General AI literacy is not significantly related to in-service science educators' AI use or to their age, gender, or years of service¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? No significant correlations were found between AI literacy (AI-literate vs AI-illiterate median-split groups) and teachers' AI usage history or frequency of seen usage opportunities. → Nikolai Maurer 2026 q3 i? AI literacy was not significantly related to age, gender, or years of service. → Nikolai Maurer 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Nikolai Maurer 2026¶

Nikolai Maurer, Mathea Brückner, Christoph Thyssen, Sebastian Becker-Genschow, Johannes Huwer. (2026). Science educators' AI literacy and AI usage in teaching: Implications for post-qualification programs. Computers and Education Open 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2026.100376

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Correlational analysis (SPSS) of survey data from ncorr = 49 teachers who completed both the AI literacy test and usage questionnaire; median-split literacy groups showed no significant differences in usage history. Only p-values are printed, so no effect size is reported; equivalence was not tested.

"No significant correlations (all p-values between 0.109 and 1.00) were found between AI-literate and AI-illiterate teachers regarding their AI usage history."

Nikolai Maurer 2026 (2)¶

Nikolai Maurer, Mathea Brückner, Christoph Thyssen, Sebastian Becker-Genschow, Johannes Huwer. (2026). Science educators' AI literacy and AI usage in teaching: Implications for post-qualification programs. Computers and Education Open 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2026.100376

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Same survey subsample; correlations of AI literacy with age, gender, and years of service were non-significant, with only the printed p-value range available. The authors note the small sample size could have masked possible correlations.

"None of these factors were found to be significantly related to AI literacy (all p between 0.333 and 0.462)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Digital Literacy — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
• Age and Developmental Stage — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Female students are significantly more likely than male students to use AI for schoolwork and to seek advice from AI tools — reports the opposite
• Age, gender, class level and voluntary programme choice do not significantly predict job search anxiety in the adjusted model — related
• Cluster analysis identifies three stable learner profiles: Engaged and Literate, Uncritical Reliant, and Skeptical Minimal users — related
• University students with high versus low GenAI literacy scores show significantly different ENA interaction structures during an AI-assisted abstract writing task — related
• Focal paths are robust to background controls, which did not directly predict AI integration intention — related
• Teachers' SRL competence profiles do not differ by gender, age, or teaching experience
• Teachers who see AI usage opportunities more frequently use AI significantly more often (r = .45 in class) — related
• Teaching experience is a minor negative predictor of digital data use, while age and gender show no significant effect — related
• Demographic and experience-related learner factors show no or only weak relationships with SRL strategies in continuing education — related