An Instrument for Measuring Teachers’ Trust in AI-Based Educational Technology
Abstract
Evidence from various domains underlines the key role that human factors, and especially, trust, play in the adoption of technology by practitioners. In the case of Artificial Intelligence (AI) driven learning analytics tools, the issue is even more complex due to practitioners’ AI-specific misconceptions, myths, and fears (i.e., mass unemployment and ethical concerns). In recent years, artificial intelligence has been introduced increasingly into K-12 education. However, little research has been conducted on the trust and attitudes of K-12 teachers regarding the use and adoption of AI-based Educational Technology (EdTech). The present study introduces a new instrument to measure teachers' trust in AI-based EdTech, provides evidence of its internal structure validity, and uses it to portray secondary-level school teachers' attitudes toward AI. First, we explain the instrument items creation process based on our preliminary research and review of existing tools in other domains. Second, using Exploratory Factor Analysis we analyze the results from 132 teachers’ input. The results reveal eight factors influencing teachers’ trust in adopting AI-based EdTech: Perceived Benefits of AI-based EdTech, AI-based EdTech's Lack of Human Characteristics, AI-based EdTech's Perceived Lack of Transparency, Anxieties Related to Using AI-based EdTech, Self-efficacy in Using AI-based EdTech, Required Shift in Pedagogy to Adopt AI-based EdTech, Preferred Means to Increase Trust in AI-based EdTec…
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?
Existing research on teachers' trust in GenAI-based educational tools largely centers on K-12 education.
“Existing research on teachers' trust in GenAI-based educational tools largely centers on K-12 education [13, 82, 83, 94, 114].”
From Understanding the Practices, Perceptions, and (Dis)Trust of Generative AI among Instructors: A Mixed-methods Study in the U.S. Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [82]
Existing research on teachers' trust in GenAI-based educational tools largely centers on K-12 education.
“Existing research on teachers' trust in GenAI-based educational tools largely centers on K-12 education [13, 82, 83, 94, 114].”
From Understanding the Practices, Perceptions, and (Dis)Trust of Generative AI among Instructors: A Mixed-methods Study in the U.S. Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [83]
Cites
An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples)
SHAPIRO, S. S., & WILK, M. B. (1965) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591 · Cited by 23,480 · see citing works
An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples)
Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965) · Biometrika · doi:10.2307/2333709 · Cited by 23,469 · see citing works
An Index of Factorial Simplicity
Kaiser, H. F. (1974) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291575 · Cited by 14,898 · see citing works
VanLEHN, K. (2011) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.611369 · Cited by 2,323 · see citing works
Piderit, S. K. (2000) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2000.3707722 · Cited by 1,873 · see citing works
How Much Information?: Effects of Transparency on Trust in an Algorithmic Interface
Kizilcec, R. F. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858402 · Cited by 615 · see citing works
Long-Term Trends in the Public Perception of Artificial Intelligence
Fast, E., & Horvitz, E. (2017) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v31i1.10635 · Cited by 467 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Tostart with, Fast and Horvitz [17] revealed that from the year 2009 the discussion on AI has sharply increased and is more optimistic than pessimistic.”
BackgroundThe ethics of information transparency
Turilli, M., & Floridi, L. (2009) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-009-9187-9 · Cited by 419 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Celik, I. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107468 · Cited by 1,012 · see citing works
Nazaretsky, T., Ariely, M., Cukurova, M., & Alexandron, G. (2022) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13232 · Cited by 589 · see citing works
Self-citationStrzelecki, A. (2024) · Innovative Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10755-023-09686-1 · Cited by 477 · see citing works
“The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into various sectors of society has become a prominent focal point of academic inquiry and application, with education standing out as a particularly noteworthy arena (Nazaretsky et al., 2022a).”
Human-centred learning analytics and AI in education: A systematic literature review
Alfredo, R., Echeverria, V., Jin, Y., Yan, L., Swiecki, Z., Gašević, D., & Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100215 · Cited by 281 · see citing works
Zhang, J., & Zhang, Z. (2024) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12988 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
What Explains Teachers’ Trust in AI in Education Across Six Countries?
Viberg, O., Cukurova, M., Feldman-Maggor, Y., Alexandron, G., Shirai, S., Kanemune, S., Wasson, B., Tømte, C., Spikol, D., Milrad, M., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-024-00433-x · Cited by 179 · see citing works
Self-citationAl-Abdullatif, A. M. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14111209 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Wijaya, T. T., Yu, Q., Cao, Y., He, Y., & Leung, F. K. S. (2024) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs14111008 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Lyu, W., Zhang, S., Chung, T., Sun, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2025) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100383 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
“Existing research on teachers’ trust in GenAI-based educational tools largely centers on K-12 education [13, 82, 83, 94, 114].”
Zhang, D., Wijaya, T. T., Wang, Y., Su, M., Li, X., & Damayanti, N. W. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-99127-0 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
AI or Human? Evaluating Student Feedback Perceptions in Higher Education
Nazaretsky, T., Mejia-Domenzain, P., Swamy, V., Frej, J., & Käser, T. (2024) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72315-5_20 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Self-citationBodaubekov, A., Agaidarova, S., Zhussipbek, T., Gaipov, D., & Balta, N. (2025) · Contemporary Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/cedtech/15687 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Ko, E. G., & Hughes, J. E. (2026) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100560 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Nazaretsky, T., Cukurova, M., & Alexandron, G.
- Affiliations
- Weizmann Institute of Science (IL)
- University College London (GB)
- Venue
- LAK22: 12th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2022-03-21
- Pages
- 56-66
- OpenAlex
- W4226155525
- Cited by
- 158
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 5
- FWCI
- 27.92
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK) (publishedVersion)
- EdArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Weizmann Institute of Science
- Azrieli Foundation
- Council for Higher Education
- Division of Chemistry
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Keywords
- teacher trust, artificial intelligence in education, technology adoption, K-12 teachers, teacher attitudes, learning analytics, AI misconceptions
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
