Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study investigated pre-service teachers’ attitudes, perceptions, and anxiety toward artificial intelligence (AI), with gender, age, and socioeconomic status (SES) as demographic factors. Using a descriptive-quantitative correlational design, data were collected through an online survey from 150 valid respondents. Attitude was measured using the General Attitudes toward AI Scale, perception through an adapted 38-item instrument, and anxiety through the AI Anxiety Scale with four subscales. Descriptive statistics summarized levels, while t-tests, ANOVA, and Pearson correlation tested differences and relationships among variables. Results showed that respondents exhibited a generally positive attitude on favorable statements (M = 3,40), but expressed reservations on negative items (M = 2,49). Their overall perception was neutral (M = 2,68), while AI-related anxiety was moderate (M = 4,40), with higher levels in job replacement and sociotechnical blindness. Gender differences were not significant for attitude and perception, but female respondents reported significantly higher anxiety than males (p = ,010, large effect). No significant differences were observed across age groups, while SES revealed no variation in attitude and perception but showed significant differences in anxiety (p = ,026), with middle-class and poor respondents scoring higher than low-income groups. Correlation analysis indicated a moderate positive relationship between perception and anxiety (r = ,464, p < ,001), while attitude showed weak and nonsignificant links with both. Overall, the findings suggest cautious openness to AI among pre-service teachers, underscoring the need for teacher education programs to integrate AI-focused training and ethical discourse to reduce anxiety and enhance readiness for responsible AI integration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aprillette C. Devanadera (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: