Teachers' Perceived Benefits and Risks of AI Across Fifty-Five Countries: An Audit of LLM Alignment and Steerability

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.08486v1
• Date: Fri, 08 May 2026 21:03:25 GMT
• Title: Teachers' Perceived Benefits and Risks of AI Across Fifty-Five Countries: An Audit of LLM Alignment and Steerability
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in research, policy, and teachers' professional, despite limited validation in education.<n>Using OECD TALIS data from 55 countries and territories, we measure cross-national variation in teachers' perceived benefits and risks of AI.<n>Results reveal substantial cross-national variation in teacher perceptions that is not reliably reflected in LLM outputs.
• Score: 3.5499018649362015
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Teachers' trust in artificial intelligence (AI) in education depends on how they balance its perceived benefits and risks. Yet global discussions about scaling AI in education rely on fragmented evidence, as most studies of teachers' perceptions focus on single countries or small samples. This lack of representative cross-national evidence limits both theory building and policy development. At the same time, large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in research, policy, and teachers' professional workflows, despite limited validation in education. To address these gaps, we conduct a large-scale audit of LLM alignment with teachers' perceptions of AI by combining representative international survey data with systematic model evaluation. Using OECD TALIS data from 55 countries and territories, we measure cross-national variation in teachers' perceived benefits and risks of AI. We then benchmark responses from eight state-of-the-art LLMs across four providers under both general and country-specific prompting, comparing higher- and lower-reasoning models. Results reveal substantial cross-national variation in teacher perceptions that is not reliably reflected in LLM outputs. Models compress country differences, overestimate both benefits and risks, and show limited gains from identity prompting or enhanced reasoning. This misalignment matters because LLM-generated guidance and professional discourse increasingly shape how teachers learn about and discuss AI, potentially influencing trust and future adoption decisions. Our findings caution against treating LLM outputs as substitutes for direct engagement with teachers when informing global AI-in-education initiatives. At the same time, some models (e.g., Gemini 3 Fast) partially capture cross-national ranking patterns, suggesting a complementary role in hypothesis generation and exploratory comparative analysis.

Related papers

• Sociodemographic Biases in Educational Counselling by Large Language Models [61.30199414932204]
  This study examines sociodemographic biases in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We evaluate responses from six LLMs answering questions about 900 vignettes describing students in diverse circumstances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T14:08:22Z)
• Large Language Models in Teaching and Learning: Reflections on Implementing an AI Chatbot in Higher Education [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) present substantial opportunities especially in Higher Education.<n>Their propensity to generate hallucinations and their limited specialized knowledge may introduce significant risks.<n>This study examines the practical implementation of an LLM-enhanced assistant in a university level course.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-18T14:34:12Z)
• Do Large Language Models Understand Morality Across Cultures? [0.5356944479760104]
  This study investigates the extent to which large language models capture cross-cultural differences and similarities in moral perspectives.<n>Our results reveal that current LLMs often fail to reproduce the full spectrum of cross-cultural moral variation.<n>These findings highlight a pressing need for more robust approaches to mitigate biases and improve cultural representativeness in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T20:25:36Z)
• Addressing Bias in LLMs: Strategies and Application to Fair AI-based Recruitment [49.81946749379338]
  This work seeks to analyze the capacity of Transformers-based systems to learn demographic biases present in the data.<n>We propose a privacy-enhancing framework to reduce gender information from the learning pipeline as a way to mitigate biased behaviors in the final tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-13T15:29:43Z)
• Uncovering inequalities in new knowledge learning by large language models across different languages [66.687369838071]
  We show that low-resource languages consistently face disadvantages across all four dimensions.<n>We aim to raise awareness of linguistic inequalities in LLMs' new knowledge learning, fostering the development of more inclusive and equitable future LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T03:41:47Z)
• Towards New Benchmark for AI Alignment & Sentiment Analysis in Socially Important Issues: A Comparative Study of Human and LLMs in the Context of AGI [0.25489046505746704]
  This research explores the sentiment of large language models (LLMs) and humans toward artificial general intelligence (AGI)<n> GPT-4 recorded the most positive sentiment toward AGI, while Bard leaned toward a neutral sentiment.<n>The analysis outlines potential conflicts of interest and biases in the sentiment formation of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-05T13:18:13Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language.<n>This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• The Impossibility of Fair LLMs [17.812295963158714]
  We analyze a variety of technical fairness frameworks and find inherent challenges in each that make the development of a fair language model intractable.<n>We show that each framework either does not extend to the general-purpose AI context or is infeasible in practice.<n>These inherent challenges would persist for general-purpose AI, including LLMs, even if empirical challenges, such as limited participatory input and limited measurement methods, were overcome.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T04:36:15Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)
• CMMLU: Measuring massive multitask language understanding in Chinese [133.70911295934746]
  This paper introduces a comprehensive Chinese benchmark that covers various subjects, including natural science, social sciences, engineering, and humanities. CMMLU fills the gap in evaluating the knowledge and reasoning capabilities of large language models within the Chinese context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T15:49:51Z)
• The Role of Large Language Models in the Recognition of Territorial Sovereignty: An Analysis of the Construction of Legitimacy [67.44950222243865]
  We argue that technology tools like Google Maps and Large Language Models (LLM) are often perceived as impartial and objective. We highlight the case of three controversial territories: Crimea, West Bank and Transnitria, by comparing the responses of ChatGPT against Wikipedia information and United Nations resolutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-17T08:46:49Z)

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.