Revista Científica Ciencia y Método | Vol.04 | Núm.02 | Abr–Jun | 2026 | www.revistacym.com pág. 613
Percepciones de los profesores de inglés
ecuatorianos sobre la inteligencia artificial:
¿Oportunidad o Amenaza?
Ecuadorian English teachers' perceptions of artificial intelligence:
Opportunity or Threat?
Molina-Parraga, Maria Gabriela
1
https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8596-0408
molinamari452@gmail.com
Homeschool Salinas, Ecuador, Santa Elena.
Autor de correspondencia
1
DOI / URL: https://doi.org/10.55813/gaea/rcym/v4/n2/216
Resumen: El presente estudio analizó las percepciones
de 62 docentes universitarios de inglés de cuatro
instituciones públicas de educación superior del Ecuador
—Universidad Agraria del Ecuador (UAE), Universidad
de Guayaquil (UG), Universidad Estatal Península de
Santa Elena (UPSE) y Universidad Estatal de Milagro
(UNEMI)— sobre la inteligencia artificial (IA) en su
práctica pedagógica, desde un enfoque cuantitativo
descriptivo. Se aplicó un cuestionario Likert de 25 ítems
distribuidos en cinco dimensiones: conocimiento sobre
IA, actitudes, percepción de oportunidades, percepción
de amenazas y disposición para la integración. Los
resultados revelaron una tendencia predominantemente
positiva (M = 3.84–4.09 en las dimensiones de actitudes
y oportunidades), con ambivalencia moderada en la
dimensión de conocimiento (M = 3.38) y baja percepción
de amenazas (M = 2.95). Los docentes valoran
especialmente el potencial de la IA para personalizar el
aprendizaje y optimizar la creación de materiales,
aunque el 58.1% expresó necesidad de formación
específica. Se concluye que los docentes universitarios
de inglés en Ecuador perciben la IA principalmente como
una oportunidad pedagógica, sujeta a una integración
crítica y formativamente fundamentada.
Palabras clave: inteligencia artificial; percepciones
docentes; enseñanza del inglés; educación superior;
Ecuador.
Artículo Científico
Received: 30/Abr/2026
Accepted: 28/May/2026
Published: 24/Jun/2026
Cita: Molina-Parraga, M. G. (2026).
Percepciones de los profesores de inglés
ecuatorianos sobre la inteligencia artificial:
¿Oportunidad o Amenaza?. Revista Científica
Ciencia Y Método, 4(2), 613-
624. https://doi.org/10.55813/gaea/rcym/v4/n2
/216
Revista Científica Ciencia y Método (RCyM)
https://revistacym.com
revistacym@editorialgrupo-aea.com
info@editoriagrupo-aea.com
© 2026. Este artículo es un documento de
acceso abierto distribuido bajo los términos y
condiciones de la Licencia Creative
Commons, Atribución-NoComercial 4.0
Internacional.
Revista Científica Ciencia y Método | Vol.04 | Núm.02 | Abr–Jun | 2026 | www.revistacym.com pág. 614
Artículo Científico
Abril – Junio 2026
Abstract:
This study analyzed the perceptions of 62 university English teachers from four public
higher education institutions in Ecuador —Universidad Agraria del Ecuador (UAE),
Universidad de Guayaquil (UG), Universidad Estatal Península de Santa Elena
(UPSE), and Universidad Estatal de Milagro (UNEMI)— regarding artificial intelligence
(AI) in their pedagogical practice, using a quantitative descriptive approach. A 25-item
Likert questionnaire was administered across five dimensions: AI knowledge, attitudes,
perception of opportunities, perception of threats, and integration readiness. Results
revealed predominantly positive trends (M = 3.84–4.09 for attitudes and opportunities),
moderate ambivalence in the knowledge dimension (M = 3.38), and low threat
perception (M = 2.95). Teachers particularly valued AI's potential to personalize
learning and streamline material creation, although 58.1% expressed a need for
specific training. It is concluded that Ecuadorian university English teachers perceive
AI mainly as a pedagogical opportunity, contingent on critical and pedagogically
grounded integration.
Keywords: artificial intelligence; teacher perceptions; English language teaching;
higher education; Ecuador.
1. Introduction
Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as one of the most significant transformative
forces in the field of education over the last decade. Its progressive integration into
teaching and learning environments has generated academic debates regarding its
pedagogical, ethical, and professional implications (Al-Zahrani, 2025; Bende, 2024). In
the context of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching, AI has begun to
reconfigure instructional practices, teaching materials, and forms of linguistic feedback,
raising fundamental questions about the role of the human teacher in relation to
automated systems (Ebadi & Amini, 2024; Lee & Cho, 2025).
At the global level, recent studies have documented ambivalent perceptions among
language teachers regarding the use of AI tools in their classrooms. On the one hand,
the potential of AI to personalize learning, generate adapted materials, and provide
immediate feedback to students has been widely recognized (Galán-Rodríguez et al.,
2025; Hammoud, 2025; Sayici & Aydın, 2025). On the other hand, concerns persist
regarding academic integrity, technological dependence, and the possible
displacement of teachers in cognitive and affective processes that require human
mediation (Farinosi & Melchior, 2025; Park & Milner, 2025; Taktak et al., 2024). This
tension between AI as an opportunity and as a threat constitutes the core of
contemporary debate in language teaching.
Revista Científica Ciencia y Método | Vol.04 | Núm.02 | Abr–Jun | 2026 | www.revistacym.com pág. 615
Artículo Científico
Abril – Junio 2026
In the Latin American context, and particularly in Ecuador, the integration of AI in higher
education faces structural challenges related to the digital divide, continuous teacher
training, and institutional policies for technological innovation (Mena-Salcedo et al.,
2025). University English teachers find themselves in a particularly complex position:
they must adapt their pedagogical practices to a constantly changing technological
environment while navigating between the critical adoption of AI tools and the
preservation of humanistic approaches to language teaching (Castro et al., 2025;
Nogaibayeva & Yersultanova, 2025).
Existing literature on teacher perceptions of AI shows divergent trends depending on
the geographical context, educational level, and discipline. Research conducted in
Central Asia (Nogaibayeva & Yersultanova, 2025), Europe (Chrostowski & Mąkosa,
2026; Farinosi & Melchior, 2025), and the Middle East (Hammoud, 2025) reveals that
teachers value the instrumental benefits of AI but express uncertainty about its long-
term ethical and pedagogical implications. However, studies focused specifically on
Ecuadorian university English teachers are scarce, representing an empirical gap that
the present study seeks to address (Mena-Salcedo et al., 2025).
From a theoretical perspective, teacher perceptions of AI are framed within constructs
such as technology acceptance (Bende, 2024), digital literacy (Vosoughmatin, 2025),
and teacher professional autonomy (Lee & Bryan, 2025). These frameworks make it
possible to understand why some teachers perceive AI as a tool for professional
empowerment, while others experience it as a threat to their pedagogical identity (Al-
Zahrani, 2025; Su et al., 2025).
Recent research has also explored the perceptions of university students regarding
tools such as ChatGPT (Liang et al., 2024; Taktak et al., 2024) and language-learning
chatbots (Ebadi & Amini, 2024), finding generally positive attitudes, although
conditioned by the user's level of digital competence. In the case of foreign language
teachers, perceptions of AI are also mediated by factors such as teaching experience,
access to technological training, and institutional conditions (Artunduaga-Sánchez et
al., 2026; Sayici & Aydın, 2025; Yılmaz et al., 2026).
Against this background, the aim of this article is to analyze the perceptions of
university English teachers from four public higher education institutions in Ecuador —
Universidad Agraria del Ecuador (UAE), Universidad de Guayaquil (UG), Universidad
Estatal Península de Santa Elena (UPSE), and Universidad Estatal de Milagro
(UNEMI)— regarding artificial intelligence in their professional practice, identifying
whether they conceive of it predominantly as an opportunity for pedagogical innovation
or as a threat to their teaching role.
In recent years, artificial intelligence has evolved from a predominantly experimental
technology to a widely accessible tool integrated into everyday educational practices.
This transformation has been accelerated by the emergence of generative AI systems
and intelligent learning environments capable of simulating human-like interaction (Al-
Zahrani, 2025; Taktak et al., 2024). In the field of English as a Foreign Language (EFL),
Revista Científica Ciencia y Método | Vol.04 | Núm.02 | Abr–Jun | 2026 | www.revistacym.com pág. 616
Artículo Científico
Abril – Junio 2026
these developments are particularly significant, as they directly affect processes such
as communication, feedback, and language production, which have traditionally
depended on human interaction (Ebadi & Amini, 2024; Lee & Cho, 2025).
Consequently, AI is not merely a technological innovation, but a pedagogical shift that
challenges conventional models of language teaching.
From a pedagogical perspective, AI applications in language education can be
categorized into several functional domains, including automated feedback systems,
content generation tools, conversational agents, and adaptive learning platforms
(Hammoud, 2025; Sayici & Aydın, 2025). These tools enable new forms of interaction
and learning personalization. For example, AI-based writing tools provide immediate
corrective feedback, facilitating iterative learning processes, while chatbots simulate
communicative scenarios that enhance learners’ fluency and confidence (Ebadi &
Amini, 2024; Liang et al., 2024). Such affordances align with communicative language
teaching approaches, which emphasize meaningful interaction and learner autonomy.
However, the integration of AI into EFL teaching also raises critical pedagogical
concerns. Language learning involves not only the acquisition of linguistic structures
but also the development of intercultural competence, pragmatic awareness, and
emotional engagement. Although AI systems can generate linguistically accurate
outputs, their capacity to replicate these deeper dimensions remains limited (Farinosi
& Melchior, 2025; Park & Milner, 2025). This limitation highlights the need for a critical
perspective that recognizes both the potential and the constraints of AI in educational
settings.
Another key issue is the impact of AI on teacher roles and professional identity.
Traditionally, language teachers have acted as facilitators, evaluators, and cultural
mediators. The increasing presence of AI tools capable of performing tasks such as
feedback provision, material design, and content generation suggests a
reconfiguration rather than a replacement of these roles (Lee & Bryan, 2025; Su et al.,
2025). In this sense, teachers are required to develop new competencies related to
digital literacy and pedagogical decision-making in AI-supported environments
(Vosoughmatin, 2025; Tour & Zadorozhnyy, 2025).
Ethical considerations further complicate the integration of AI in education. Issues such
as academic integrity, data privacy, algorithmic bias, and technological dependence
have been widely discussed in recent studies (Farinosi & Melchior, 2025; Taktak et al.,
2024). In language education, concerns about the misuse of generative AI tools for
completing assignments without genuine learning are particularly relevant. At the same
time, research suggests that banning AI tools is neither practical nor pedagogically
effective; instead, there is a need to promote ethical and responsible use through
appropriate instructional strategies (Park & Milner, 2025).
In developing contexts, these challenges are intensified by structural limitations. In
Latin America, and particularly in Ecuador, the integration of AI in higher education is
conditioned by factors such as access to technology, institutional support, and teacher
Revista Científica Ciencia y Método | Vol.04 | Núm.02 | Abr–Jun | 2026 | www.revistacym.com pág. 617
Artículo Científico
Abril – Junio 2026
training opportunities (Mena-Salcedo et al., 2025; Castro et al., 2025). These
conditions create unequal scenarios in which the adoption of AI may vary significantly
across institutions, highlighting the importance of context-sensitive research.
Finally, the concept of AI literacy has gained increasing relevance in recent years. AI
literacy involves not only the technical ability to use digital tools but also the critical
understanding of how these systems operate and their implications for teaching and
learning (Vosoughmatin, 2025; Bende, 2024). In this regard, teacher perceptions play
a crucial role, as they influence both the acceptance and the effective integration of AI
in the classroom. Positive perceptions may foster innovation, whereas uncertainty or
lack of knowledge may hinder its pedagogical potential (Al-Zahrani, 2025; Sayici &
Aydın, 2025).
2. Materials and methods
Research design
The present study adopted a quantitative descriptive approach, aimed at measuring
and describing the perceptions of university English teachers regarding artificial
intelligence in their pedagogical practices. This approach was considered the most
suitable, given that the objective of the study was to obtain representative numerical
data on the attitudes, knowledge, and dispositions of the participants toward AI,
allowing trends to be established and comparisons to be made across dimensions
(Castro et al., 2025; Hammoud, 2025). The design was non-experimental and cross-
sectional, with data collected at a single point in time.
Participants
The sample consisted of English teachers from the Language Centers of four public
higher education institutions in Ecuador: Universidad Agraria del Ecuador (UAE),
Universidad de Guayaquil (UG), Universidad Estatal Península de Santa Elena
(UPSE), and Universidad Estatal de Milagro (UNEMI). A total of 62 teachers
participated (n = 62), distributed as follows: UAE (n = 18, 29.0%), UG (n = 16, 25.8%),
UPSE (n = 14, 22.6%), and UNEMI (n = 14, 22.6%). Participants were selected through
purposive convenience sampling, a criterion widely used in quantitative descriptive
research in educational contexts (Castro et al., 2025). The inclusion criteria were: (a)
being an active English teacher at one of the participating institutions during the 2024–
2025 academic year; (b) having access to technological devices in their teaching
practice; and (c) having had at least one prior experience with digital or AI tools in the
classroom. Teachers with less than one academic term of experience at their institution
were excluded.
Instrument
A Likert-scale questionnaire was designed for data collection, consisting of two
sections: (a) sociodemographic data and the participant's technological profile; and (b)
Revista Científica Ciencia y Método | Vol.04 | Núm.02 | Abr–Jun | 2026 | www.revistacym.com pág. 618
Artículo Científico
Abril – Junio 2026
25 items organized into five dimensions: AI knowledge, attitudes toward AI, perception
of opportunities, perception of threats, and readiness to integrate AI into teaching
practice. The items used a five-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree).
The instrument was validated through expert judgment (n = 3, with experience in
educational technology and EFL research), and Cronbach's alpha coefficient was
calculated (α = .89), indicating satisfactory reliability (Hammoud, 2025; Mena-Salcedo
et al., 2025).
Procedure
The questionnaire was administered digitally via Google Forms during the 2024–2025
academic period. Prior to administration, participants were informed of the study's
objectives, and informed consent was obtained from each teacher, guaranteeing
voluntariness and anonymity. Data collection lasted approximately four weeks. Data
were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequencies, means, and standard
deviations) with IBM SPSS v.26 software, complemented by thematic content analysis
for open-ended responses (Chrostowski & Mąkosa, 2026; Su et al., 2025).
Ethical considerations
The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of research
involving human participants: voluntary participation, anonymity of data, confidentiality
of information, and exclusive use of data for academic purposes. The research protocol
received institutional endorsement from the Language Centers of the four participating
universities.
3. Results
3.1. Technological profile of participants
The 62 participating teachers from the four Ecuadorian public universities displayed a
heterogeneous technological profile. 71.0% reported using digital tools in their classes
on a regular basis (at least three times per week), while the remaining 29.0% use them
occasionally. Regarding specific knowledge about AI, 54.8% declared having a basic
level, 32.3% an intermediate level, and only 12.9% an advanced level. These data
suggest that specific knowledge about AI remains at an incipient stage among
Ecuadorian university English teachers, a finding consistent with previous results in
Latin American contexts (Mena-Salcedo et al., 2025).
3.2. Descriptive statistics by dimension
The descriptive analysis of the five dimensions of the questionnaire revealed a
predominantly positive trend toward AI, with nuances of ambivalence in the dimensions
related to perceived threats and declared level of knowledge. Table 1 presents the
means and standard deviations by dimension.
Revista Científica Ciencia y Método | Vol.04 | Núm.02 | Abr–Jun | 2026 | www.revistacym.com pág. 619
Artículo Científico
Abril – Junio 2026
Table 1
Descriptive statistics by dimension (n = 62)
M
SD
Trend
3.38
0.81
Moderate
3.84
0.64
Positive
4.09
0.57
Very positive
2.95
0.85
Low–moderate
3.72
0.71
Positive
Note: M = Arithmetic mean; SD = Standard deviation. Five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 =
Strongly agree). n = 62 (Author, 2026).
As shown in Table 1, the dimension Perception of opportunities obtained the highest
mean (M = 4.09, SD = 0.57), followed by Attitudes toward AI (M = 3.84, SD = 0.64) and
Readiness for integration (M = 3.72, SD = 0.71). In contrast, the dimension Perception
of threats recorded the lowest score (M = 2.95, SD = 0.85), indicating that teachers do
not perceive AI as a significant threat to their professional practice. The dimension AI
knowledge showed a moderate mean (M = 3.38, SD = 0.81), reflecting the
heterogeneous technological profile described above.
3.3. Items with highest and lowest scores
In order to identify the most and least entrenched perceptions among participants, the
three items with the highest mean scores and the two with the lowest scores were
selected. These are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Items with highest and lowest mean scores in the questionnaire (n = 62)
Item
Dimension
M
SD
AI can personalize English learning according to
student needs.
Opportunities
4.42
0.54
AI allows teaching materials to be created more
efficiently.
Opportunities
4.29
0.61
I am willing to integrate AI tools into my English
classes.
Readiness
4.05
0.66
AI could replace English teachers in the future.
Threats
2.48
0.95
The use of AI compromises students' academic
integrity.
Threats
2.90
0.89
Note: The three items with the highest scores and the two with the lowest scores in the instrument are
presented (Author, 2026).
The results in Table 2 indicate that teachers mainly conceive of AI as a tool for
personalizing learning and optimizing the creation of teaching materials. The item with
the highest score (M = 4.42) corresponds to AI's potential to adapt English teaching to
the individual needs of students, a result consistent with recent research in EFL
contexts (Ebadi & Amini, 2024; Lee & Cho, 2025; Liang et al., 2024). On the other
hand, the item with the lowest score (M = 2.48) corresponds to the fear of being
Revista Científica Ciencia y Método | Vol.04 | Núm.02 | Abr–Jun | 2026 | www.revistacym.com pág. 620
Artículo Científico
Abril – Junio 2026
replaced by AI, which suggests that teachers maintain a secure perception of their
professional role, consistent with studies in Kazakhstan (Nogaibayeva & Yersultanova,
2025) and Spain (Galán-Rodríguez et al., 2025).
3.4. Analysis of open-ended responses
The thematic content analysis of open-ended responses allowed three emerging
categories to be identified: (a) AI as pedagogical support, mentioned by 64.5% of
participants; (b) need for teacher training in AI, indicated by 58.1%; and (c) ethical
concerns, identified in 38.7%, with specific mentions of academic dishonesty and
technological dependence (Farinosi & Melchior, 2025; Park & Milner, 2025; Taktak et
al., 2024).
4. Discussion
The results reveal that university English teachers from the four participating
Ecuadorian public universities (UAE, UG, UPSE, and UNEMI) hold a predominantly
positive perception of artificial intelligence, although with elements of ambivalence that
deserve analytical attention. This trend coincides with findings reported in various
geographical and disciplinary contexts (Al-Zahrani, 2025; Castro et al., 2025; Galán-
Rodríguez et al., 2025; Hammoud, 2025), suggesting that favorable perceptions of AI
as a pedagogical tool transcend cultural and institutional boundaries.
The dimension with the highest score was the perception of opportunities (M = 4.09),
particularly with respect to the personalization of learning and efficiency in material
creation. This finding is consistent with studies on chatbots in language teaching
(Ebadi & Amini, 2024) and with research on generative tools such as ChatGPT in
university EFL contexts (Al-Zahrani, 2025; Taktak et al., 2024). AI's capacity to provide
immediate and personalized feedback seems to be the most valued factor, reflecting
a pragmatic understanding of its benefits in classrooms with large groups and limited
resources, a common characteristic of Ecuadorian public universities.
However, the heterogeneity in levels of AI knowledge (54.8% at a basic level) qualifies
the general optimism observed. As in studies with religious education teachers in
Europe (Chrostowski & Mąkosa, 2026), with language teachers in Central Asia
(Nogaibayeva & Yersultanova, 2025), and with preservice teachers (Lee & Bryan,
2025), limited knowledge may lead to idealized perceptions that fail to account for
technical limitations, algorithmic biases, or deeper pedagogical implications. This
phenomenon has been conceptualized as superficial technology acceptance, in which
a positive attitude precedes critical understanding (Bende, 2024; Vosoughmatin,
2025).
The low score on perceived threats (M = 2.95), especially on the item regarding teacher
replacement (M = 2.48), suggests that participants maintain a strong professional
identity in the face of the rise of AI. This result is in dialogue with the literature on
Revista Científica Ciencia y Método | Vol.04 | Núm.02 | Abr–Jun | 2026 | www.revistacym.com pág. 621
Artículo Científico
Abril – Junio 2026
teacher autonomy in technologically mediated contexts (Sayici & Aydın, 2025; Yılmaz
et al., 2026), which argues that language teachers recognize dimensions of their
practice —such as emotional management, intercultural mediation, and cognitive
scaffolding— that cannot be replicated by automated systems. However, the 38.7%
who expressed ethical concerns indicates that this confidence does not imply uncritical
adoption (Farinosi & Melchior, 2025; Park & Milner, 2025).
The need for teacher training in AI (58.1%) constitutes the most significant finding in
terms of practical implications. Recent research has shown that readiness to integrate
AI significantly improves with specific training and institutional support (Artunduaga-
Sánchez et al., 2026; Lee & Bryan, 2025; Sayici & Aydın, 2025). In the Ecuadorian
context, where continuous training policies in educational technology are still incipient
(Mena-Salcedo et al., 2025), this finding raises an urgent challenge: to design
professional development programs that promote a critical and pedagogically oriented
AI literacy (Tour & Zadorozhnyy, 2025; Vosoughmatin, 2025).
Considering the participation of four public universities from different regions of the
coastal area of Ecuador (Guayas, Santa Elena, and Milagro), the findings provide initial
evidence of a shared trend among teachers in this macro-region. Nevertheless, a
limitation of the present study lies in the fact that the sample (n = 62) is restricted to
public universities on the Ecuadorian coast, which limits the generalization of the
findings to institutions in the Sierra, the Amazon region, or the private sector. Future
research could expand the sample nationally and incorporate semi-structured
interviews to explore in greater depth the meanings that teachers themselves attribute
to AI.
5. Conclusions
The present study analyzed the perceptions of 62 university English teachers from the
UAE, UG, UPSE, and UNEMI regarding artificial intelligence. The findings allow us to
conclude that teachers hold a mostly positive attitude toward AI, with a particularly high
valuation of its potential to personalize learning and optimize the production of teaching
materials.
Nevertheless, this positive perception coexists with moderate levels of declared
knowledge about AI and with genuine ethical concerns. This ambivalence reflects a
mature teaching stance that recognizes both the instrumental value of AI and the need
to integrate it critically, contextually, and in a pedagogically grounded manner.
The study provides empirical evidence from an Ecuadorian context that is scarcely
represented in the international literature on teacher perceptions of AI in EFL. Its
results have direct implications for the design of continuous teacher training policies,
the development of AI literacy programs in Ecuadorian higher education, and reflection
on the role of the language teacher in the age of artificial intelligence.
Revista Científica Ciencia y Método | Vol.04 | Núm.02 | Abr–Jun | 2026 | www.revistacym.com pág. 622
Artículo Científico
Abril – Junio 2026
In sum, English teachers from the UAE, UG, UPSE, and UNEMI do not perceive AI as
an existential threat to their professional role, but rather as a tool with transformative
potential that demands specific training, institutional support, and critical awareness.
The question that titles this article receives a nuanced answer: AI is mainly an
opportunity, but only to the extent that it is managed with pedagogical criteria, equity
of access, and sustained ethical reflection.
CONFLICTO DE INTERESES
“Los autores declaran no tener ningún conflicto de intereses”.
References
Al-Zahrani, A. A. (2025). Exploring the role of ChatGPT in English teaching and
learning: Educators’ and language learners’ perspectives. Educational Process:
International Journal, 17, Article e2025330.
https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2025.17.330
Artunduaga-Sánchez, B. F., Aguilar-Cruz, P. J., & Mejía-Vargas, J. D. (2026).
Percepciones de los estudiantes sobre la inteligencia artificial en el aprendizaje
del inglés como lengua extranjera. Revista Científica del Amazonas, 9(17), 5–
18. https://doi.org/10.34069/RA/2026.17.01
Bende, I. (2024). Preparedness for artificial intelligence in education. Acta Didactica
Napocensia, 17(2), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.24193/adn.17.2.2
Castro, A., Díaz, B., Aguilera, C., Prat, M., & Chávez-Herting, D. (2025). Identifying
rural elementary teachers’ perception challenges and opportunities in
integrating artificial intelligence in teaching practices. Sustainability, 17(6),
Article 2748. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062748
Chrostowski, M., & Mąkosa, P. (2026). Ambivalent perceptions of artificial intelligence
in religious education: A comparative study among teachers in Germany and
Poland. Teaching Theology & Religion, 28(2), 110–123.
https://doi.org/10.1111/teth.70020
Ebadi, S., & Amini, A. (2024). Examining the roles of social presence and human-
likeness on Iranian EFL learners’ motivation using artificial intelligence
technology: A case of CSIEC chatbot. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(2),
655–673. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2096638
Farinosi, M., & Melchior, C. (2025). ‘I use ChatGPT, but should I?’ A multi-method
analysis of students’ practices and attitudes towards AI in higher education.
European Journal of Education, 60(2), Article e70094.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.70094
Galán-Rodríguez, N. M., Bobadilla-Pérez, M., & Barros-Grela, E. (2025). Attitudes and
perceptions: The role of artificial intelligence in the training of future secondary
school foreign language teachers. Texto Livre, 18, Article e51692.
https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-3652.2025.51692
Revista Científica Ciencia y Método | Vol.04 | Núm.02 | Abr–Jun | 2026 | www.revistacym.com pág. 623
Artículo Científico
Abril – Junio 2026
Hammoud, R. (2025). Exploring chemistry teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of AI:
Opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Research in Education
and Science, 11(1), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.3584
Lee, H., & Bryan, L. M. (2025). Integrating AI in teacher education: Exploring the impact
on preservice teacher competencies. Professional Development in Education,
51(3), 478–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2025.2490000
Lee, T., & Cho, V. (2025). Enhancing language learning through generative artificial
intelligence in blended learning: An empirical study on productive and receptive
of informal digital learning English. Journal of Educational Technology Systems,
53(3), 143–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395241266454
Liang, J., Huang, F., & Teo, T. (2024). Understanding Chinese university EFL learners’
perceptions of AI in English writing. International Journal of Computer-Assisted
Language Learning and Teaching, 14(1), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCALLT.358918
Mena-Salcedo, M. F., Robles-Bykbaev, V., & Robles-Bykbaev, Y. (2025). State of the
art of artificial intelligence applied in the educational field: An initial review and
a pilot study of Ecuadorian teachers’ perceptions. In A. Abreu, J. V. Carvalho,
A. Mesquita, A. Sousa Pinto, & M. Mendonça Teixeira (Eds.), Perspectives and
trends in education and technology: Selected papers from ICITED24 (Lecture
Notes in Networks and Systems, Vol. 859, pp. 291–300). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-78155-1_28
Nogaibayeva, A., & Yersultanova, G. (2025). ‘It is not the same as a classroom
teacher’: A qualitative study of foreign language teachers’ perspectives on
artificial intelligence-supported tools in Kazakhstan. Contemporary Educational
Technology, 17(4), Article ep599. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/17405
Park, J. J., & Milner, P. (2025). Enhancing academic writing integrity: Ethical
implementation of generative artificial intelligence for non-traditional online
students. TechTrends, 69(1), 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-024-
01024-2
Sayici, S., & Aydın, S. (2025). Using artificial intelligence in foreign language teaching:
Teachers’ perspectives. Proceedings of the World Conference on Education
and Teaching, 4(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.33422/etconf.v4i1.1016
Su, Y., Luo, M., & Zhong, C. (2025). To chat or not: Pre-service English teachers’
perceptions of and needs in chatbot’s educational application. SAGE Open,
15(1), Article 21582440251321853.
https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251321853
Taktak, M., Bellibaş, M. Ş., & Özgenel, M. (2024). Use of ChatGPT in education: Future
strategic road map with SWOT analysis. Educational Process: International
Journal, 13(3), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2024.133.1
Tour, E., & Zadorozhnyy, A. (2025). Conceptualizing and operationalizing prompt
literacy for English language learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
69(3), Article e70020. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.70020
Revista Científica Ciencia y Método | Vol.04 | Núm.02 | Abr–Jun | 2026 | www.revistacym.com pág. 624
Artículo Científico
Abril – Junio 2026
Vosoughmatin, M. (2025). Investigation of digital competencies and artificial
intelligence literacy of special education students. International Journal of
Modern Education Studies, 9(2), 501–525.
https://doi.org/10.51383/ijonmes.2025.430
Yılmaz, Z., Galanti, T. M., Naresh, N., & Kanbir, S. (2026). Exploring the interactions
among instructor, prospective teachers and AI in facilitating mathematics
learning. School Science and Mathematics, 126(1), 75–88.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.18341