Date
Publisher
arXiv
Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained traction in educational settings, often framed as virtual tutors or teaching assistants. Following early skepticism and bans, many schools and universities have begun integrating these systems into curricula. Yet decisions about whether and how to deploy LLM-based tools are frequently made without systematic engagement with the full range of stakeholders they affect. In this paper, we argue that understanding stakeholder perceptions of LLM-based systems in the classroom is not a matter of measuring approval or acceptance, but of identifying whose concerns are surfaced, in which contexts, and with what implications for responsible design and governance. We introduce Contextualized Perceptions for the Adoption of LLMs in Education (Co-PALE), a stakeholder-first framework that connects educational context, responsible AI principles, and categories of perception to support more deliberate decision-making about the adoption of LLM-based tools.
We ground Co-PALE through a targeted analysis of prior work to diagnose recurring gaps in how stakeholder perceptions are studied, and through contextually distinct educational scenarios that illustrate how the same technology raises different concerns for different stakeholders. We further examine how university faculty and K--12 parents make sense of the framework through focus groups, using their reflections to surface tensions and uncertainties. Co-PALE supports more systematic reasoning about whether, where, and for whom LLM-based tools should be deployed in education.
Study at a glance
- Question: How can stakeholder perceptions be systematically integrated into decisions about adopting AI tools across different educational settings?
- Setting and data: Five in-person focus groups with university faculty (N=27, North America and Europe) and three online focus groups with K-12 parents (N=24, United States).
- Method: Diagnostic literature review of 38 empirical studies, framework development, illustrative case scenarios, and qualitative focus groups analyzed with content analysis.
Why it matters
Decisions to adopt classroom AI systems are often made top-down without consulting affected groups. Current policies apply uniform rules that overlook differences across educational contexts and how various stakeholders perceive AI tools.
Key findings
- A review of 38 studies revealed that existing research heavily focuses on university students (82%) and STEM fields (50%), entirely omitting parents and administrators.
- Student perceptions across reviewed studies were predominantly positive (56%), whereas educator perceptions were more frequently negative (52%), with both groups raising strong ethical concerns.
- Focus groups revealed that both faculty and parents navigate fragmented guidance and struggle to operationalize responsible AI principles such as fairness, accountability, and privacy.
Summary drafted with AI from the full paper and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who age?
Why use AI?
