Among 24 Topeka teachers, half positioned the AI as a teaching partner, 29% as a grading assistant, and 21% as a substitute teacher¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitativer?·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? Of 24 interviewed teachers, 12 positioned the AI as a teaching partner, 7 as a grading assistant, and 5 as a substitute teacher. → 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 · r?
Qualitative interview study of 24 middle school language arts teachers using the Topeka AI writing platform in 2021-22. The Findings section reports the distribution: "12 (50%) positioned the AI as a teaching partner, 7 (29%) as a grading assistant, and 5 (21%) as a substitute teacher."
"Of 24 teachers, 12 (50%) positioned the AI as a teaching partner, 7 (29%) as a grading assistant, and 5 (21%) as a substitute teacher."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Trust in AI varied by positioning: partners saw bias and assigned their own grades, while substitutes trusted AI scores as actual grades — related
- The focus of teacher-student interactions differed by AI positioning: learning for partners, score-increasing for assistants, completion for substitutes — 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
- Partner-positioned teachers built students' AI literacy, while assistant and substitute teachers' transparency centered on gaming scores — related
- Teachers at convenings said the three AI approaches are fluid rather than static, with movement across approaches as experience grows — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
teacher-positioning-distribution-topeka |
title |
Among 24 Topeka teachers, half positioned the AI as a teaching partner, 29% as a grading assistant, and 21% as a substitute teacher |
description |
Among 24 Topeka teachers, half positioned the AI as a teaching partner, 29% as a grading assistant, and 21% as a substitute teacher |
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.