Science for Education Today, 2026, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 131–157
© Glukhov A. P., Sinogina E. S., Chervonnyy M. A., 2026
UDC: 
51-77+37.013+004.8

Justifying the design of ai interventions in education: An analysis of teachers’ attitudes and a multi-layered readiness model

Glukhov A. P. 1 (Tomsk, Russian Federation), Sinogina E. S. 1 (Tomsk, Russian Federation), Chervonnyy M. A. 1 (Tomsk, Russian Federation)
1 Tomsk State Pedagogical University
Full text (Open Access) — Downloaded 28
Abstract: 

Introduction. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into general secondary education is accompanied by a persistent gap between teachers’ declared readiness to use AI tools and their actual integration into the learning process. Teachers employ AI primarily for routine tasks, while its potential for transforming instruction and personalization remains unrealized, creating risks of cognitive debt for students and the erosion of professional agency. The lack of empirically grounded models for designing AI interventions that account for teachers’ attitudes and cognitive risks impedes pedagogically sound AI integration. This study aims to empirically substantiate a two-axis ‘cognitive offloading – agency’ model and a four-layer ‘AI Readiness – 4L’ model based on an empirical analysis of teachers’ attitudes, practices, and barriers to AI use, as well as to formulate architectural principles for AI interventions.
Materials and Methods. The theoretical framework comprised a synthesis of the ‘Systems AI Readiness’ concept, the SAMR, SCOT, JTBD, and TPACK models, and Bandura’s social cognitive theory. The empirical basis was a mixed-method design (2024–2025) conducted across four comprehensive secondary schools in Tomsk (Russia). The quantitative component involved a survey of teachers (n=118); the qualitative component included interviews with school principals (n=3). Thematic analysis and case study methods were employed.
Results. A ‘readiness paradox’ was identified: despite positive attitudes toward AI, less than a third of teachers regularly use AI tools, and the majority rate their AI competencies as insufficient. Differentiation in principals’ managerial positions was established. A two-axis ‘cognitive offloading – agency’ model with four types of interaction in the «student – AI – teacher» system was empirically substantiated. The critical risk of cognitive debt occurs when high offloading is combined with low agency. A four-layer ‘AI Readiness – 4L’ model (technological, social, needs-based, and competency layers) was developed. Social-organizational factors, rather than infrastructure, were found to be the key predictors of readiness. Architectural principles for AI interventions were formulated.
The critical risk of cognitive debt occurs when high offloading is combined with low agency. A four-layer ‘AI Readiness – 4L’ model (technological, social, needs-based, and competency layers) was developed. Social-organizational factors, rather than infrastructure, were found to be the key predictors of readiness. Architectural principles for AI interventions were formulated.
Conclusions. The proposed models and principles provide a foundation for designing AI interventions that leverage the transformative potential of technology while preserving teacher agency and student cognitive autonomy, confirming the necessity of transitioning to pedagogically mediated AI adoption.

Keywords: 

Artificial intelligence in education; Teacher attitudes; Cognitive debt; Cognitive offloading; Distributed agency; AI adoption readiness; Multi-layered readiness model; Comprehensive secondary school; Digital didactics

For citation:
Glukhov A. P., Sinogina E. S., Chervonnyy M. A. Justifying the design of ai interventions in education: An analysis of teachers’ attitudes and a multi-layered readiness model. Science for Education Today, 2026, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 131–157. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2605.07
References: 
  1. ElSayary A. An investigation of teachers' perceptions of using ChatGPT as a supporting tool for teaching and learning in the digital era. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2024, vol. 40 (3), pp. 931-945. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12926
  2. Bui P., Korhonen T., Kontkanen S., Karme S., Piispa-Hakala S., Veermans M. Exploring pre-service teachers' generative AI readiness and behavioral intentions: A pilot study. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 2025, vol. 13 (1), pp. 8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.13.1.2755
  3. Glukhov A. P., Sinogina E. S. Socio-professional challenges and methodological aspects of ai implementation in the school educational environment. Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2025, no. 5 (241), pp. 110-121. (In Russian) URL:  https://elibrary.ru/wlzojl DOI: https://doi.org/10.23951/1609-624X-2025-5-110-121
  4. Kuzmenko M. V. Artificial intelligence in school mathematics education: Awareness, readiness, and usage among mathematics teachers. Psychological Science and Education, 2025, vol. 30 (3), pp. 125-139. (In Russian) URL:  https://elibrary.ru/fhqrzn DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2025300310
  5. Sadykova G. V., Kayumova A. R. Artificial intelligence technologies in the Russian educational context: Educators’ views. Perspectives of Science and Education, 2024, no. 6 (72), pp. 720-732. (In Russian) URL:  https://elibrary.ru/rikcdn DOI: https://doi.org/10.32744/pse.2024.6.45
  6. Eedelouei S. Factors influencing language teachers' judgements and decision-making about the use of generative AI tools: A systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2026, vol. 171, pp. 105333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2025.105333
  7. Sweller J., van Merriënboer J. J. G., Paas F. Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 2019, vol. 31 (2), pp. 261-292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
  8. Gilbert S. J. Cognitive offloading is value-based decision making: Modelling cognitive effort and the expected value of memory. Cognition, 2024, vol. 247, pp. 105783. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105783
  9. Risko E. F., Gilbert S. J. Cognitive Offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2016, vol. 20 (9), pp. 676-688. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002

10. Fan Y., Tang L., Le H., Shen K., Tan S., Zhao Y., Shen Y., Li X., Gašević D. Beware of metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning motivation, processes, and performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2025, vol. 56 (2), pp. 489-530. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13544

11. Long D. Y., Wang S., Md Rashid S., Lu X. T. Artificial intelligence in higher education: A systematic review of its impact on student engagement and the mediating role of teaching methods. Frontiers in Education, 2026, vol. 10, pp. 1648661. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1648661

12. Hamilton E. R., Rosenberg J. M., Akcaoglu M. The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 2016, vol. 60 (5), pp. 433-441. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y

13. Mishra P., Koehler M. J. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 2006, vol. 108 (6), pp. 1017-1054. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

14. Bandura A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 2001, vol. 52, pp. 1-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

15. Buyakova K. I., Dmitriev Ya. A., Ivanova A. S., Feshchenko A. V., Yakovleva K. I. Students’ and teachers’ attitudes towards the use of tools with generative artificial intelligence at the university. Education and Science, 2024, vol. 26 (7), pp. 160-193. (In Russian) https://elibrary.ru/bseuwy DOI: https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2024-7-160-193

16. Braun V., Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2006, vol. 3 (2), pp. 77-101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

17. Letourneau A., Deslandes Martineau M., Charland P., Karran J. A., Boasen J., Leger P. M. A systematic review of AI-driven intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) in K-12 education. NPJ Science of Learning, 2025, vol. 10 (1), pp. 29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00320-7

18. Cetin Y., Taş Ö., Alakuş H., Kaplan H. İ. Examining school principals' and teachers' perceptions of using ChatGPT in education. Educational Process: International Journal, 2024, vol. 13 (3), pp. 85-96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2024.133.5

19. Doty K., Lipien L. Student perceptions and attitudes about the usage of ChatGPT in online K-12 education and student preferences about learning to use artificial intelligence from teachers. American Journal of Educational Research, 2024, vol. 12 (9), pp. 348-355. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12691/education-12-9-2

20. Rui X., Celik I., Edwards J. Understanding pre-service teachers' needs for integrating AI-based tools in instruction through intelligent TPACK framework. Computers and Education Open, 2025, vol. 9, pp. 100317. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100317

21. Edwards A. Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 2005, vol. 43 (3), pp. 168-182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.06.010

22. Floridi L., Cowls J., Beltrametti M., Chatila R., Chazerand P., Dignum V., Luetge C., Madelin R., Pagallo U., Rossi F., Schafer B., Valcke P., Vayena E. AI4People - An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and Recommendations. Minds and Machines, 2018, vol. 28 (4), pp. 689-707. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5

23. Wang S., Zhang H. Digital mentor paradox: Transforming algorithmic anxiety into professional growth through AI-scaffolded pedagogical reasoning and identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2026, vol. 176, pp. 105526. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2026.105526

Date of the publication 31.10.2026