Background The adoption of automated tools to support teaching and learning processes has been widely discussed in the literature. However, there remains a need for user‐oriented designs that better align with teachers' practices and classroom realities while providing actionable insights to support instructional choices in authentic educational settings. Objectives This study aims to systematically evaluate the usability, acceptability and pedagogical relevance of an AIED‐Unplugged learning analytics tool from teachers' perspectives, in order to guide the development of user‐centered design strategies and support writing practices in resource‐constrained educational settings without deepening digital inequities. The proposed study also aims to derive pedagogical and user‐centered design recommendations to strengthen the development of AIED‐U solutions for resource‐constrained educational settings. Method We employed a mixed‐methods approach involving nine teachers, who downloaded an AIED‐U application and followed a predefined usage scenario according to a think‐aloud protocol. Afterwards, participants filled out the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaires, taking part in a moderated semi‐structured interview guided by an interview script. Results and Conclusion The study shows how AI‐driven educational tools can support personalization and the development of essay‐writing activities in resource‐constrained contexts while optimizing teachers'time and contributing to students' writing development. The quantitative findings indicated high levels of acceptance and usability, corroborating the qualitative findings that teachers perceived the solution as useful, easy to integrate and supportive of their practices. Taken together, these findings provide empirical evidence of teachers' perceptions regarding the tool's usability, usefulness and potential applicability within authentic classroom workflows in resource‐constrained educational environments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ribeiro et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: