The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Teachers, Parents, and Students' perspectives on Integrating Generative AI into Elementary Literacy Education
Open accessAbstract
The viral launch of new generative AI (GAI) systems, such as ChatGPT and Text-to-Image (TTL) generators, sparked questions about how they can be effectively incorporated into writing education. However, it is still unclear how teachers, parents, and students perceive and suspect GAI systems in elementary school settings. We conducted a workshop with twelve families (parent-child dyads) with children ages 8-12 and interviewed sixteen teachers in order to understand each stakeholder’s perspectives and opinions on GAI systems for learning and teaching writing. We found that the GAI systems could be beneficial in generating adaptable teaching materials for teachers, enhancing ideation, and providing students with personalized, timely feedback. However, there are concerns over authorship, students’ agency in learning, and uncertainty concerning bias and misinformation. In this article, we discuss design strategies to mitigate these constraints by implementing an adults-oversight system, balancing AI-role allocation, and facilitating customization to enhance students’ agency over writing projects.
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 [9]
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, GenAI facilitates intercultural competence by incorporating diverse cultural contents into language learning.”
From Generative AI in Language Education: Bridging Divide and Fostering Inclusivity (2025) · cites this paper as Han et al., 2024
In the citing paper
“Cultural understanding and the reduction of biases in language learning, highlighted in studies by Han et al. (2024) and Lee et al. (2024), suggest that GenAI can serve as culturally intelligent tools.”
From Generative AI in Language Education: Bridging Divide and Fostering Inclusivity (2025) · cites this paper as Han et al., 2024
In the citing paper
“A parent mentioned using GenAI to generate content about traditional Asian dragons to teach her child about their cultural heritage.”
From Generative AI in Language Education: Bridging Divide and Fostering Inclusivity (2025) · cites this paper as Han et al., 2024
In the citing paper
“The findings pinpoint that GenAI can provide culturally relevant examples and feedback.”
From Generative AI in Language Education: Bridging Divide and Fostering Inclusivity (2025) · cites this paper as Han et al., 2024
In the citing paper
“Also, GenAI can create culturally salient stories, like fables, which resonate with a learner's heritage.”
From Generative AI in Language Education: Bridging Divide and Fostering Inclusivity (2025) · cites this paper as Han et al., 2024
In the citing paper
“In the reviewed papers, two studies [10,24] explicitly suggest that when AI systems are allowed to freely generate content, students may rely on AI for the entire output, completing their work with minimal engagement in the creative process.”
From Child-AI Co-Creation: A Review of the Current Research Landscape and a Proposal for Six Design Considerations (2025) · cites this paper as [24]
In the citing paper
“Other papers [10,24,37,61] discussed how misinformation or biased content can emerge unpredictably, especially when children rely heavily on generative models without understanding their underlying data sources.”
From Child-AI Co-Creation: A Review of the Current Research Landscape and a Proposal for Six Design Considerations (2025) · cites this paper as [24]
Citations
Cites
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372
Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1
Prensky, M. (2001) · On the Horizon · doi:10.1108/10748120110424816 · Cited by 11,104
The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers
Lungu, M. (2022) · American Journal of Qualitative Research · doi:10.29333/ajqr/12085 · Cited by 10,936 · cited 1×
“Following this, we utilized qualitative data analysis software for an initial round of open coding, adhering to established qualitative research methodologies [93, 103].”
Artificial Intelligence in Education: A Review
Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2988510 · Cited by 4,133 · cited 1×
“These technologies have enhanced teaching and learning [11, 21, 55, 76, 84, 101, 117, 121], yet little of this prior work addresses directly how AIED integrates holistically into educational settings [21, 54].”
BAİDOO-ANU, D., & OWUSU ANSAH, L. (2023) · Journal of AI · doi:10.61969/jai.1337500 · Cited by 3,939
Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience
Mirvis, P. H., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258925 · Cited by 3,758
Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4337484 · Cited by 3,004
On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models
Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.07258 · Cited by 2,676
Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of Artificial Intelligence in Education
Hwang, G.-J., Xie, H., Wah, B. W., & Gašević, D. (2020) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100001 · Cited by 1,435
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
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- Debby RE Cotton, Peter A Cotton, and J Reuben Shipway. 2023. Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International (2023), 1–12.
- Giorgio Franceschelli and Mirco Musolesi. 2023. On the creativity of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.00008 (2023). · arXiv
- 10.1145/3313831.3376631 · DOI · Paper page
- Steve Graham, Alisha Bollinger, Carol Booth Olson, Catherine D’Aoust, Charles MacArthur, Deborah McCutchen, and Natalie Olinghouse. 2012. Teaching Elementary School Students to Be Effective Writers: A Practice Guide. NCEE 2012-4058.What Works Clearinghouse (2012).
- Mohammad Khalil and Erkan Er. 2023. Will ChatGPT get you caught? Rethinking of plagiarism detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04335 (2023). · arXiv
- Alyson Klein. 2023. 180 Degree Turn: NYC District Goes From Banning ChatGPT to Exploring AI’s Potential. Education Week (Oct. 2023). https://www.edweek.org/technology/180-degree-turn-nyc-schools-goes-from-banning-chatgpt-to-exploring-ais-potential/2023/10
- Wander ly. 2023. Wanderly: Magical adventures for curious children. https://app.wander.ly/
- Igor Pesek, Novica Nosović, and Marjan Krašna. 2022. The Role of AI in the Education and for the Education. In 2022 11th Mediterranean Conference on Embedded Computing (MECO). IEEE, 1–4.
- Mitchel Resnick, Brad Myers, Kumiyo Nakakoji, Ben Shneiderman, Randy Pausch, and Mike Eisenberg. 2005. Design Principles for Tools to Support Creative Thinking. Report of Workshop on Creativity Support Tools 20 (Jan. 2005).
- David R Thomas. 2006. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American journal of evaluation 27, 2 (2006), 237–246.
- Levent Uzun. 2023. ChatGPT and academic integrity concerns: Detecting artificial intelligence generated content. Language Education and Technology 3, 1 (2023).
- Ge Wang, Jun Zhao, Max Van Kleek, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2022. ’Don’t make assumptions about me!’: Understanding Children’s Perception of Datafication Online. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–24.
- Lu Wang, Munif Ishad Mujib, Jake Williams, George Demiris, and Jina Huh-Yoo. 2021. An evaluation of generative pre-training model-based therapy chatbot for caregivers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13115 (2021). · arXiv
- Tongshuang Wu Michael Terry and Carrie J. Cai. 2022. AI Chains: Transparent and Controllable Human-AI Interaction by Chaining Large Language Model Prompts | Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3491102.3517582 · DOI
- 10.1145/3411764.3445271 · DOI
- 10.1145/3411764.3445271 · DOI
- Daijin Yang, Yanpeng Zhou, Zhiyuan Zhang, and Toby Jia-Jun Li. 2022. AI as an Active Writer: Interaction strategies with generated text in human-AI collaborative fiction writing. ACM IUI Workshop (2022).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Yim, I. H. Y. (2024) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100319 · Cited by 240
Yim, I. H. Y., & Wegerif, R. (2024) · Future in Educational Research · doi:10.1002/fer3.65 · Cited by 130
Generative AI use in K-12 education: a systematic review
Alfarwan, A. M. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1647573 · Cited by 162
Hu, L., Wang, H., & Xin, Y. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13353-7 · Cited by 77
“Several studies have explored teachers’ intention to use GAI-assisted instruction and the factors that influence it (Han et al., 2024; Lu et al., 2024; Moorhouse, 2024).”
Generative AI and the future of connectivist learning in higher education
Liang, E. S., & Bai, S. (2025) · Journal of Asian Public Policy · doi:10.1080/17516234.2024.2386085 · Cited by 34
“These capabilities allow GenAI to create new social interactions and provide learners with new ways to access and interact with diverse sources of information (Han et al., 2024).”
Influential
Metadata
- Authors
- Han, A., Zhou, X., Cai, Z., Han, S., Ko, R., Corrigan, S., & Peppler, K. A.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- University of Rochester (US)
- UC Irvine, United States
- Venue
- Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2024-05-11
- Pages
- 1-17
- OpenAlex
- W4396832735
- Semantic Scholar
- 58c21b7488ec9d5cdf51507c740277acacf10f3d
- Cited by
- 114
- References
- 80
- Citations by year
- 2026: 50 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 10
- FWCI
- 43.31
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Technology Integration
- Keywords
- generative AI, writing instruction, teacher perceptions, parental attitudes, student perceptions, ChatGPT, authorship, student agency, personalized feedback, idea generation
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
