Trust in AI varied by positioning: partners saw bias and assigned their own grades, while substitutes trusted AI scores as actual grades¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitativer3·q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Partner teachers believed AI could have inherent biases and inaccuracies and tended to assign their own grades, whereas substitute teachers tended to use AI grades directly without factoring in effort. → Hillary Greene Nolan 2024
Evidence¶
Hillary Greene Nolan 2024¶
Hillary Greene Nolan, Ph.D, Merijke Coenraad, Ph.D, Viki Young, Ph.D. (2024). Teaching Partner, Grading Assistant, Substitute Teacher: Three Ways Teachers Positioned an Artificial Intelligence Tool in Writing Instruction. Digital Promise, Center for Inclusive Innovation. https://digitalpromise.dspacedirect.org/items/4f2d86a3-9b66-4538-a5ad-977bb8fbacf7 doi:10.51388/20.500.12265/226
q2 · i? · qualitative · r3
Interview finding on grading practices. Partner teachers showed skepticism, e.g., "I've noticed the paraphrasers don't get the points the quoters do...the algorithm wants the quotes," while one substitute said "I felt like [the AI] was spot-on."
"Teachers who positioned AI as a substitute tended to use the grades directly, neither factoring in effort nor accounting for students who did not produce enough writing to receive a score."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Teachers at convenings said the three AI approaches are fluid rather than static, with movement across approaches as experience grows — related
- The focus of teacher-student interactions differed by AI positioning: learning for partners, score-increasing for assistants, completion for substitutes — related
- Partner-positioned teachers built students' AI literacy, while assistant and substitute teachers' transparency centered on gaming scores — related
- Among 24 Topeka teachers, half positioned the AI as a teaching partner, 29% as a grading assistant, and 21% as a substitute teacher — related
- Teachers who positioned AI as a partner remained instructional leaders, weaving the tool into rich instruction and using score data to decide what to re-teach — related
- People may absorb bias from AI and carry it beyond their interactions with the algorithm — related
- Reviewed literature reports risks of overreliance, AI errors in complex tasks, and students' uncritical acceptance of AI-generated outputs — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
ai-trust-varies-by-positioning |
title |
Trust in AI varied by positioning: partners saw bias and assigned their own grades, while substitutes trusted AI scores as actual grades |
description |
Trust in AI varied by positioning: partners saw bias and assigned their own grades, while substitutes trusted AI scores as actual grades |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2024 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-09 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — hillary-greene-nolan-2024 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.