Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly advancing across various sectors, including education. However, AI in education raises ethical concerns, for example, regarding the originality of students’ homework, which could affect both learning outcomes and student–teacher’s trust. Despite AI’s potential benefits, many teachers feel skeptical about its use, fearing that students may use it unfairly. This study aims to explore teachers’ ability to assess the originality of student assignments and identify AI-generated content, taking into consideration teachers’ expertise, self-efficacy, and personality. A sample of 67 middle and high-school teachers evaluated six short assignments, half written by real students and half by AI (ChatGPT 3.5). t Tests and analysis of variance were conducted to compare the identification accuracy of assignments and the relationship with teachers’ expertise, and regressions were performed to examine the relationships between identification accuracy, personality traits, and self-efficacy in detecting originality. Teachers were able to identify AI-generated assignments but struggled with student-generated ones. Furthermore, teachers with more expertise exhibited a potential bias against students, mistakenly identifying their work as AI-generated. While teachers were able to evaluate assignments objectively, openness and conscientiousness predicted their self-efficacy in assessing originality. We discuss how educators may learn new opportunities to use generative AI to promote learning and engagement. Although students may leverage AI to minimize their workload, AI represents a way to support them during the learning process, if it is developed taking into account students’ and teachers’ needs and characteristics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CarvalhoL, Martinez-MaldonadoR, TsaiYS, et al.How can we design for learning in an AI world? Comput Educ Artif Intell, 2022; 3:100053.
2.
Zawacki-RichterO, MarínVI, BondM, et al.Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the educators? Int J Educ Technol High Educ, 2019; 16(1):1–27.
3.
TribertiS, Di FuccioR, ScuottoC, et al.“Better than my professor?” How to develop artificial intelligence tools for higher education. Front Artif Intell, 2024; 7:1329605.
4.
MarangunićN, GranićA. Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Univ Access Inf Soc, 2015; 14(1):81–95.
5.
TribertiS, VillaniD, RivaG. Unconscious goal pursuit primes attitudes towards technology usage: A virtual reality experiment. Comput Hum Behav, 2016; 64:163–172.
6.
FarazouliA, Cerratto-PargmanT, Bolander-LaksovK, et al.Hello GPT! Goodbye home examination? An exploratory study of AI chatbots impact on university teachers’ assessment practices. Assess Eval High Educ, 2024; 49(3):363–375.
7.
CopeB, KalantzisM, SearsmithD. Artificial intelligence for education: Knowledge and its assessment in AI-enabled learning ecologies. Educ Philos Theory, 2021; 53(12):1229–1245.
8.
CarrubaMC. Traghettare la scuola nell’era dell’intelligenza artificiale. Educare, progettare, includere. TAB Edizioni: Roma; 2024.
9.
ZhaiX, ChuX, ChaiCS, et al.A review of artificial intelligence (AI) in education from 2010 to 2020. Complexity, 2021; 2021(1):8812542.
10.
FarrokhniaM, BanihashemSK, NorooziO, et al.A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research. Innov Educ Teach Int, 2024; 61(3):460–474; doi: 10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846
11.
QadirJ. Engineering education in the era of ChatGPT: Promise and pitfalls of generative AI for education. TechRxiv, 2022; doi: 10.36227/techrxiv.21789434.v1
12.
RudolphJ, TanS, TanS. ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? J Appl Learn Teach, 2023; 6(1); doi: 10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9
13.
CottonDR, CottonPA, ShipwayJR. Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innov Educ Teach Int, 2024; 61(2):228–239; doi: 10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
14.
ShiriA. ChatGPT and academic integrity. SSRN Journal, 2023; doi: 10.2139/SSRN.4360052
15.
MhlangaD. Open AI in education, the responsible and ethical use of ChatGPT towards lifelong learning. SSRN Journal, 2023; doi: 10.2139/SSRN.4354422
16.
SusnjakT. ChatGPT: The end of online exam integrity? arXiv, 2022; doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2212.09292
17.
SpectorJM. Human and artificial intelligence in education. Int J Smart Tech Learn, 2023; 3(2):163–167.
18.
BabikerA, AlshakhsiS, SuptiTI, et al.Do Personality Traits Impact the Attitudes Towards Artificial Intelligence?. In 2024 11th International Conference on Behavioural and Social Computing (BESC). IEEE; 2024; pp. 1–8.
19.
SteinJP, MessingschlagerT, GnambsT, et al.Attitudes towards AI: Measurement and associations with personality. Sci Rep, 2024; 14(1):2909.
20.
KöbisN, MossinkLD. Artificial intelligence versus Maya Angelou: Experimental evidence that people cannot differentiate AI-generated from human-written poetry. Comput Hum Behav, 2021; 114:106553.
21.
GaoCA, HowardFM, MarkovNS, et al.Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers. NPJ Dig Med, 2023; 6(1):75.
22.
ClerwallC. Enter the robot journalist: Users’ perceptions of automated content. In: The Future of Journalism: In an Age of Digital Media and Economic Uncertainty. (B FranklinB. ed). Routledge; 2017; pp. 165–177.
23.
ChiarellaSG, TorrominoG, GagliardiDM, et al.Investigating the negative bias towards artificial intelligence: Effects of prior assignment of AI-authorship on the aesthetic appreciation of abstract paintings. Comp Hum Behav, 2022; 137:107406.
24.
ParkJ, OhC, KimHY. AI vs. human-generated content and accounts on Instagram: User preferences, evaluations, and ethical considerations. Technol Soc, 2024; 79:102705.
25.
ŁabuzM, NehringC. Information apocalypse or overblown fears—what AI mis‐and disinformation is all about? Shifting away from technology toward human reactions. Politics & Policy, 2024; 52(4):874–891.
26.
ScarfeP, WatchamK, ClarkeA, et al.A real-world test of artificial intelligence infiltration of a university examinations system: A “Turing Test” case study. PLoS One, 2024; 19(6):e0305354; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305354
27.
WaltzerT, DeBernardiFC, DahlA. Student and teacher views on cheating in high school: Perceptions, evaluations, and decisions. J Res Adolesc, 2023; 33(1):108–126.
28.
KokkinosCM, PanayiotouG, DavazoglouAM. Correlates of teacher appraisals of student behaviors. Psychol Schs, 2005; 42(1):79–89.
29.
WhalenJ, GrubeW, XuC, et al.K-12 Educators’ reactions and responses to ChatGPT and GenAI During the 2022–2023 School Year. TechTrends, 2025; 69(1):125–137.
30.
MahC, WalkerH, PhalenL, et al.Beyond CheatBots: Examining tensions in teachers’ and students’ perceptions of cheating and learning with ChatGPT. Educ Sci, 2024; 14(5):500.
31.
LeeVR, PopeD, MilesS, et al.Cheating in the age of generative AI: A high school survey study of cheating behaviors before and after the release of ChatGPT. Comput Educ: Artif Int, 2024; 7:100253.
32.
Ein-DorT, Perry-PaldiA, Zohar-CohenK, et al.It takes an insecure liar to catch a liar: The link between attachment insecurity, deception, and detection of deception. Pers Indiv Differ, 2017; 113:81–87.
33.
SmithAM, LeachAM. Confidence can be used to discriminate between accurate and inaccurate lie decisions. Perspect Psychol Sci, 2019; 14(6):1062–1071.
34.
GranhagPA, AnderssonLO, StromwallLA, et al.Imprisoned knowledge: Criminals’ beliefs about deception. Legal Criminol Psychol, 2004; 9(1):103–119.
35.
SanchezT. To catch a liar: A signal detection analysis of personality and lie detection. In: Poster Presented at the 39th Annual Western Pennsylvania Undergraduate Psychology Conference. 2011.
36.
HartwigM, GranhagPA, StromwallLA, et al.Suspicious minds: Criminals’ ability to detect deception. Psychol Crime Law, 2004; 10(1):83–95.
37.
LefkowitzJ. Psychological attributes of policemen: A review of research and opinion. J Soc Issues, 1975; 31(1):3–26.
38.
Van MaanenJ. Observations on the making of policemen. Hum Organ, 1973; 32(4):407–418.
39.
ConradN, PatryMW. Conscientiousness and academic performance: A mediational analysis. Int J Scholarship Teach Learn, 2012; 6(1):n1.
40.
KleppangAL, SteigenAM, FinbråtenHS. Explaining variance in self-efficacy among adolescents: The association between mastery experiences, social support, and self-efficacy. BMC Public Health, 2023; 23(1):1665.
41.
WilliamsS. How do I know if they’re cheating? Teacher strategies in an information age. Curriculum J, 2001; 12(2):225–239.
42.
AlwaqdaniM. Investigating teachers’ perceptions of artificial intelligence tools in education: Potential and difficulties. Educ Inform Tech, 2024:1–19.
43.
MouraA, CarvalhoAAA. Teachers’ perceptions of the use of artificial intelligence in the classroom. In: International conference on lifelong education and leadership for all ICLEL 2023. Atlantis Press; 2024; pp. 140–150.
44.
KoneckiM, BaksaT, KoneckiM. Teachers’ Perception of AI and Their Attitudes Towards AI. CSEDU, 2024; 1:564–568.
45.
CelikI, DindarM, MuukkonenH, et al.The promises and challenges of artificial intelligence for teachers: A systematic review of research. TechTrends, 2022; 66(4):616–630.
46.
WiederholdBK. Supporting teachers and students: The role of AI in shaping the future of education. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2025; 28(2):79–81.
47.
ChiuTK, AhmadZ, ÇobanM. Development and validation of teacher artificial intelligence (AI) competence self-efficacy (TAICS) scale. Educ Inform Tech, 2024:1–19.
48.
DelckerJ, HeilJ, IfenthalerD. Evidence-based development of an instrument for the assessment of teachers’ self-perceptions of their artificial intelligence competence. Education Tech Research Dev, 2025; 73(1):115–133.
49.
MachadoA, TenórioK, SantosMM, et al.Workload perception in educational resource recommendation supported by artificial intelligence: A controlled experiment with teachers. Smart Learn Env, 2025; 12:20.
50.
BiernackiP, WaldorfD. Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociol Method Res, 1981; 10(2):141–163.
51.
JohnOP, DonahueEM, KentleRL. The big five inventory—Versions 4a and 54. University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research; 1991; doi: 10.1037/t07550-000
52.
UbbialiA, ChiorriC, HamptonP, et al.Italian big five inventory. Psychometric properties of the italian adaptation of the big five inventory (BFI). B Psicol App, 2013; 266:37–48.
53.
BanduraA. A guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In: Self-efficacy Beliefs in Adolescents (PajaresF, UrdanT., eds.). Information Age Publishing Incorporated; 2006.
54.
TariqB, DilawarM, MuhammadY. Innovative teaching and technology integration: Exploring elderly teachers’ attitudes. Int J Dist Ed E-Learning, 2019; 5:1–16.
55.
Lomba-PortelaL, Domínguez-LloriaS, Pino-JusteMR. Resistances to educational change: Teachers’ perceptions. Edu Sci, 2022; 12(5):359.
56.
KnollMA, ArkesHR. The effects of expertise on the hindsight bias. Behavioral Decision Making, 2017; 30(2):389–399.
OroszG, Tóth-KirályI, BőtheB, et al.Teacher enthusiasm: A potential cure of academic cheating. Front Psychol, 2015; 6:318.
59.
BanduraA, WesselsS. Self-efficacy. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge; 1997; pp. 4–6.
60.
AbeJAA. The predictive validity of the Five-Factor Model of personality with preschool age children: A nine year follow-up study. J Res Pers, 2005; 39(4):423–442.
61.
FatimaI, IsmailSAMM, PathanZH, et al.The power of openness to experience, extraversion, L2 self-confidence, classroom environment in predicting L2 willingness to communicate. Int J Instruct, 2020; 13:909–924.
62.
NiaziS. Personality traits as predictor of self-esteem of university students: Moderating role of openness to experience. J Behav Sci, 2017; 27:102–119.
63.
SchaeferPS, WilliamsCC, GoodieAS, et al.Overconfidence and the big five. J Res Pers, 2004; 38(5):473–480.
64.
ChenG, CasperWJ, CortinaJM. The roles of self-efficacy and task complexity in the relationships among cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and work-related performance: A meta-analytic examination. Hum Perform, 2001; 14(3):209–230.
65.
SinghS, BalaR. Mediating role of self-efficacy on the relationship between conscientiousness and procrastination. Int J Work Org Emot, 2020; 11(1):41–61.
66.
TaberneroC, Gutiérrez-DomingoT, VecchioneM, et al.A longitudinal study on perceived health in cardiovascular patients: The role of conscientiousness, subjective wellbeing and cardiac self-efficacy. PLoS One, 2019; 14(10):e0223862.
67.
ConradN, PatryMW. Conscientiousness and academic performance: A mediational analysis. Int J Scholar Teach Learn, 2012; 6:1.
68.
LeeS, KleinHJ. Relationships between conscientiousness, self-efficacy, self-deception, and learning over time. J Appl Psychol, 2002; 87(6):1175–1182.
69.
La TorreD, ColapintoC, DurosiniI, et al.Team formation for human-artificial intelligence collaboration in the workplace: A goal programming model to foster organizational change. IEEE Trans Eng Manage, 2023; 70(5):1966–1976.
70.
MaroccoS, TalamoA, QuintilianiF. From service design thinking to the third generation of activity theory: A new model for designing AI-based decision-support systems. Front Artif Intell, 2024; 7:1303691.
71.
OsmanZ, MohamadRK, KasbunN. What Does it Take to Trigger Intention to Use Artificial Intelligence among Students in Higher Education Institutions. Int J Academic Res Bus Soc Sci, 2024; 14(7):1412–1429.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
