promote human progress and personal growth. This study contributes to the ongoing discourse by advocating for a balanced approach that integrates tradition with innovation to enhance educational outcomes.
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?
Student AI and information literacy initiatives have been introduced to promote responsible AI use, ethical decision-making, and awareness of academic integrity principles.
“Simultaneously, student AI and information literacy initia -tives have been introduced to promote responsible AI use, ethical decision-making, and awareness of academic integ -rity principles [ 58, 74, 100 ].”
From Redefining student assessment in AI-infused learning environments: a systematic review of challenges and strategies for academic integrity (2026) · cites this paper as [74]
Cites
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006) · Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x · Cited by 12,604 · see citing works
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006) · Teachers College Record · doi:10.1177/016146810610800610 · Cited by 7,691 · see citing works
Students’ voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education
Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8 · Cited by 2,301 · cited 1× · see citing works
“However, concerns about autonomy and academic integrity remain, with some students expressing fears that AI could reduce critical thinking[26] [27].”
ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 · Cited by 1,806 · see citing works
Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4
Bubeck, S., Chandrasekaran, V., Eldan, R., Gehrke, J., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., Lee, P., Lee, Y. T., Li, Y., Lundberg, S., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.12712 · Cited by 1,526 · see citing works
Lim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023) · The International Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790 · Cited by 1,261 · see citing works
Guidance for generative AI in education and research
(2023) · doi:10.54675/ewzm9535 · Cited by 808 · see citing works
Bahroun, Z., Anane, C., Ahmed, V., & Zacca, A. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su151712983 · Cited by 784 · see citing works
Mannuru, N. R., Shahriar, S., Teel, Z. A., Wang, T., Lund, B. D., Tijani, S., Pohboon, C. O., Agbaji, D. A., Alhassan, J., Galley, J., et al. (2023) · Information Development · doi:10.1177/02666669231200628 · Cited by 392 · see citing works
Using Q methodology: Sorting out subjectivity in educational research
Lundberg, A., de Leeuw, R. R., & Aliani, R. (2020) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100361 · Cited by 188 · see citing works
Karataş, F., Eriçok, B., & TANRIKULU, L. (2024) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1002/berj.4068 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Kreps, S. E., & Kriner, D. (2023) · Journal of democracy · doi:10.1353/jod.2023.a907693 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Digital transformation in engineering education: Exploring the potential of AI-assisted learning
Pham, T. T., Nguyen, T. B., Ha, S., & Ngoc, N. T. N. (2023) · Australasian Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.14742/ajet.8825 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Higher education crisis: Academic misconduct with generative AI
Song, N. (2024) · Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management · doi:10.1111/1468-5973.12532 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Shahzad, M. F., Xu, S., & Asif, M. (2025) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1002/berj.4084 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Mogavi, R. H., Deng, C., Kim, J. J., Zhou, P., Kwon, Y. D., Metwally, A. H. S., Tlili, A., Bassanelli, S., Bucchiarone, A., Gujar, S. P., et al. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.15524.86401/1 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Rethinking open source generative AI: open washing and the EU AI Act
Liesenfeld, A., & Dingemanse, M. (2024) · The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3630106.3659005 · Cited by 67 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Moreover, legal, ethical, and social risks, such as misinformation and data privacy issues, must be addressed to ensure AI's ethical application[21] [22].”
Mogavi, R. H., Deng, C., Kim, J. J., et al. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.13114 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
An Introduction to Generative AI Tools for Education 2030
Sandhu, R., Channi, H. K., Ghai, D., Cheema, G. S., & Kaur, M. (2024) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-2440-0.ch001 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Generative AI in education: To embrace it or not？
Ariyo Okaiyeto, S., College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Q. A. U., Bai, J., & Xiao, H. (2023) · International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering · doi:10.25165/j.ijabe.20231603.8486 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Using ChatGPT to navigate ambivalent and contradictory research findings on artificial intelligence
Sohail, S., Madsen, D., Himeur, Y., & Ashraf, M. (2023) · Frontiers Artif. Intell. · doi:10.3389/frai.2023.1195797 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
The AI teacher test: Measuring the pedagogical ability of blender and GPT-3 in educational dialogues
Tack, A., & Piech, C. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.07540 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
The E.U.’s artificial intelligence act: an ordoliberal assessment
Wörsdörfer, M. (2023) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-023-00337-x · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Scientists' Perspectives on the Potential for Generative AI in their Fields
Morris, M. R. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.01420 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
The Potential Impact of ChatGPT on Education: Using History as a Rearview Mirror
Wang (王梦倩), M., & Guo (郭文革), W. (2025) · ECNU Review of Education · doi:10.1177/20965311231189826 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Is use of ChatGPT cheating? Students of health professions perceptions
Kazley, A. S., Andresen, C., Mund, A. R., Blankenship, C., & Segal, R. (2024) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2024.2385667 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Lee, C., Myung, J., Han, J., Jin, J., & Oh, A. H. (2023) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.10419 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
ChatGPT and Medicine: Together We Embrace the AI Renaissance
Hacking, S. M. (2024) · JMIR Bioinformatics and Biotechnology · doi:10.2196/52700 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Exploring the Use of Abusive Generative AI Models on Civitai
Wei, Y., Zhu, Y., Hui, P., & Gareth Tyson, A. (2024) · ACM International Conference on Multimedia (ACM MM) · doi:10.1145/3664647.3681052 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Education
Erbaş, İ., Beder", A., & Maksuti, E. (2024) · International Journal of Innovative Research in Multidisciplinary Education · doi:10.58806/ijirme.2024.v3i4n01 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Generative AI in Teacher Education: Teacher Educators’ Perception and PreparednessPreprint
Akanzire, B. N., Nyaaba, M., & Nabang, M. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4628153 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Murray, D., & Williams, K. (2023) · ASCILITE Publications · doi:10.14742/apubs.2023.662 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ncube, P. D. N., Dzvapatsva, G. P., Matobobo, C., & Ranga, M. M. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-025-00871-w · Cited by 31 · see citing works
- Authors
- Guoan, Z., Mengting, P., & Shaobo, W.
- Affiliations
- Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications (CN)
- Venue
- 2025 14th International Conference on Educational and Information Technology (ICEIT)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2025-03-14
- Pages
- 350-355
- OpenAlex
- W4409991857
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 0.92
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Conference on Educational and Information Technology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Q Methodology Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- generative AI in education, teacher perceptions, AI in teaching, ethics in education, educational technology, learning outcomes, educational theory, humanistic education, personalized learning, educational reform, Q methodology
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
