Italian Journal of Health Education, Sports and Inclusive Didactics
CAN CARE BE SIMULATED? TEACHERS’ JUDGMENTS OF EDUCATIONAL MESSAGES IN THE AGE OF GENERATIVE AI
Abstract
Questo studio esplora come insegnanti e futuri insegnanti interpretano e valutano i messaggi educativi quando non è chiaro se siano stati scritti da un essere umano o generati da un'intelligenza artificiale. Attraverso un sondaggio condotto su 807 partecipanti a percorsi di qualificazione per insegnanti, sono stati esaminati tre scenari e le relative attribuzioni di paternità. I risultati mostrano che i messaggi possono essere percepiti come utili e plausibili, ma il riconoscimento come espressione di cura educativa cambia quando si considera l'origine del testo. A parità di contenuto, presumere un autore umano tende ad aumentare le valutazioni relazionali, mentre attribuire il messaggio all'IA le diminuisce. Quando i messaggi si avvicinano a situazioni più delicate, la sola qualità linguistica non è sufficiente: responsabilità, limiti e una presenza educativa riconoscibile diventano centrali. Questi risultati mettono in luce la tensione tra la resistenza tecnofobica e l'accettazione acritica dell'IA, collocando gli insegnanti tra il "complesso di Frankenstein" e la generazione D.
Keywords
References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952
Akanzire, B. N., Acquah, S., Nyaaba, M., Densu, A., & Tannor, P. (2025). Generative AI in teacher education: Teacher educators’ perception and preparedness. Journal of Digital Educational Technology, 5(1), ep2508. https://doi.org/10.30935/jdet/15887
Alfredo, R., Echeverria, V., Jin, Y., Yan, L., Swiecki, Z., Gašević, D., & Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2024). Human-centred learning analytics and AI in education: A systematic literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100215
Alqarni, T. M. (2026). Teachers’ perceptions of generative AI in inclusive classrooms: Enhancing engagement for students with learning disabilities. Universal Access in the Information Society, 25, Article 22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-025-01301-8
Atzmüller, C., & Steiner, P. M. (2010). Experimental vignette studies in survey research. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 6(3), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000014
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Chan, C. K. Y., & Tsi, L. H. Y. (2024). Will generative AI replace teachers in higher education? A study of teacher and student perceptions. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 83, 101395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101395
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Di Lisio, G., Milá Roa, A., Halty, A., Berástegui, A., Couso Losada, A., & Pitillas, C. (2025). Nurturing bonds that empower learning: A systematic review of the significance of teacher-student relationship in education. Frontiers in Education, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1522997
Dong, Y. (2026). Generative AI technologies and educational outcomes: A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and AI-driven approaches. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-06903-y
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Eysenbach, G. (2004). Improving the quality of web surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). Journal of Medical Internet Research, 6(3), e34. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34
Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (6th ed.). SAGE.
Lee, S., & Song, K.-S. (2024). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of AI-generated concept explanations: Implications for integrating generative AI in computer science education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100283
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1–55.
Luo, J. (2025). How does GenAI affect trust in teacher-student relationships? Insights from students’ assessment experiences. Teaching in Higher Education, 30(4), 991–1006. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2024.2341005
Moorhouse, B. L., & Kohnke, L. (2024). The effects of generative AI on initial language teacher education: The perceptions of teacher educators. System, 122, 103290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103290
Netland, T., von Dzengelevski, O., Tesch, K., & Kwasnitschka, D. (2025). Comparing human-made and AI-generated teaching videos: An experimental study on learning effects. Computers & Education, 224, 105164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105164
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. University of California Press.
Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
Prilop, C. N., Mah, D.-K., Jacobsen, L. J., Hansen, R. R., Weber, K. E., & Hoya, F. (2025). Generative AI in teacher education: Educators’ perceptions of transformative potentials and the triadic nature of AI literacy explored through AI-enhanced methods. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 9, 100471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100471
Sebastiani, R. (2025). Educazione alla sostenibilità e innovazione didattica: verso un apprendimento inclusivo. RicercAzione, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.32076/RA17105
Sebastiani, R., Cuccaro, A., Gentilozzi, C., & Pellegrini, S. (2026). Inclusion as embodiment: Towards an integrated paradigm between embodied education, inclusive pedagogy and artificial intelligence. In A. Dipace, C. Limongelli, M. Marras, & S. M. Pagliara (Eds.), Artificial intelligence with and for learning sciences: Past, present, and future horizons (LNCS 16438, pp. 156–171). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-17604-2_15
Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432–2440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.008
Tripathi, T., Sharma, S. R., Singh, V., Bhargava, P., & Raj, C. (2025). Teaching and learning with AI: A qualitative study on K-12 teachers’ use and engagement with artificial intelligence. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1651217. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1651217
Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59(236), 433–460. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433
Velez, G., Xu, L. Z., & Fitzgerald, J. (2026). From AI as a relational breaker to a relational broker: Comment on Bauer et al. (2025). Educational Psychology Review, 38, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10106-
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32043/gsd.v10i3.1734
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2026 ITALIAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH EDUCATION, SPORT AND INCLUSIVE DIDACTICS
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Italian Journal of Health Education, Sports and Inclusive Didactics
Publisher: Cares srl – REN Press (since 2026). Previously published by Gaia srl – Edizioni Universitarie Romane (2017–2025).
ISSN: 2532-3296 E-ISSN: 3103-5744