Factor 3 student teachers were uncritical users whose agency was almost completely subverted to the GenAI system¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Three participants loading on Factor 3 did not employ professional judgment on AI-generated content, did not monitor their GenAI use, and did not disclose GenAI use. → Chaaban 2025

Evidence¶

Chaaban 2025¶

Chaaban, Y., Jung, S.-G., Medina, J., Azem, J. Y., Salminen, J., & Jansen, B. J. (2025). Examining Student Teachers' Agency in an AI-Supported Learning Environment: Q Methodology Research. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-025-00529-y

q2 · i? · qualitative · r?

Q factor analysis of 22 Q sorts; the F-3 idealized sort ranked professional judgment and monitoring at −5. Participants "did not employ professional judgment" and did not monitor use to avoid complete reliance.

"F-3 participants did not employ professional judgment to evaluate AI-generated content for their assignments (17; −5), nor did they regularly monitor their use of GenAI systems to avoid complete reliance on them (16; −5)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Factor 1 student teachers were confident self-reliant GenAI users who showed limited ethical awareness and reflective practices — related
• Reviewed literature reports risks of overreliance, AI errors in complex tasks, and students' uncritical acceptance of AI-generated outputs — a broader claim this one bears on
• In unguided GenAI collaboration, ethnic minority preparatory students’ strategy talk co-occurred with passive sharing and uncritical acceptance, forming a plan-and-paste loop — related
• AI takeover of metacognitive monitoring may foster illusion of competence (untested conjecture) — related