Cited by 13Artificial Intelligence in EducationEducational Technology and PedagogyArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Learning to Teach AI: Design and Validation of a Questionnaire on Artificial Intelligence Training for Teachers

Open access
Reina-Parrado, Manuel, Román-Graván, Pedro, Hervás-Gómez, Carlos·2025·European Journal of Educational Research

Abstract

This study aims to design, produce, and validate an information collection instrument to evaluate the opinions of teachers at non-university educational levels on the quality of training in artificial intelligence (AI) applied to education. The questionnaire was structured around five key dimensions: (a) knowledge and previous experience in AI, (b) perception of the benefits and applications of AI in education, (c) AI training, and (d) expectations of the courses and (e) impact on teaching practice. Validation was performed through expert judgment, which ensured the internal validity and reliability of the instrument. Statistical analyses, which included measures of central tendency, dispersion, and internal consistency, yielded a Cronbach's alpha of .953, indicating excellent reliability. The findings reveal a generally positive attitude towards AI in education, emphasizing its potential to personalize learning and improve academic outcomes. However, significant variability in teachers' training experiences underscores the need for more standardized training programs. The validated questionnaire emerges as a reliable tool for future research on teachers' perceptions of AI in educational contexts. From a practical perspective, the validated questionnaire provides a structured framework for assessing teacher training programs in AI, offering valuable insights for improving educational policies and program design. It enables a deeper exploration of educational AI, a field still in its early stages of research and implementation. This tool supports the development of targeted training initiatives, fostering more effective integration of AI into educational practices.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.12973/eu-jer.14.1.249

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The impact of emotional distress can be added to the impact of consequential validity.

    “Therefore, the impact of emotional distress can be added to the impact of consequential validity [5, 41].”

    From The impact of generative artificial intelligence tools on assessment equity for non-native English-speaking medical students: a systematic review (2026) · cites this paper as [41]

    The ‘Need for Validation of a Questionnaire’ and ‘Validation of the Questionnaire’ sections discuss measuring perceptions of AI in education and the questionnaire’s validity. Neither addresses emotional distress or consequential validity; searches for those terms and their relationship found no relevant passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Garcia Corretjer, M. A. (2022). On the relationship between people, objects, and interactive technologies: Transforming digital and physical experiences through the process of realizing empathy [Doctoral dissertation, Universitat Ramon Llull]. TDX http://hdl.handle.net/10803/675718
  2. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  3. Trochim, W. M. K., & Donnelly, J. P. (2006). The research methods knowledge base (3rd ed.). Atomic Dog Publishing.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reina-Parrado, M., Román-Graván, P., & Hervás-Gómez, C.
Affiliations
Universidad de Sevilla (ES)
Venue
European Journal of Educational Research
Published
2025-01-08
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
249-265
ISSN
2165-8714 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4406154631
Cited by
13
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5
FWCI
13.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
European Journal of Educational Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Technology and Pedagogy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
artificial intelligence in education, teacher professional development, AI literacy, questionnaire design, instrument validation, teacher perceptions, personalized learning, teacher attitudes toward AI, training evaluation

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