Practitioner Beliefs and Behaviors in AI-Enhanced Education: DOT Framework Survey Evidence
Summary
This study reports findings from a cross-sectional survey of 72 higher education practitioners, examining beliefs and behaviors regarding AI integration in teaching, grounded in the DOT Framework. Results show favorable views of AI as pedagogical support while highlighting gaps between design-oriented theory and actual implementation.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 05/29/26, 09:12 AM
# Practitioner Beliefs and Behaviors in AI-Enhanced Education: DOT Framework Survey Evidence
Source: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.29041](https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.29041)
[View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.29041)
> Abstract:This study reports findings from a cross\-sectional survey \(n = 72\) of higher education practitioners examining beliefs, behaviors, and institutional conditions related to artificial intelligence \(AI\) integration in teaching and learning\. Grounded in the DOT Framework, which integrates design thinking and open systems theory, the study investigates AI familiarity, usage patterns, design\-oriented practices, and pedagogical beliefs\. Exploratory factor analysis of 19 belief items identified a three\-factor structure: AI Functional Capabilities, Oversight and Governance, and Instructor Collaboration and Planning \(\{\\alpha\} = \.90\)\. Results indicate that practitioners hold favorable views of AI as a pedagogical support while maintaining strong commitments to human oversight and critical evaluation\. Reported practices emphasize iterative prompting and content generation, with less consistent use of needs assessment and feedback loops\. Institutional barriers including limited policy, training, and infrastructure were widely reported\. These findings provide preliminary empirical support for the DOT Framework as a descriptive model of practitioner beliefs and practices, while also highlighting gaps between design\-oriented theory and current implementation\. The study contributes an initial measurement structure and identifies directions for confirmatory validation and outcome\-based research linking AI\-supported design practices to instructional quality\.
## Submission history
From: David Gibson \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/b45a82fc/2605.29041)\] **\[v1\]**Wed, 27 May 2026 19:42:31 UTC \(562 KB\)Similar Articles
Agentic AI Ecosystems in Higher Education: A Perspective on AI Agents to Emerging Inclusive, Agentic Multi-Agent AI Framework for Learning, Teaching and Institutional Intelligence
This paper presents a forward-looking perspective on agentic multi-agent AI platforms in higher education, addressing the need for integrated, inclusive systems that support learning, teaching, and institutional operations. It identifies gaps in current fragmented AI tools and proposes directions for scalable, human-aligned multi-agent ecosystems.
Teaching with AI
OpenAI shares perspectives from educators on integrating AI tools like ChatGPT into teaching, including using AI for language support and teaching students to think critically about AI-generated information.
@AlphaSignalAI: First survey covering all 4 phases of AI in academic research. 5 Core Principles: > Structured tasks work. Judgment doe…
First survey covering all 4 phases of AI in academic research, outlining 5 core principles for AI integration.
AI Technologies in Language Access: Attitudes Towards AI and the Human Value of Language Access Managers
This paper examines language access managers' attitudes towards AI, finding they exhibit conditional optimism, strong risk awareness, and deep commitment to human oversight in AI implementations.
Aligning Human-AI-Interaction Trust for Mental Health Support: Survey and Position for Multi-Stakeholders
A multi-institution survey proposes a three-layer trust framework to align technical, clinical, and human-centered requirements for trustworthy AI in mental-health support.