Cited by 145Artificial Intelligence in EducationTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

Supporting Teachers’ Professional Development with Generative AI: The Effects on Higher Order Thinking and Self-Efficacy

Lu, Jijian, Zheng, Ruxin, Gong, Zikun, Xu, Huifen·2024·IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies

Abstract

Generative AI has emerged as a noteworthy milestone and a consequential advancement in the annals of major disciplines within the domains of human science and technology. This study aims to explore the effects of generative AI-assisted pre-service teaching skills training on pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy and higher order thinking. The participants of this study were 215 pre-service mathematics, science, and computer teachers from a university in China. Firstly, a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design was implemented for an experimental group (teaching skills training by generative AI) and a control group (teaching skills training by traditional methods) by investigating the teacher self-efficacy and higher order thinking of the two groups before and after the experiment. Secondly, a semi-structured interview comprising open-ended questions was administered to 25 pre-service teachers within the experimental group to present their views on generative AI-assisted teaching. The results showed that the scores of pre-service teachers in the experimental group, who used generative AI for teachers’ professional development, were considerably higher than those of the control group, both in teacher self-efficacy (F = 8.589, p = 0.0084< 0.05) and higher order thinking (F = 7.217, p = 0.008 < 0.05). It revealed that generative AI can be effective in supporting teachers’ professional development. This study produced a practical teachers’ professional development method for pre-service teachers with generative AI.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tlt.2024.3369690

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lu, J., Zheng, R., Gong, Z., & Xu, H.
Affiliations
Hangzhou Normal University (CN)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies
Published
2024
Volume
17
Pages
1267-1277
ISSN
  • 1939-1382 (ISSN-L)
  • 2372-0050
OpenAlex
W4392173880
Cited by
144
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 65 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 14
FWCI
54.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministry of Education&#x0027;s Artificial Intelligence to Promote the Construction of Teachers' Team
  • Major Humanities and Social Sciences Research Projects in Zhejiang Higher Education Institutions (2023GH005)
  • Teaching Academic and Reform Project of Hangzhou Normal University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Keywords
generative AI, teacher professional development, pre-service teachers, teacher self-efficacy, higher-order thinking skills, teaching skills training, mathematics teachers, science teachers, informatics teachers, initial teacher education

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