Survey assesses AI competencies in early childhood educators, suggesting tailored professional development approaches.
Amid calls to redefine core teacher competencies in the era of generativeAI, this study aimed to diagnose in-service early childhood teachers’ AI competency levels and educational needs and identify the core components of a professional development (PD) program to strengthen those competencies. Building on prior research, a survey instrument was developed and administered to 180 in-service early childhood teachers; descriptive statistics and reliability indices (Cronbach’s α) were calculated. Open-ended responses were analyzed using content analysis, and three focus group interviews (FGIs) were conducted with 18 teachers (≥5 years of experience) to derive in-depth qualitative insights. Findings indicated relatively high levels ofAI conceptual understanding, human-AI relationship perception, and AI ethics awareness, but a lower level of AI utilization competency, revealing a gap between awareness and classroom practice. Synthesizing the open-ended and FGI results, the proposed PD should adopt an integrated design (embedding AI within the existing cycle of observation-analysis-lesson planning-assessment), experiential/project-based blended delivery, and performance-based assessment (portfolio, product demonstration, and classroom application). The recommended content triad comprises ethics/privacy/copyright, AI-based instructional material development, and child developmentdata analysis. In addition, standard guidelines, verification checklists, post-training coaching, practitioner communities, and periodic updates, supported by institutional infrastructure and time allocation, are essential for sustainable scaling. By proposingan evidence-based, modular PD framework — Foundations (concepts/ethics) - Practice (materials/data) - Application (play/assessment) — this study provides baselineevidence to support safe and sustainable AI use in early childhood education
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Deahun Choi (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: