Integrating generative AI into STEM education: Insights from science and mathematics teachers

Abdulla Al Darayseh; Nazan Mersin

doi:10.29333/iejme/16232

Full Text (PDF)

Abdulla Al Darayseh ¹ ^* , Nazan Mersin ²

More Detail

¹ Emirates College for Advanced Education, UAE² Istanbul Medeniyet University, TÜRKIYE^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

This study investigates the perceptions of STEM teachers regarding the integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) applications into classroom settings, using the extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as the framework. The study examines self-efficacy, anxiety, perceived ease of use, expected benefits, attitudes, and behavioral intentions toward AI applications. Data was collected from 448 mathematics and science teachers across various Turkish provinces through an online survey. Results revealed a generally positive attitude toward AI, with male teachers exhibiting higher self-efficacy and perceived ease of use compared to female teachers. However, no significant differences were found across other TAM dimensions, such as stress, anxiety, and expected benefits, based on gender, age, or teaching experience. These findings suggest that while STEM teachers are generally open to AI adoption, targeted interventions are needed to address gender disparities and improve ease of use.

Keywords

artificial intelligence
STEM teachers
technology acceptance model
self-efficacy
anxiety and stress

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

INT ELECT J MATH ED, Volume 20, Issue 3, August 2025, Article No: em0832

https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/16232

Publication date: 01 Jul 2025

Online publication date: 02 Apr 2025

Article Views: 42

Article Downloads: 19

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Aburbeian, M., Owda, Y., & Owda, M. (2022). A technology acceptance model survey of the metaverse prospects. AI, 3(2), 285-302. https://doi.org/10.3390/ai3020018
Al Darayseh, A. (2023). Acceptance of artificial intelligence in teaching science: Science teachers’ perspective. Computers and Education: ArtificialIntelligence, 4, Article 100132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100132
AlKanaan, H. (2022). Awareness regarding the implication of artificial intelligence in science education among pre-service science teachers. International Journal of Instruction, 15(3), Article 895912. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15348a
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49(2), 155-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294170
Arbuckle, J. L. (2007). AMOS 16.0. Spring House, PA: Amos Development Corporation.
Asiri, M., & El aasar, S. (2022). Employing technology acceptance model to assess the reality of using augmented reality applications in teaching from teachers’ point of view in Najran. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(2), 5241-5255.
Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Journal of AI, 7(1), 52-62. https://doi.org/10.61969/jai.1337500
Bhutoria, A. (2022). Personalized education and Artificial Intelligence in the United States, China, and India: A systematic review using a human-in-the-loop model. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, Article 100068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100068
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Cross-cultural research methods. In I. Altman, A. Rapoport, & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Environment and Culture (Vol. 4, pp. 47-82). Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0451-5_3
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.
Çam, H., & Günal, Z. (2016). Identifying the factors which is affecting the outsourcing of businesses wıth structural equation modeling. Gümüshane University Electronic Journal of the Institute of Social Sciences, 7(15), 210-229.
Çelik, M., &Turunç, Ö. (2011). Emotional labor and psychological distress: The mediating effect of work family conflict. Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business Administration, 40(2), 226-250.
Chan, R.C.H. (2022). A social cognitive perspective on gender disparities in self-efficacy, interest, and aspirations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): The influence of cultural and gender norms. International Journal of STEM Education, 9, Article 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00352-0
Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access, 8, 75264-75278. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988510
Cukurova, M., Khan-Galaria, M., Millán, E., & Luckin, R. (2021). A learning analytics approach to monitoring the quality of online one-to-one tutoring. Journal of Learning Analytics, 9(2), 105-120. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/qfh7z
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1002. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
Durak, H. (2019). Examining the acceptance and use of online social networks by preservice teachers within the context of unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 31(1), 173-209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9200-6
Frias, C. M., & Dixon, R. A. (2005). Confirmatory factor structure and measurement invariance of the memory compensation questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 17(2), 168-178. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.17.2.168
Grassini, S. (2023). Shaping the future of education: Exploring the potential and consequences of AI and ChatGPT in educational settings. Education Sciences, 13, Article 692. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070692
Guner, H., & Acarturk, C. (2020). The use and acceptance of ICT by senior citizens: A comparison of technology acceptance model (TAM) for elderly and young adults. Universal Access in the Information Society, 19(2), 311-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-018-0642-4
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Thiele, K. O. (2017). Mirror, mirror on the wall: A comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 616-632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0517-x
Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. Oxford university press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195339888.001.0001
Hébert, C., Jenson, J., & Terzopoulos, T. (2021). “Access to technology is the major challenge”: Teacher perspectives on barriers to DGBL in K-12 classrooms. E-Learning and Digital Media, 18(3), 307-324. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753021995315
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (2000). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International.
Kao, C. P., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). Teachers’ attitudes toward web-based professional development, with relation to Internet self-efficacy and beliefs about web-based learning. Computers & Education, 53(1), 66-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.019
Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., ... Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? Onopportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Dif-ferences, 103, Article 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Kim, N., & Kim M. (2022). Teacher’s perceptions of using an artificial intelligence-based educational tool for scientific writing. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 755914. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.755914
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.
Kok, J. N., Boers, E. J., Kosters, W. A., van der Putten, P., & Poel, M. (2009). Artificial intelligence: Definition, trends, techniques, and cases. Knowledge for sustainable development: An insight into the encyclopedia of life support systems (pp. 1095-1107). Eolss Publishers.
Lee, U., Han, A., Lee, J., Kim, J., Kim, H., & Lim, C. (2023). Prompt aloud!: Incorporating image-generative AI into STEAM class with learning analytics using prompt data. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 9575-6905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12150-4
Lew, S. L., Lau, S. H., & Leow, M. C. (2019). Usability factors predicting continuance of intention to use cloud e-learning application. Heliyon, 5(6), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01788
Lindner, A., & Romeike, R. (2019). Teachers’ perspectives on artificial intelligence. In 12th International Conference on Informatics in Schools. Situation, evaluation and perspectives. Larnaca, Cyprus. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337716601
Marcoulides, G., & Schumacher, R. (2001). New developments and techniques in structural equation modelling. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410601858
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factory analysis: The effects of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 391-410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.391
Nikitas, A., Michalakopoulou, K., Njoya, E., & Karampatzakis, D. (2020). Artificial intelligence, transport and the smart city: Definitions and dimensions of a new mobility era. Sustainability MDPI Journal, 12(7), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072789
Qadir, J. (2022). Engineering education in the era of Chatgpt: Promise and pitfalls of generative aIfor education. TechRxiv. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.21789434.v1
Saade, R., Nebebe, F., & Tan, W. (2007). Viability of the “technology acceptance model” in multimedia learning environments: A comparative study. Journal of eLearning and Learning Objects, 3, 175-184. https://doi.org/10.28945/392
Sánchez-Prieto, J. C., Olmos-Migueláñez, S., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2016). Informal tools in formal contexts: Development of a model to assess the acceptance of mobile technologies among teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 519-528.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
Schumaker, R., & Lomax, R. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610904
Shin, S., & Shin, H. (2020). A study on the application of artificial intelligence in elementary science education. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 39(1), 117-132. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2020.39.1.117
Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş: Temel İlkeler ve Lisrel Uygulamalari [Introduction to structural equation modeling: Basic principles and LISREL applications]. Ekinoks, Ankara.
Stone, P., Brooks, R., Brynjolfsson, E., Calo, R., Etzioni, O., Hager, G., Hirschberg, J., Kalyanakrishnan, S., Kamar, E., Kraus, S., Leyton-Brown, K., Parkes, D., Press, W., Saxenian, A. A., Shah, J., Tambe, M., & Teller, A. (2016). Artificial intelligence and life in 2030. In Proceedings of the One-Hundred-Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: Report of the 2015-2016. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal Eşitlik Modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar [Structural equation models: Basic concepts and example applications]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 74-79.
Tallvid, M. (2016). Understanding teachers’ reluctance to the pedagogical use of ICT in the 1:1 classroom. Education and Information Technologies, 21(3), 503-519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639- 014-9335-7
Tanaka, J. S., & Huba, G. J. (1985). A fit index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38(2), 197-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1985.tb00834.x
Teo, T. (2019). Students and teachers’ intention to use technology: Assessing their measurement equivalence and structural invariance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(1), 201-225.
Topal, A. D., Eren, C. D., and Geçer, A. K. (2021). Chatbot application in a 5th grade science course. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 6241-6265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639- 021-10627-8
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2019). The challenge and opportunities of artificial intelligence in education. Paris: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Ursavaş, Ö. F., Yalçın, Y., & Bakır, E. (2019). The effect of subjective norms on preservice and in‐service teachers’ behavioural intentions to use technology: A multigroup multimodel study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2501-2519.
Wang, Y., Liu, C., & Tu, Y.-F. (2021). Factors affecting the adoption of AI-based applications in higher education: An analysis of teachers perspectives using structural equation modeling. Educational Technology & Society, 24(3), 116-129. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27032860
Wang, W. T., & Wang, C. C. (2009). An empirical study of instructor adoption of web-based learning systems. Computers & Education, 53(3), 761-774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.021
Yılmaz, V., & ve Çelik, H. E. (2009). Lisrel ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi-1 [Structural equation modeling with LISREL-1]. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
Zhao, L., Chen, L., Liu, Q., Zhang, M., & Copland, H. (2019). Artificial intelligence-based platform for online teaching management systems. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 37(1), 45-51.

How to cite this article

APA

Al Darayseh, A., & Mersin, N. (2025). Integrating generative AI into STEM education: Insights from science and mathematics teachers. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 20(3), em0832. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/16232

Vancouver

Al Darayseh A, Mersin N. Integrating generative AI into STEM education: Insights from science and mathematics teachers. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2025;20(3):em0832. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/16232

AMA

Al Darayseh A, Mersin N. Integrating generative AI into STEM education: Insights from science and mathematics teachers. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2025;20(3), em0832. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/16232

Chicago

Al Darayseh, Abdulla, and Nazan Mersin. "Integrating generative AI into STEM education: Insights from science and mathematics teachers". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2025 20 no. 3 (2025): em0832. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/16232

Harvard

Al Darayseh, A., and Mersin, N. (2025). Integrating generative AI into STEM education: Insights from science and mathematics teachers. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 20(3), em0832. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/16232

MLA

Al Darayseh, Abdulla et al. "Integrating generative AI into STEM education: Insights from science and mathematics teachers". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 20, no. 3, 2025, em0832. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/16232