The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A study of factors influencing digital ethical literacy among elementary and secondary pre-service teachers: a structural equation modeling analysis
Open accessAbstract
With the application and development of generative AI technologies such as ChatGPT in the field of education and teaching, higher requirements have been put forward to improve the digital ethical literacy of pre-service teachers.However, there are still impediments to the current development of digital ethical literacy among pre-service teachers.Therefore, based on the social cognitive theory, this study aims to discuss the individual-level, behavioral-level, environmental-level, and social-level factors and their relationships that affect pre-service teachers' digital ethics literacy.A total of 524 preservice teachers in China were used as the study population.The study found that the factors influencing pre-service teachers' digital ethics literacy include seven dimensions: personal values and digital ethics awareness at the individual level, digital ethics education competence and digital technology use skills at the behavioral level, resources and environment of the school and related educational policies at the environmental level, and social recognition at the social level.Among them, there are some interactions between the individual and behavioral dimensions, the environment and individual dimensions, the environment and behavioral dimensions, the individual, behavioral and environmental dimensions, and the social and individual behavioral dimensions two by two, and they play a positive influence on improving the digital ethical literacy of the pre-service teachers, but the interactions between the social and environmental dimensions are not significant.On this basis, the improvement of digital ethical literacy of pre-service teachers is discussed to provide some references for the related research on improving digital ethical literacy of pre-service teachers.
Overview
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
Verification
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?
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Teachers with stronger AIL can assess the applicability, limitations, and reliability of AI-generated content and adjust AI-supported resources according to instructional goals (Wang and Tan, 2025).”
From AI teaching innovation behavior among college teachers: a structural equation modeling analysis based on the AI-TPACK framework, teaching self-efficacy, professional identity, and AI literacy (2026) · cites this paper as Wang and Tan, 2025
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.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- Aslan, S. (2021). Analysis of Digital Literacy Self-Ef icacy Levels of Pre-Service Teachers. International Journal of Technology in Education, 4(1), 57-67.
- Milton, M., & Vozzo, L. (2013). Digital literacy and digital pedagogies for teaching literacy: Pre-service teachers' experience on teaching rounds. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 14(1), 72-97.
- Castellvı, J., Dıéz-Bedmar, M. C., & Santisteban, A. (2020). Pre-service teachers' critical digital literacy skills and attitudes to address social problems. Social Sciences, 9(8), 134.
- Prachagool, V., Nuangchalerm, P., & Yawongsa, P. (2022). Digital literacy of pre-service teachers in the period time of COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Educational Issues, 8(2), 347-358.
- Lohnes Watulak, S. (2016). Re lection in action: using inquiry groups to explore critical digital literacy with pre-service teachers. Educational Action Research, 24(4), 503-518.
- Strydom, S. C., Wessels, H., & Anley, C. (2021). Moving beyond the tools: Pre-service teachers' views on what they value in a digital literacy short course. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 11(1), 1- 11.
- Botturi, L. (2019). Digital and media literacy in pre-service teacher education: A case study from Switzerland. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 14(3-4), 147-163.
- Zhang, S., Mingyue Gu, M., Sun, W., & Jin, T. (2024). Digital literacy competence, digital literacy practices and teacher identity among pre-service teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 50(3), 464-478.
- Altun, D. (2019). Investigating Pre-Service Early Childhood Education Teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Competencies Regarding Digital Literacy Skills and Their Technology Attitudes and Usage. Journal of Education and Learning, 8(1), 249-263.
- Maher, D. (2020). Pre-service teachers' digital competencies to support school students' digital literacies. In Handbook of research on literacy and digital technology integration in teacher education (pp. 29-46). IGI Global.
- Polat, M. (2021). Pre-Service Teachers' Digital Literacy Levels, Views on Distance Education and Pre- University School Memories. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(5), 299-314.
- Aslan, S. (2021). The Effect of the Flipped Classroom Model on Pre-Service Teachers' Digital Literacy and Digital Pedagogical Competencies. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 16(4), 73-89.
- Yang, L., Martıńez-Abad, F., & Garcıá-Holgado, A. (2022). Exploring factors in luencing pre-service and in- service teachers perception of digital competencies in the Chinese region of Anhui. Education and Information Technologies, 27(9), 12469-12494.
- Ceglie, R., & Black, G. (2021). The Impact of Digital Literacy Workshops on Pre-Service Teachers. Journal of Research in Education, 30(3), 1-27.
- Ramazani, A., & Talebi, Z. (2023). A consideration of the roles of preservice teachers' information literacy, digital literacy, and ICT self-ef icacy in teaching. Technology of Education Journal (TEJ), 18(1), 271-286.
- Aumann, A., Bernhard, G., Gaidetzka, M., Heiberger, L., Uhl, P., Müller, W., & Stratmann, J. (2021). Digital literacy for pre-service teachers. Development of an ict competence model for teacher education. In EDULEARN21 Proceedings (pp. 7353-7361). IATED.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bai, X., & Hsieh, T.-S. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1834827
“Teachers with stronger AIL can assess the applicability, limitations, and reliability of AI-generated content and adjust AI-supported resources according to instructional goals (Wang and Tan, 2025).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, M., & Tan, J.
- Affiliations
- Guangxi Normal University (CN)
- Venue
- Journal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing
- Publisher
- Combinatorial Press
- Published
- 2025-04-16
- Volume
- 127b
- ISSN
- 0835-3026 (ISSN-L)
- 2817-576X
- OpenAlex
- W4409795133
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 2.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Guangxi Normal University
- Division of Graduate Education
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Digital literacy in education
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Digital Technologies
- Social Sciences › Education › Values and Moral Education
- Keywords
- pre-service teachers, social cognitive theory, generative AI in education, ChatGPT, digital ethics education, social recognition, elementary and secondary teachers
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
