Teachers are on the front lines of widespread AI adoption in the last three years, but so far they are receiving limited training—or even guidance—in how to use the technology ethically and effectively in their classrooms, according to an Education Week article.
ETS recently released Futurenav™ Adapt AI test aims to help educators get a better picture of what teachers need.
Three modules evaluate the ability to recognize and understand generative and large-language-model AI in an educational context. The focal points: 1) navigate the technology ethically; 2) evaluate AI-based tools and programs; and 3) use AI in the classroom.
The test typically takes less than 30 minutes.
Forty-six states already use ETS’s suite of Praxis tests to gauge teaching skills and subject-specific content knowledge for teacher certification. The AI test is not specifically intended for licensure or other high stakes uses, but it positions ETS to respond if states decide to include AI topics in teacher certification in the future.
“There’s this universal concern around appropriate use: for protecting students, making sure students are using it appropriately, making sure teachers know how to guide them, and that teachers themselves are using it appropriately,” says Vince Dean, an associate vice president at ETS who leads the Praxis program.
Most teachers, approximately 8 in 10, use AI in the classroom already, according to the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology. Applications include lesson plans, scoring guides, quizzes and spotting students’ AI-enabled cheating.
Early studies have found AI-based tools often produce less substantive lessons than human instructors. Often teachers don’t know how to write prompts to capture relevant automatically generated content. AI simulations also may provide unrealistic versions of actual students at different ability levels.
Nearly all districts now use some AI-enabled tools or programs. Most report training teachers in the technology. But teachers most often say learning how to use and respond to AI effectively is self-taught, without guidance.
The test asks teachers how to use public and private student information in an AI-based data tool. One scenario has the teacher working with a chatbot to develop and implement a lesson plan and assess the teacher’s skill in writing AI prompts. The teacher then reflects on how they developed the lesson with a virtual instructional coach (also portrayed by AI).
Several districts are using AI-enabled tools in instructional coaching — to help analyze student data and provide feedback and to help teachers reflect on their teaching. The final section of the AI test assesses teachers’ skills in working with AI and asks them to reflect on their experience.
But testing and professional development for teachers shouldn’t replace clear guidance and support from school and district leaders, says Akhil Verghese, founder of Krazimo, which helps districts and other groups implement AI systems. Only two states—Ohio and Tennessee—currently require districts to have an AI policy.
“Even if a teacher is brilliant, … I don’t think it’s legally smart for a school to rely on teachers to use AI in whatever way,” he says.
Test scores via a dashboard of strengths, weaknesses, and potential equity concerns are accessible for individuals and groups within a district. Administrators can use the dashboards to prioritize professional development or coaching for individuals or groups of people, or to plan implementation timelines for AI, Dean says.
Education Week
