How to Assess AI Literacy: Misalignment Between Self-Reported and Objective-Based Measures

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.06101v1
• Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2026 00:10:41 GMT
• Title: How to Assess AI Literacy: Misalignment Between Self-Reported and Objective-Based Measures
• Authors: Shan Zhang, Ruiwei Xiao, Anthony F. Botelho, Guanze Liao, Thomas K. F. Chiu, John Stamper, Kenneth R. Koedinger,
• Abstract summary: The widespread adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in K-12 education highlights the need for psychometrically-tested measures of teachers' AI literacy.<n>This study developed and evaluated SR and OB measures of teacher AI literacy within the established framework of Concept, Use, Evaluate, and Ethics.<n>Latent profile analysis identified six distinct profiles, including overestimation (SR > OB), underestimation (SR OB), alignment (SR close to OB) and a unique low-SR/low-OB profile among teachers without AI literacy experience.
• Score: 6.943056322842481
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The widespread adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in K-12 education highlights the need for psychometrically-tested measures of teachers' AI literacy. Existing work has primarily relied on either self-report (SR) or objective-based (OB) assessments, with few studies aligning the two within a shared framework to compare perceived versus demonstrated competencies or examine how prior AI literacy experience shapes this relationship. This gap limits the scalability of learning analytics and the development of learner profile-driven instructional design. In this study, we developed and evaluated SR and OB measures of teacher AI literacy within the established framework of Concept, Use, Evaluate, and Ethics. Confirmatory factor analyses support construct validity with good reliability and acceptable fit. Results reveal a low correlation between SR and OB factors. Latent profile analysis identified six distinct profiles, including overestimation (SR > OB), underestimation (SR < OB), alignment (SR close to OB), and a unique low-SR/low-OB profile among teachers without AI literacy experience. Theoretically, this work extends existing AI literacy frameworks by validating SR and OB measures on shared dimensions. Practically, the instruments function as diagnostic tools for professional development, supporting AI-informed decisions (e.g., growth monitoring, needs profiling) and enabling scalable learning analytics interventions tailored to teacher subgroups.

Related papers

• Responsible Evaluation of AI for Mental Health [72.85175110624736]
  Current approaches to evaluating AI tools in mental health care are fragmented and poorly aligned with clinical practice, social context, and first-hand user experience.<n>This paper argues for a rethinking of responsible evaluation by introducing an interdisciplinary framework that integrates clinical soundness, social context, and equity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T12:55:10Z)
• AI-Educational Development Loop (AI-EDL): A Conceptual Framework to Bridge AI Capabilities with Classical Educational Theories [8.500617875591633]
  This study introduces the AI-Educational Development Loop (AI-EDL), a theory-driven framework that integrates classical learning theories with human-in-the-loop artificial intelligence (AI)<n>The framework emphasizes transparency, self-regulated learning, and pedagogical oversight.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-01T15:44:19Z)
• Alignment and Safety in Large Language Models: Safety Mechanisms, Training Paradigms, and Emerging Challenges [47.14342587731284]
  This survey provides a comprehensive overview of alignment techniques, training protocols, and empirical findings in large language models (LLMs) alignment.<n>We analyze the development of alignment methods across diverse paradigms, characterizing the fundamental trade-offs between core alignment objectives.<n>We discuss state-of-the-art techniques, including Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), Constitutional AI, brain-inspired methods, and alignment uncertainty quantification (AUQ)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-25T20:52:58Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• (AI peers) are people learning from the same standpoint: Perception of AI characters in a Collaborative Science Investigation [0.0]
  scenario-based assessment (SBA) introduces simulated agents to provide an authentic social-interactional context.<n>Recent advancements in multimodal AI, such as text-to-video technology, allow these agents to be enhanced into AI-generated characters.<n>This study investigates how learners perceive AI characters taking the role of mentor and teammates in an SBA mirroring the context of a collaborative science investigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T15:29:11Z)
• Methodological Foundations for AI-Driven Survey Question Generation [41.94295877935867]
  This paper presents a methodological framework for using generative AI in educational survey research.<n>We explore how Large Language Models can generate adaptive, context-aware survey questions.<n>We examine ethical issues such as bias, privacy, and transparency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T09:50:34Z)
• Is Trust Correlated With Explainability in AI? A Meta-Analysis [0.0]
  We conduct a comprehensive examination of the existing literature to explore the relationship between AI explainability and trust.<n>Our analysis, incorporating data from 90 studies, reveals a statistically significant but moderate positive correlation between the explainability of AI systems and the trust they engender.<n>This research highlights its broader socio-technical implications, particularly in promoting accountability and fostering user trust in critical domains such as healthcare and justice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T23:30:55Z)
• Analyzing the Impact of AI Tools on Student Study Habits and Academic Performance [0.0]
  The research focuses on how AI tools can support personalized learning, adaptive test adjustments, and provide real-time classroom analysis.<n>Student feedback revealed strong support for these features, and the study found a significant reduction in study hours alongside an increase in GPA.<n>Despite these benefits, challenges such as over-reliance on AI and difficulties in integrating AI with traditional teaching methods were also identified.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-03T04:51:57Z)
• STRICTA: Structured Reasoning in Critical Text Assessment for Peer Review and Beyond [68.47402386668846]
  We introduce Structured Reasoning In Critical Text Assessment (STRICTA) to model text assessment as an explicit, step-wise reasoning process.<n>STRICTA breaks down the assessment into a graph of interconnected reasoning steps drawing on causality theory.<n>We apply STRICTA to a dataset of over 4000 reasoning steps from roughly 40 biomedical experts on more than 20 papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-09T06:55:37Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [51.26815896167173]
  We present a comprehensive tertiary analysis of PAMI reviews along three complementary dimensions.<n>Our analyses reveal distinctive organizational patterns as well as persistent gaps in current review practices.<n>Finally, our evaluation of state-of-the-art AI-generated reviews indicates encouraging advances in coherence and organization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• MAILS -- Meta AI Literacy Scale: Development and Testing of an AI Literacy Questionnaire Based on Well-Founded Competency Models and Psychological Change- and Meta-Competencies [6.368014180870025]
  The questionnaire should be modular (i.e., including different facets that can be used independently of each other) to be flexibly applicable in professional life. We derived 60 items to represent different facets of AI Literacy according to Ng and colleagues conceptualisation of AI literacy. Additional 12 items to represent psychological competencies such as problem solving, learning, and emotion regulation in regard to AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-18T12:35:55Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.