Practitioners near-universally reject AI as a replacement for instructor expertise while affirming its supportive, collaborative role¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on a source with no registered publication record (a web page, book or unpublished report). It is kept because a design page cites it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.
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? Agreement with 'AI can replace instructor expertise in some cases' was sharply low (M = 2.18), with 71% disagreeing and only 14% agreeing. → Gibson 2025
Evidence¶
Gibson 2025¶
Gibson, D., Azukas, M. E., & Knezek, G. (2025). Practitioner Beliefs and Behaviors in AI-Enhanced Education: DOT Framework Survey Evidence.
q2 · i? · associational · r1
Descriptive item statistic from the 19-item belief scale in the survey of 72 practitioners. The item did not load on any factor (maximum .238), which the authors read as a boundary marker for the construct of co-intelligence.
"agreement with the item "AI can replace instructor expertise in some cases" was sharply lower (M = 2.18, SD = 1.01), with 71% of respondents disagreeing or strongly disagreeing and only 14% agreeing."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Practitioners hold near-universal commitments to human oversight and critical evaluation of AI outputs — a broader claim this one bears on
- Students oppose preferring AI videos over instructor-recorded videos and distrust AI video information as much as human-presented information — related
- Perceived GenAI role is systematically associated with metacognitive dimensions activated: replacement-tool users show no evaluation or elaboration, collaborator users show predominantly higher-order activity — related
- Instructor roles shift from exclusive information source toward orchestrating and regulating AI-mediated learning activities — a broader claim this one bears on
- Adult learners emphasize human-in-the-loop AI design that keeps final learning decisions with learners and instructors — related
- Participants simultaneously affirmed ChatGPT feedback as useful while rejecting it as final grader, treating feedback utility and evaluative authority as separate judgements — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Instructors engage LLM-generated suggestions as a controllable refinement process — related
- Students framed AI as replacement rather than scaffolding in 48 of 49 essays — reports the opposite
- Students exercise ethical agency in GenAI use through human-AI collaboration strategies, personal ethical frameworks, strategic calibration of use, and resistance to over-reliance — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
rejection-of-ai-replacing-instructor-expertise |
title |
Practitioners near-universally reject AI as a replacement for instructor expertise while affirming its supportive, collaborative role |
description |
Practitioners near-universally reject AI as a replacement for instructor expertise while affirming its supportive, collaborative role |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-10 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — gibson-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.