More than Model Documentation: Uncovering Teachers' Bespoke Information Needs for Informed Classroom Integration of ChatGPT
Open accessAbstract
ChatGPT has entered classrooms, circumventing typical training and vetting procedures. Unlike other educational technologies, it placed teachers in direct contact with the versatility of generative AI. Consequently, teachers are urgently tasked to assess its capabilities to inform their use of ChatGPT. However, it is unclear what support teachers have and need and whether existing documentation, such as model cards, provides adequate direction for educators in this new paradigm. By interviewing 22 middle- and high-school ELA and Social Studies teachers, we connect the discourse on AI transparency and documentation with educational technology integration, highlighting the information needs of teachers. Our findings reveal that teachers confront significant information gaps, lacking clarity on exploring ChatGPT’s capabilities for bespoke learning tasks and ensuring its fit with the needs of diverse learners. As a solution, we propose a framework for interactive model documentation that empowers teachers to navigate the interplay between pedagogical and technical knowledge.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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 some educational settings, instructors are struggling to understand GenAI's capabilities and feasibility in their classroom.
“Yet, we also know that in some educational settings, instructors are struggling to understand GenAI's capabilities and feasibility in their classroom [9, 42].”
From Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines (2025) · cites this paper as [42]
Tan and Subramonyam found that to help teachers better understand uses of GenAIs, it is important to allow them to discover teaching and learning possibilities.
“Tan and Subramonyam found that to help teachers and instructors better understand the vast uses of GenAIs like ChatGPT it is important to allow them to discover the teaching and learning possibilities that GenAIs offer.”
From Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines (2025) · cites this paper as [42]
GenAIs like ChatGPT impact directly the learning outcomes of students because uncertainty surrounding how they can be used leads to over-monitoring, which can result in serious consequences for student learning outcomes.
“GenAis like ChatGPT impact directly the learning outcomes of students because when there is uncertainty surrounding how they can be used this leads to over monitoring, which can result in serious consequences for student learning outcomes [42].”
From Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines (2025) · cites this paper as [42]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 58 · Cited by 40
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- Emad Aghajani, Csaba Nagy, Olga Lucero Vega-Márquez, Mario Linares- Vásquez, Laura Moreno, Gabriele Bavota, and Michele Lanza. 2019. Software documentation issues unveiled. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 1199-1210.
- Evrim Baran, Hsueh-Hua Chuang, and Ann Thompson. 2011. TPACK: An emerging research and development tool for teacher educators. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET 10, 4 (2011), 370-377.
- Amy L Baylor and Donn Ritchie. 2002. What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & education 39, 4 (2002), 395-414.
- EM Bender and Batya Friedman. 2019. Data statements for NLP: toward miti- gating system bias and enabling better science. In Preprint at https://openreview. net/forum.
- Veronika Bogina, Alan Hartman, Tsvi Kuflik, and Avital Shulner-Tal. 2021. Edu- cating software and AI stakeholders about algorithmic fairness, accountability, transparency and ethics. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Educa- tion (2021), 1-26.
- Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 1877-1901.
- Davide Castelvecchi. 2016. Can we open the black box of AI? Nature News 538, 7623 (2016), 20.
- Ton De Jong and Monica GM Ferguson-Hessler. 1996. Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational psychologist 31, 2 (1996), 105-113.
- Khe Foon Hew, Min Lan, Ying Tang, Chengyuan Jia, and Chung Kwan Lo. 2019. Where is the "theory" within the field of educational technology research? British Journal of Educational Technology 50, 3 (2019), 956-971.
- Sarah Holland, Ahmed Hosny, Sarah Newman, Joshua Joseph, and Kasia Chmielinski. 2020. The dataset nutrition label. Data Protection and Privacy 12, 12 (2020), 1.
- Fethi A Inan and Deborah L Lowther. 2010. Factors affecting technology inte- gration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational technology research and development 58 (2010), 137-154.
- Rachel Karchmer-Klein and Haruka Konishi. 2023. A mixed-methods study of novice teachers' technology integration: Do they leverage their TPACK knowledge once entering the profession? Journal of Research on Technology in Education 55, 3 (2023), 490-506.
- MJ Koehler and P Mishra. 2008. Introducing TPCK. Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators, In the AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 2-29).
- Matthew Koehler and Punya Mishra. 2009. What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education 9, 1 (2009), 60-70.
- Jason M Lodge, Suijing Yang, Leon Furze, and Phillip Dawson. 2023. It's not like a calculator, so what is the relationship between learners and generative artificial intelligence? Learning: Research and Practice 9, 2 (2023), 117-124.
- Rose Luckin, Karine George, and Mutlu Cukurova. 2022. AI for school teachers. CRC Press.
- Huy A Nguyen, Hayden Stec, Xinying Hou, Sarah Di, and Bruce M McLaren. 2023. Evaluating chatgpt's decimal skills and feedback generation in a digi- tal learning game. In European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning. Springer, 278-293.
- Daniel Schiff. 2021. Out of the laboratory and into the classroom: the future of artificial intelligence in education. AI & society 36, 1 (2021), 331-348.
- Mark Bedoya Ulla, William F Perales, and Stephenie Ong Busbus. 2023. 'To generate or stop generating response': Exploring EFL teachers' perspectives on ChatGPT in English language teaching in Thailand. Learning: Research and Practice 9, 2 (2023), 168-182.
- Rose E Wang, Qingyang Zhang, Carly Robinson, Susanna Loeb, and Dorottya Demszky. 2023. Step-by-Step Remediation of Students' Mathematical Mistakes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10648 (2023). · arXiv
- Jeromie Whalen, Chrystalla Mouza, et al. 2023. ChatGPT: Challenges, Op- portunities, and Implications for Teacher Education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 23, 1 (2023), 1-23.
- Olaf Zawacki-Richter, Victoria I Marín, Melissa Bond, and Franziska Gouverneur. 2019. Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education-where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 16, 1 (2019), 1-27.
- Authors
- Tan, M., & Subramonyam, H.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Stanford University, United States
- Venue
- Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2024-05-11
- Pages
- 1-19
- OpenAlex
- W4396832366
- Cited by
- 40
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 5
- FWCI
- 15.23
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2229873)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, generative AI in education, teacher information needs, model documentation, model cards, AI transparency, educational technology integration, social studies teachers, middle and high schools, student diversity
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
