Skip to main content Skip to journal navigation menu Skip to site footer
contact@ukscip.com
Article

From AI-Generated Student Analytics to Teacher Trust: Evidence from a Longitudinal Classroom Case Study

İbrahim Delen ORCID ,  Ayten Baykal ORCID ,  Bora Şenceylan ORCID ,  Gökhan İnce ORCID
    Received: 26 June 2026; Revised: 14 July 2026; Accepted: 5 August 2026; Published: 11 August 2026

    Abstract

    This case study examined how teacher trust in student analytics could be built when using Artificial Intelligence (AI) generated assessment. The case study included two data sources: (i) teacher evaluations of AI-generated student reports and (ii) a semi-structured interview with a science teacher who used the system in their classroom for three semesters (first pilot semester and two semesters of implementation). The teacher demonstrated an agreement rate exceeding 80% with Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) generated reports. However, the teacher also stated that she expected the reports to not only describe student characteristics but also provide actionable pedagogical recommendations to support the teaching process. In conclusion, the study provided evidence that the teacher trust in GenAI based student analytics could be developed as the teacher adopts AI based practices in her classroom. When GenAI tools are implemented for a longer period, they have potential to build trust underlined by other studies. Including GenAI represented students' learning characteristics and replicated it consistently across different students. The findings indicate that GenAI-supported learning analytics systems to be developed in the future should be designed not only as tools to describe student behavior, but also as explainable and pedagogical decision support systems that support teachers' professional judgment.

    Keywords

    References

    1. 1.Shubik, M. Bibliography on Simulation, Gaming, Artificial Intelligence and Allied Topics. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1960, 55, 736–751. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1960.10483374
    2. 2.Delen, I.; Sen, N.; Ozudogru, F.; et al. Understanding the Growth of Artificial Intelligence in Educational Research through Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6724. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166724
    3. 3.Moundridou, M.; Matzakos, N.; Doukakis, S. Generative AI Tools as Educators’ Assistants: Designing and Implementing Inquiry-Based Lesson Plans. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 2024, 7, 100277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100277
    4. 4.Ndjama, J.D.N. The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Lesson Delivery and Evaluation in Large-Scale Teaching Environments. Interdiscip. J. Educ. Res. 2025, 7, 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.38140/ijer-2025.vol7.s1.08
    5. 5.García Laborda, J.; Magal Royo, T.; Fernández Alvarez, M. An Approach to the Advance of Tools Based on Generative Artificial Intelligence for Language Assessment: A SWOT Analysis. Rev. Iberoam. Estud. Educ. 2024, 19, e19060. (in Spanish)
    6. 6.Shaw, B.P. Artificial Intelligence and Assessment: Three Implications for Music Educators. Music Educ. J. 2024, 111, 19–25.
    7. 7.Breen, P. Towards a Pedagogy of Negotiation: EAP Teachers Rethinking University Teaching and Assessment in the Digital Age. Lond. Rev. Educ. 2026, 24, 9.
    8. 8.Huertas-Abril, C.A.; Palacios-Hidalgo, F.J. New Possibilities of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Language Learning (AIALL): Comparing Visions from the East and the West. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1234.
    9. 9.Söğüt, S.; Çorbacı, E.C.; Hegelheimer, V. Designing Feedback and Assessment for GenAI-Assisted Digital Multimodal Composition in L2. TESOL Q. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.70161
    10. 10.Lepage, A.; Roy, N. Studying Artificial Intelligence Adoption by Postsecondary Teachers in Quebec through Five Use Cases. Int. J. Technol. High. Educ. 2025, 22, 13. (in French)
    11. 11.Shahid, M.K.; Zia, T.; Bangfan, L.; et al. Exploring the Relationship of Psychological Factors and Adoption Readiness in Determining University Teachers’ Attitude on AI-Based Assessment Systems. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2024, 22, 100967.
    12. 12.Gumilar, S.; Ong, Y.S.; Bhakti, D.D.; et al. Examining Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in Assessing Students’ Responses to Socio-Scientific Issues in Physics. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2025, 1–24.
    13. 13.Çeltik, E.; Şenceylan, B.; Delen, İ.; et al. Automated Evaluation of Student-Chatbot Interactions in Climate Education Using Large Language Models. In Artificial Intelligence in Education; Blanchard, E.G., Chen, G., Chi, M., et al., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2026.
    14. 14.Noroozi, O.; Haddadian, G.; Gao, X.; et al. The Value of GenAI for Peer Feedback Provision: Student Perceptions and Impacts. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2025, 22, 61.
    15. 15.Archila, P.A.; Ortiz, B.T.; Truscott de Mejía, A.M.; et al. Critically Reading Science-Related Texts Produced by ChatGPT. Sci. Educ. 2025, 34, 4627–4662.
    16. 16.Mun, J.; Kim, M.; Kim, S.W. How Seventh-Grade Students Experience the Complexity of Socioscientific Issues through Decision Making on the Autonomous Vehicle Issue. Asia-Pac. Sci. Educ. 2022, 8, 43–71.
    17. 17.Martin, P.P.; Kranz, D.; Wulff, P.; et al. Exploring New Depths: Applying Machine Learning for the Analysis of Student Argumentation in Chemistry. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2024, 61, 1757–1792.
    18. 18.Guo, K.; Zhong, Y.; Li, D.; et al. Effects of Chatbot-Assisted In-Class Debates on Students’ Argumentation Skills and Task Motivation. Comput. Educ. 2023, 203, 104862.
    19. 19.Corbin, T.; Bearman, M.; Boud, D.; et al. Assessment after Artificial Intelligence: The Research We Should Be Doing. J. Univ. Teach. Learn. Pract. 2025, 22, 1–12.
    20. 20.Yin, H. Development and Testing of a Teaching Quality Assessment and Examination Data Collection System Based on Artificial Intelligence. Int. J. Contin. Eng. Educ. Life Long Learn. 2026, 36, 40–56.
    21. 21.Elsawah, W. Rethinking Student Assessment in the Age of AI: Insights and Framework Proposals from a Gulf-Based Educational Program. In Integrity, Assessment, and Collaboration in the AI Classroom; IGI Global Scientific Publishing: Hershey, PA, USA, 2026; pp. 211–240.
    22. 22.Davis, F.D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340.
    23. 23.Mayer, R.C.; Davis, J.H.; Schoorman, F.D. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 709–734.
    24. 24.Lee, J.D.; See, K.A. Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance. Hum. Factors 2004, 46, 50–80.
    25. 25.Street, C.T.; Ward, K.W. Improving Validity and Reliability in Longitudinal Case Study Timelines. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2012, 21, 160–175.
    26. 26.Ismail, N.; Kinchin, G.; Edwards, J.A. Pilot Study, Does It Really Matter? Learning Lessons from Conducting a Pilot Study for a Qualitative PhD Thesis. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 2018, 6, 1–17.
    27. 27.Palinkas, L.A.; Horwitz, S.M.; Green, C.A.; et al. Purposive Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Methods Application Research. Adm. Policy Ment. Health Ment. Health Serv. Res. 2013, 42, 533–544.
    28. 28.Pan, J.; Liang, J.; Hu, Y. Gamified Behavioral Engagement as an Indirect Association Linking Ideal L2 Self and Vocabulary Achievement in Mobile-Assisted EFL Vocabulary Learning. Front. Psychol. 2026, 17, 1836665.
    29. 29.Glaser, B.G.; Strauss, A.L. Grounded Theory: Strategien Qualitativer Forschung; Huber: Bern, Switzerland, 1998.
    30. 30.Vears, D.F.; Gillam, L. Inductive Content Analysis: A Guide for Beginning Qualitative Researchers. Focus Health Prof. Educ. 2022, 23, 111–127.
    31. 31.Beets, M.W.; Weaver, R.G.; Ioannidis, J.P.; et al. Identification and Evaluation of Risk of Generalizability Biases in Pilot versus Efficacy/Effectiveness Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2020, 17, 19.
    32. 32.Zhai, X.; Nehm, R.H. AI and Formative Assessment: The Train Has Left the Station. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2023, 60, 1390–1398.
    33. 33.Kim, J. Leading Teachers’ Perspective on Teacher-AI Collaboration in Education. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2024, 29, 8693–8724.
    34. 34.Li, Y.; Shan, Z.; Raković, M.; et al. When AI Explains in Natural Language: Unveiling the Impact of Generative AI Explanations on Educators’ Grading and Feedback Practices. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2025, 30, 24931–24964.
    35. 35.Lee, S.; Song, K.S. Teachers’ and Students’ Perceptions of AI-Generated Concept Explanations: Implications for Integrating Generative AI in Computer Science Education. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 2024, 7, 100283.
    36. 36.Ishaq, S.M.; Bangulzai, A.R.; Asif, M.; et al. Artificial Intelligence as a Co-Teacher: Enhancing Educator Efficiency through Intelligent Systems. Crit. Rev. Soc. Sci. Stud. 2025, 3, 1324–1342.
    37. 37.Sajja, R.; Sermet, Y.; Cwiertny, D.; et al. Integrating AI and Learning Analytics for Data-Driven Pedagogical Decisions and Personalized Interventions in Education. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 2025, 1–31.
    38. 38.Hu, J.; Huang, Z.; Li, J.; et al. Real-Time Classroom Behavior Analysis for Enhanced Engineering Education: An AI-Assisted Approach. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 2024, 17, 167.
    39. 39.Cabral, L.; Pinto, R.; Gonçalves, G. AI-Powered Learning Analytics Dashboards: A Systematic Review of Applications, Techniques, and Research Gaps. Discover Educ. 2025, 4, 525.
    ×