ESP-3851

Published

2025-08-18

Issue

Vol. 10 No. 8 (2025): Published

Section

Research Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Ram Eujohn J. Diamante, Adrian B. Martin, Erwin B. Berry, Jason V. Chavez, Kier P. Dela Calzada, Salita D. Dimzon

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The journal adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which means that anyone can reuse and redistribute the materials for non-commercial purposes as long as you follow the license terms and the original source is properly cited.

Author(s) shall retain the copyright of their work and grant the Journal/Publisher rights for the first publication with the work concurrently licensed since 2023 Vol.8 No.2.

Under this license, author(s) will allow third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content under the condition that the authors are given credit. No permission is required from the authors or the publisher.

This broad license intends to facilitate free access, as well as the unrestricted use of original works of all types. This ensures that the published work is freely and openly available in perpetuity.

By providing open access, the following benefits are brought about:

  • Higher Visibility, Availability and Citations-free and unlimited accessibility of the publication over the internet without any restrictions increases citation of the article.
  • Ease of search-publications are easily searchable in search engines and indexing databases.
  • Rapid Publication – accepted papers are immediately published online.
  • Available for free download immediately after publication at https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP

 

Copyright Statement

1.The authors certify that the submitted manuscripts are original works, do not infringe the rights of others, are free from academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, and that there are no disputes over the authorship scheme of the collaborative articles. In case of infringement, academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, as well as disputes over the authorship scheme, all responsibilities will be borne by the authors.

2. The author agrees to grant the Editorial Office of Environment and Social Psychology a licence to use the reproduction right, distribution right, information network dissemination right, performance right, translation right, and compilation right of the submitted manuscript, including the work as a whole, as well as the diagrams, tables, abstracts, and any other parts that can be extracted from the work and used in accordance with the characteristics of the journal. The Editorial Board of Environment and Social Psychology has the right to use and sub-licence the above mentioned works for wide dissemination in print, electronic and online versions, and, in accordance with the characteristics of the periodical, for the period of legal protection of the property right of the copyright in the work, and for the territorial scope of the work throughout the world.

3. The authors are entitled to the copyright of their works under the relevant laws of Singapore, provided that they do not exercise their rights in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Journal.

About Licence

Environment and Social Psychology is an open access journal and all published work is available under the Creative Commons Licence, Authors shall retain copyright of their work and grant the journal/publisher the right of first publication, and their work shall be licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Under this licence, the author grants permission to third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content with attribution to the author. No permission from the author or publisher is required.

This broad licence is intended to facilitate free access to and unrestricted use of original works of all kinds. This ensures that published works remain free and accessible in perpetuity. Submitted manuscripts, once accepted, are immediately available to the public and permanently accessible free of charge on the journal’s official website (https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP). Allowing users to read, download, copy, print, search for or link to the full text of the article, or use it for other legal purposes. However, the use of the work must retain the author's signature, be limited to non-commercial purposes, and not be interpretative.

Click to download <Agreement on the Licence for the Use of Copyright on Environmental and Social Psychology>.

How to Cite

Ram Eujohn J. Diamante, Adrian B. Martin, Erwin B. Berry, Jason V. Chavez, Kier P. Dela Calzada, & Salita D. Dimzon. (2025). Developing trust and confidence in the delivery of Ai-Oriented teaching strategies among Non-ICT expert teachers. Environment and Social Psychology, 10(8), ESP-3851. https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i8.3851

Developing trust and confidence in the delivery of Ai-Oriented teaching strategies among Non-ICT expert teachers

Ram Eujohn J. Diamante

College of Technology, Iloilo State University of Fisheries Science and Technology-Dumangas Campus, Dumangas 5006, Iloilo, Philippines, ORCID 0000-0001-8533-9588

Adrian B. Martin

College of Information and Computing Sciences, Zamboanga Peninsula Polytechnic State University, Zamboanga City 7000, Philippines

Erwin B. Berry

Department of General Teacher Training, North Eastern Mindanao State University, Rosario, Tandag City 8300, Surigao del Sur, Philippines

Jason V. Chavez

School of Business Administration, Zamboanga Peninsula Polytechnic State University, Zamboanga City 7000, Philippines

Kier P. Dela Calzada

Extension Program Delivering Unit, Zamboanga Peninsula Polytechnic State University, Zamboanga City 7000, Philippines

Salita D. Dimzon

College of Education, Iloilo State University of Fisheries Science and Technology-Dumangas Campus, Dumangas 5006, Iloilo, Philippines


DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i8.3851


Keywords: AI-assisted learning; artificial intelligence; confidence; technology acceptance model

Abstract

Information Communication and Technology (ICT) introduces intelligent, adaptive, and data-driven tools that enhance both teaching and learning processes, helping transform the education system today. Artificial Intelligence (AI) streamlines administrative and instructional tasks for educators, such as grading, content generation, and curriculum planning, freeing up time for more meaningful student-teacher interaction. However, concerns persist regarding the ethical implications, data privacy risks, and over-reliance on AI systems in the classroom. This paper explored different factors that could influence teachers’ confidence and trust in the use of AI in classrooms. Eighteen instructors from Iloilo, Zamboanga City, and Surigao City were purposively sampled and interviewed, and the data were analyzed thematically following Braun and Clarke’s[1] approach. The study revealed that non-ICT expert teachers generally perceived AI integration as disruptive to their instructional flow, with 72% reporting misalignment with established teaching strategies, 61% noting increased student passivity, and over half citing frequent technical complications that hindered classroom productivity. Teachers expressed that AI tools often lacked contextual sensitivity and failed to support spontaneous teacher-student interaction, with some viewing these tools as undermining their pedagogical autonomy. The development of trust and confidence in AI technologies among these teachers was found to be heavily influenced by three major factors: structured training, improved curriculum guidelines, and institutional support. Interpreted through the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), these findings highlight how perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and attitudes toward AI shaped teachers’ behavioral intention. Consequently, effective AI adoption among non-ICT expert teachers required more than technical functionality. It demanded systemic, pedagogical, and psychological alignment to ensure sustainable, confident, and meaningful use of AI in education. Future research should design and test AI-focused teacher training programs, investigate curriculum-level integration policies (e.g., through the Philippine Department of Education), and explore AI tool designs that preserve teacher autonomy while supporting student engagement.

References

[1]. 1.Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

[2]. 2.Inoferio, H. V., Espartero, M., Asiri, M., Damin, M., & Chavez, J. V. (2024). Coping with math anxiety and lack of confidence through AI-assisted learning. Environment and Social Psychology, 9(5).

[3]. 3.Adelana, O. P., Ayanwale, M. A., & Sanusi, I. T. (2024). Exploring pre-service biology teachers’ intention to teach genetics using an AI intelligent tutoring-based system. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2310976.

[4]. 4.Ahmad, S. F., Rahmat, M. K., Mubarik, M. S., Alam, M. M., & Hyder, S. I. (2021). Artificial intelligence and its role in education. Sustainability, 13(22), 12902.

[5]. 5.Liu, N. (2025). Exploring the factors influencing the adoption of artificial intelligence technology by university teachers: The mediating role of confidence and AI readiness. BMC Psychology, 13(1), 311.

[6]. 6.Mundo, M. A. D., Reyes, E. F. D., & Gervacio, E. M. (2024). Discourse analysis on experience-based position of science, mathematics, and Tech-Voc educators on generative AI and academic integrity. Environment and Social Psychology, 9(8), 3028.

[7]. 7.Ayanwale, M. A., Adelana, O. P., Molefi, R. R., Adeeko, O., & Ishola, A. M. (2024). Examining artificial intelligence literacy among pre-service teachers for future classrooms. Computers and Education Open, 6, 100179.

[8]. 8.Bhatia, A. P., Lambat, A., & Jain, T. (2024). A comparative analysis of conventional and Chat-Generative Pre-trained Transformer-assisted teaching methods in undergraduate dental education. Cureus, 16(5).

[9]. 9.Lin, H., & Chen, Q. (2024). Artificial intelligence (AI)-integrated educational applications and college students’ creativity and academic emotions: Students and teachers’ perceptions and attitudes. BMC Psychology, 12(1), 487.

[10]. 10.Wu, D., Zhang, X., Wang, K., Wu, L., & Yang, W. (2025). A multi-level factors model affecting teachers’ behavioral intention in AI-enabled education ecosystem. Educational Technology Research and Development, 73(1), 135–167.

[11]. 11.Du, H., Sun, Y., Jiang, H., Islam, A. Y. M., & Gu, X. (2024). Exploring the effects of AI literacy in teacher learning: An empirical study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1–10.

[12]. 12.An, X., Chai, C. S., Li, Y., Zhou, Y., Shen, X., Zheng, C., & Chen, M. (2023). Modeling English teachers’ behavioral intention to use artificial intelligence in middle schools. Education and Information Technologies, 28(5), 5187–5208.

[13]. 13.Molefi, R. R., Ayanwale, M. A., Kurata, L., & Chere-Masopha, J. (2024). Do in-service teachers accept artificial intelligence-driven technology? The mediating role of school support and resources. Computers and Education Open, 6, 100191.

[14]. 14.Alwaqdani, M. (2024). Investigating teachers’ perceptions of artificial intelligence tools in education: Potential and difficulties. Education and Information Technologies, 1–19.

[15]. 15.Ifenthaler, D., Majumdar, R., Gorissen, P., Judge, M., Mishra, S., Raffaghelli, J., & Shimada, A. (2024). Artificial intelligence in education: Implications for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1–18.

[16]. 16.Cukurova, M., Miao, X., & Brooker, R. (2023, June). Adoption of artificial intelligence in schools: Unveiling factors influencing teachers’ engagement. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 151–163). Springer Nature Switzerland.

[17]. 17.Velander, J., Taiye, M. A., Otero, N., & Milrad, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence in K-12 education: Eliciting and reflecting on Swedish teachers’ understanding of AI and its implications for teaching & learning. Education and Information Technologies, 29(4), 4085–4105.

[18]. 18.Almaiah, M. A., Alfaisal, R., Salloum, S. A., Hajjej, F., Shishakly, R., Lutfi, A., ... & Al-Maroof, R. S. (2022). Measuring institutions’ adoption of artificial intelligence applications in online learning environments: Integrating the innovation diffusion theory with technology adoption rate. Electronics, 11(20), 3291.

[19]. 19.Nazaretsky, T., Ariely, M., Cukurova, M., & Alexandron, G. (2022). Teachers' trust in AI‐powered educational technology and a professional development program to improve it. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(4), 914–931.

[20]. 20.Wang, Y., Liu, C., & Tu, Y. F. (2021). Factors affecting the adoption of AI-based applications in higher education. Educational Technology & Society, 24(3), 116–129.

[21]. 21.Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020). Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627–660.

[22]. 22.Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1997). The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 557–582.

[23]. 23.Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.

[24]. 24.Lukyanenko, R., Maass, W., & Storey, V. C. (2022). Trust in artificial intelligence: From a foundational trust framework to emerging research opportunities. Electronic Markets, 32(4), 1993–2020.

[25]. 25.Viberg, O., Cukurova, M., Feldman-Maggor, Y., Alexandron, G., Shirai, S., Kanemune, S., ... & Kizilcec, R. F. (2024). What explains teachers’ trust in AI in education across six countries? International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 1–29.

[26]. 26.Scherer, R., & Teo, T. (2019). Unpacking teachers’ intentions to integrate technology: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 27, 90–109.

[27]. 27.Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

[28]. 28.Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14, 81–95.

[29]. 29.Tárraga-Mínguez, R., Suárez-Guerrero, C., & Sanz-Cervera, P. (2021). Digital teaching competence evaluation of pre-service teachers in Spain: A review study. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologías del Aprendizaje, 16(1), 70–76.

[30]. 30.Zhang, C., Schießl, J., Plößl, L., Hofmann, F., & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2023). Acceptance of artificial intelligence among pre-service teachers: A multigroup analysis. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 49.

[31]. 31.Choi, S., Jang, Y., & Kim, H. (2023). Influence of pedagogical beliefs and perceived trust on teachers’ acceptance of educational artificial intelligence tools. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(4), 910–922.

[32]. 32.Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

[33]. 33.Ajzen, I. (2012). The theory of planned behavior. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 438–459). Sage.

[34]. 34.Sanusi, I. T., Ayanwale, M. A., & Chiu, T. K. (2024). Investigating the moderating effects of social good and confidence on teachers' intention to prepare school students for artificial intelligence education. Education and Information Technologies, 29(1), 273–295.

[35]. 35.Chai, C. S., Wang, X., & Xu, C. (2020). An extended theory of planned behavior for the modelling of Chinese secondary school students’ intention to learn artificial intelligence. Mathematics, 8(11), 2089.

[36]. 36.Chai, C. S., Lin, P. Y., Jong, M. S. Y., Dai, Y., Chiu, T. K., & Qin, J. (2021). Perceptions of and behavioral intentions towards learning artificial intelligence in primary school students. Educational Technology & Society, 24(3), 89–101.

[37]. 37.Sing, C. C., Teo, T., Huang, F., Chiu, T. K., & Wei, W. X. (2022). Secondary school students’ intentions to learn AI: Testing moderation effects of readiness, social good and optimism. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(3), 765–782.

[38]. 38.Clipa, O., Delibas, C. S., & Mâță, L. (2023). Teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes towards the use of information technology in classrooms. Education Sciences, 13(10), 1001.

[39]. 39.Ayanwale, M. A., Sanusi, I. T., Adelana, O. P., Aruleba, K. D., & Oyelere, S. S. (2022). Teachers’ readiness and intention to teach artificial intelligence in schools. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100099.

[40]. 40.Park, N., Roman, R., Lee, S., & Chung, J. E. (2009). User acceptance of a digital library system in developing countries: An application of the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Information Management, 29(3), 196–209.

[41]. 41.Dai, Y., Chai, C. S., Lin, P. Y., Jong, M. S. Y., Guo, Y., & Qin, J. (2020). Promoting students’ well-being by developing their readiness for the artificial intelligence age. Sustainability, 12(16), 6597.

[42]. 42.Almusawi, H. A., & Durugbo, C. M. (2024). Linking task-technology fit, innovativeness, and teacher readiness using structural equation modelling. Education and Information Technologies, 29(12), 14899–14928.

[43]. 43.Blut, M., & Wang, C. (2020). Technology readiness: A meta-analysis of conceptualizations of the construct and its impact on technology usage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(4), 649–669.

[44]. 44.Konakbayeva, U., Baltasheva, P., Kuanysheva, B., Dauletova, I., Kydyrbayeva, G., & Karataeva, T. (2025). Artificial intelligence in microteaching lesson study: Enhancing pre-service teachers’ confidence and instructional quality. Educational Process: International Journal.

[45]. 45.Kianinezhad, N. (2024). EFL teachers' attitudes toward online teaching (ATOT): A theoretical review. Pedagogical Perspective, 3(1), 71–80.

[46]. 46.Peng, R., Abdul Razak, R., & Hajar Halili, S. (2023). Factors influencing in-service teachers’ technology integration model: Innovative strategies for educational technology. PLOS ONE, 18(8), e0286112.

[47]. 47.Adalia, H. G., Chavez, J. V., Hayudini, M. A. A., Kinarang, A. J., Sabbaha, N. A., & Salasain, A. A. M. (2025). Relevance of grammar among Gen Z college students using social learning perspectives. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(3), 432–450.

[48]. 48.Calaro, M. F., Vicente, M. B., Chavez, J. V., Joy, M., Reyes, D., Delantar, S., ... & Torres, J. (2023). Marketing campaigns leading to the purchase of accommodation products: A content analysis. Journal of Namibian Studies: History Politics Culture, 33, 4221–4236.

[49]. 49.Chavez, J. V., & Del Prado, R. T. (2023). Discourse analysis on online gender-based humor: Markers of normalization, tolerance, and lens of inequality. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 5(1), 55–71.

[50]. 50.Reyes, R. B., Tongkoh, A. L., & Chavez, J. V. (2023). Transitional challenges and factors affecting English-speaking learners in learning the Filipino language. Journal of Namibian Studies, 33.

[51]. 51.Gupta, A. S., & Mukherjee, J. (2022). Long-term changes in consumers' shopping behavior post-pandemic: An exploratory study. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 50(12), 1518–1534.

[52]. 52.Hunter, D., McCallum, J., & Howes, D. (2019). Defining exploratory-descriptive qualitative (EDQ) research and considering its application to healthcare. Journal of Nursing and Health Care, 4(1).

[53]. 53.Comeros, N. A., Cuilan, J. T., & Chavez, J. V. (2024). Parental discretionary influence on their children’s manner of learning English language. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 6(4), 284–299.

[54]. 54.Chavez, J. V., & Vicente, M. B. (2025). Halal compliance behaviors of food and accommodation businesses in the Zamboanga Peninsula, Philippines. Multidisciplinary Science Journal, 7(5), 2025259.

[55]. 55.Olawale, S. R., Chinagozi, O. G., & Joe, O. N. (2023). Exploratory research design in management science: A review of literature on conduct and application. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 7(4), 1384–1395.

[56]. 56.Boddy, C. R. (2016). Sample size for qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 19(4), 426–432.

[57]. 57.Ahmad, M., & Wilkins, S. (2025). Purposive sampling in qualitative research: A framework for the entire journey. Quality & Quantity, 59(2), 1461–1479.

[58]. 58.Nyimbili, F., & Nyimbili, L. (2024). Types of purposive sampling techniques with their examples and application in qualitative research studies. British Journal of Multidisciplinary and Advanced Studies, 5(1), 90–99.

[59]. 59.Barratt, M. J., Ferris, J. A., & Lenton, S. (2015). Hidden populations, online purposive sampling, and external validity: Taking off the blindfold. Field Methods, 27(1), 3–21.

[60]. 60.Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965.

[61]. 61.Jiménez, T. R., & Orozco, M. (2021). Prompts, not questions: Four techniques for crafting better interview protocols. Qualitative Sociology, 44, 507–528.

[62]. 62.Roberts, R. E. (2020). Qualitative interview questions: Guidance for novice researchers. Qualitative Report, 25(9).

[63]. 63.Brod, M., Tesler, L. E., & Christensen, T. L. (2009). Qualitative research and content validity: Developing best practices based on science and experience. Quality of Life Research, 18, 1263–1278.

[64]. 64.Dikko, M. (2016). Establishing construct validity and reliability: Pilot testing of a qualitative interview for research in Takaful (Islamic insurance). The Qualitative Report, 21(3), 521–528.

[65]. 65.Ruslin, R., Mashuri, S., Rasak, M. S. A., Alhabsyi, F., & Syam, H. (2022). Semi-structured interview: A methodological reflection on the development of a qualitative research instrument in educational studies. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 12(1), 22–29.

[66]. 66.Chavez, J. V., & Ceneciro, C. C. (2023). Discourse analysis on same-sex relationship through the lens of religious and social belief systems. Environment and Social Psychology, 9(1).

[67]. 67.Petrova, E., Dewing, J., & Camilleri, M. (2016). Confidentiality in participatory research: Challenges from one study. Nursing Ethics, 23(4), 442–454.

[68]. 68.Pietilä, A. M., Nurmi, S. M., Halkoaho, A., & Kyngäs, H. (2019). Qualitative research: Ethical considerations. In The application of content analysis in nursing science research (pp. 49–69). Springer.

[69]. 69.Pollock, K. (2012). Procedure versus process: Ethical paradigms and the conduct of qualitative research. BMC Medical Ethics, 13(1), 1–12.



21 Woodlands Close #02-10, Primz Bizhub,Postal 737854, Singapore

Email:editorial_office@as-pub.com