Hila Fridman, Rinat Arviv Elyashiv, Miri Shonfeld E63 AI-bias awareness was assessed with eight Likert-type items (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; α = .92) tapping recognition of biased outputs and fairness checking (e.g., awareness that AI may reproduce cultural bias or reinforce stereotypes). Digital use (six items; 1 = never, 7 = several times a day; α = .84) measured frequency of using digital tools. Technological anxiety (seven items; α = .95; one item reverse-coded) assessed discomfort and nervousness when working with technology. Multicultural competence (eight items; α = .90) captured readiness to teach in heterogeneous classrooms. Social proximity (six items; α = .94) assessed willingness for closeness and interaction with people from different cultural backgrounds; it was coded so that higher scores indicate greater proximity (lower distance). Teachers also reported their level of technological training (none/partial/extensive) and whether they serve as an ICT coordinator (yes/no). Results Analyses included one-way ANOVA comparing training groups (Table 1), an independent-samples t-test comparing ICT coordinators and non-coordinators (Table 2), and hierarchical regression predicting AIbias awareness (Table 4). Predictors were entered in blocks: cultural-social variables (multicultural competence, social proximity), digital factors (digital use, technological anxiety), and role-based experience variables (training level and ICT coordinator role). Table 1. ANOVA Results for Awareness of AI Biases by Technological Training (N = 120). Variable Group N M SD F P Technological Training Extensive 42 3.26 0.95 F(2,117)=8.63 < .001 Partial 45 2.70 0.82 None 33 2.42 0.92 p < .001*** Table 2. t-test Results for Awareness of AI Biases by ICT Coordination. (N=120) Variable Group N M SD T P ICT Coordinator Yes 22 3.83 0.69 t(118)=6.38 < .001 No 98 2.59 0.85 p < .001*** Descriptively, teachers reported moderate AI-bias awareness (M = 2.82, SD = 0.95). Awareness differed by technological training, F(2, 117) = 8.63, p < .001: teachers with extensive training scored higher (M = 3.26, SD = 0.95) than those with partial (M = 2.70, SD = 0.82) or no training (M = 2.42, SD = 0.92). ICT coordinators (n = 22) reported higher awareness (M = 3.83, SD = 0.69) than non-coordinators (n = 98; M = 2.59, SD = 0.85), t(118) = 6.38, p < .001, d = 1.51. (Table 3)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Mjk0MjAwOQ==