Indexed metadata

Predicting AI Readiness and Teacher Motivation in Blended Secondary Mathematics Classrooms

Tola Bekene Bedada, Addise Abame, Lamecha Gelato, Jabe Bekele

Source record

Source: Crossref

Published: Aug 6, 2026

DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-10408764/v1

Open original source ↗

Source abstract

Abstract This study investigated the structural relationships between technology-supported instructional tools and teachers' perceptions and motivation among 53 purposively sampled secondary school teachers in Central Ethiopia. While raw data deviated from normality (p < 0.001), stable homoscedasticity and safe collinearity diagnostics (VIF range: 1.147–1.249; maximum Condition Index: 20.689) justified ordinary least squares multiple linear regression. The overall regression model was highly significant (F(3, 49) = 22.648, p < 0.001), explaining 58.1% of the total variance in teacher perception and motivation (R^2 = 0.581, Adjusted R^2 = 0.555). Individually, the Use of Adaptive Learning Platforms was the strongest unique positive predictor (β = 0.683, t = 6.611, p < 0.001), followed by AI-Enhanced Feedback Systems (β = 0.261, t = 2.641, p = 0.011). Conversely, Interactive Assessment Tools yielded a non-significant effect (β = -0.146, p = 0.155). Descriptive analyses revealed a pedagogical paradox. Teachers showed strong baseline literacy regarding blended learning concepts (M = 3.72) and GeoGebra (M = 3.85), but operational usage of Google Workspace sat below the neutral midpoint (aggregated M = 2.896). Usage clustered in passive workflows like Gmail (M = 3.19) and YouTube (M = 3.08), while active content-creation systems like Google Forms (M = 2.77) and Slides (M = 2.74) lacked high-frequency deployment. Systemic policy under the Digital Ethiopia 2025 initiative must pivot professional development toward active digital content curation and algorithmic orchestration.

Evidence graph

No public relationships recorded yet.

Integrity note: This page is a factual metadata record created by deterministic ingestion. It is not a claim that the work moves a mathematical frontier or has been independently verified.