The Pragmatist, the Sceptic, and the Enthusiast
VET teachers’ attitudes toward artificial intelligence in assessment work
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7577/sjvd.6488Keywords:
vocational education and training (VET), artificial intelligence (AI), assessment, Q-method, digital literacyAbstract
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools constitutes a paradigm shift that challenges traditional assumptions about teaching and assessment. This study investigates vocational education and training (VET) teachers’ attitudes toward AI in assessment, drawing on assessment theory and prior research on AI in education. The study applies Q methodology, which combines quantitative and qualitative approaches, to address the research question: What are VET teachers’ attitudes toward the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in assessment practices? Data were collected from 34 VET teachers, and the analysis identified three distinct perspectives: the relational pragmatist, the practical sceptic, and the curious enthusiast. The findings highlight both shared positions and distinct differences among the three perspectives. Although all participants express positive attitudes toward AI, they diverge in their views on which assessment contexts are appropriate for AI use and what constitutes ethically acceptable practice. Despite these differences, all report having made only limited changes to their assessment practices, largely because VET already relies on varied, hands‑on assessment forms in which AI is not perceived as a threat to validity. VET teachers also appear well positioned to integrate AI due to their experience with adopting new vocational technologies. Simultaneously, the participants’ differing levels of AI experience, assessment literacy, and digital skills appear to determine the extent to which they have implemented AI in their assessment practices. The analysis reveals a potential linkage between competence levels and attitudes toward AI use. Nonetheless, all participants express a need for further training in AI for assessment purposes, including both the practical use of AI tools and the strengthening of assessment literacy and digital skills. The study concludes that VET teachers navigate both pedagogical and vocational dimensions of AI and argues that competence development initiatives targeting VET teachers must align with the specific needs of VET.
Downloads
References
AlBadarin, Y., Tukiainen, M., Saqr, M. & Pope, N. (2024). A systematic literature review of empirical research on ChatGPT in education. Discover Education, 3(60). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00138-2
Allgood E. & Kvalsund, R. (2010). Q- metodologi, rådgivingsfeltet, delt subjektivitet og per-soner i relasjoner. I A. A. Thorsen & E. Allgood (Red.). Q-metodologi. En velegnet måte å utforske subjektivitet (s. 39–46). Tapir Akademisk Forlag.
Andrade, H. L. & Cicek, G. J. (2010). Handbook of formative assessment. Routledge.
Arriazu, R. (2025). The daunting challenge of artificial intelligence in education: A systematic literature review. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 21(1), 236–244. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135992
Barry J. & Proops J. (1999). Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics, 28(3), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00053-6
Baytak, A. (2023). The acceptance and diffusion of generative artificial intelligence in educa-tion: A literature review. Current Perspectives in Educational Research, 6(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.46303/cuper.2023.2
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press.
Brown, S. R. & Montgomery, D. (2025). Foundations of Q methodology. I S. R. Brown & D. Montgomery (Red.). Q methodology and education (s. 19–64). Springer.
Bükki, E., Papp, Z., Manojlovic, H., Saniter, A., Luprichová, J. & Kovács, E. (2025). Artificial intelligence in VET: Interests and concerns among VET teachers. I C. Nägele, B. E. Stal-der, F. Kaiser, M. Malloch & N. Kersh (Red.). Trends in vocational education and trai-ning research, 8, 59–67. VET-NET/OA Publishing. https://doi.org/10.21240/vetcon/2025/ecer/32
Çayak, S. (2024). Investigating the relationship between teachers’ attitudes toward artificial intelligence and their artificial intelligence literacy. Journal of Educational Technology & Online Learning, 7(4), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1490307
Çela, E., Vajjhala, N.R., Eappen, P. & Vedishchev, A. (2025). Artificial intelligence in vocatio-nal education and training. I E. Çela, N. R. Vajjhala, R. M., Potluri & P. Eappen (Red.). Transforming vocational education and training using AI (s. 1–16). IGI Global.
Celik, I., Dindar, M., Muukkonen, H. & Järveläet, S. (2022). The promises and challenges of artificial intelligence for teachers: A saystematic review of research. TechTrends, 66, 616–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00715-y
Chiu, T. K. & Sanusi, I. T. (2024). Define, foster, and assess student and teacher AI literacy and competency for all: Current status and future research direction. Computers and Education Open, 7, 100182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100182
Choi, S., Jang, Y. & Kim, H. (2023). Influence of pedagogical beliefs and perceived trust on teachers’ acceptance of educational artificial intelligence tools. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 39(4), 910–922. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2049145
Churruca, K., Ludlow, K., Wu, W., Gibbson, K, Nguyen, H. M., Ellis, L. A. & Braithwaite, J. (2021). A scoping review of Q-methodology in healthcare research. BMC Medical Re-search Methodology, 21(125), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01309-7
Cizek, G. J. (2010). An to formative assessment. I H. Andrade & G. J. Cicek (Red.) Handbook of formative assessment (s. 31–7). Routledge.
Cotton, D. R., Cotton, P. A. & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academ-ic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
Dai, Y. (2025). Integrating unplugged and plugged activities for holistic AI education: An em-bodied constructionist pedagogical approach. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 6741–6764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13043-w
Den nasjonale forskningsetiske komité for samfunnsvitenskap og humaniora (NESH). (2021). Forskningsetiske retningslinjer for samfunnsvitenskap og humaniora (5. utg.). De nasjo-nale forskningsetiske komiteene. https://www.forskningsetikk.no/retningslinjer/hum-sam/forskningsetiske-retningslinjer-for-samfunnsvitenskap-og-humaniora/
Ejjami, R. (2024). AI's impact on vocational training and employability: Innovation, challeng-es, and perspectives. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 6(4), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i04.24967
Elstad, E. & Eriksen, H. (2024). High school teachers’ adoption of generative AI: Antecedents of instructional AI utility in the early stages of school-specific chatbot implementation. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, 8(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.5736
European Commission. (2018). High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. A definition of AI: Main capabilities and scientific disciplines. Directorate-General for Communica-tion. https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/ai_hleg_definition_of_ai_18_december_1.pdf
Fernández-Batanero, J. M., Montenegro-Rueda, M., Fernández-Cerero, J. & García-Martínez, I. (2022). Digital competences for teacher professional development. Systematic re-view. European Journal of Teacher Education, 45(4), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1827389
Fleckensten, J., Meyer, J., Jansen, T., Keller, S. D., Köller, O. & Möller, J. (2024). Do teachers spot AI? Evaluating the detectability of AI-generated texts among student essays. Com-puters and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100209
Fjørtoft, H. & Sandvik, L. (2016). Vurderingskompetanse i skolen: praksis, læring og utvikling. Universitetsforlaget.
Galindo-Domínguez, H., Delgado, N, Campo, L. & Losada, D. (2024). Relationship between teachers' digital competence and attitudes towards artificial intelligence in education. International Journal of Educational Research, 126, 102381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102381
Godor, B. (2025). Capturing Complexity in Educational Contexts: Studies on Learning and Instruction. I S. R. Brown & D. Montgomery (Red.). Q Methodology and Education (s. 105–120). Springer.
González-Calatayud, V., Prendes-Espinosa, P. & Roig-Vila, R. (2021). Artificial intelligence for student assessment: A systematic review. Applied Sience 11(12), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11125467
Hiim, H. (2020). Å vurdere yrkeskompetanse: Hva er yrkeskompetanse, og hvordan kan den vurderes? Nordic Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 10(3), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.3384/njvet.2242-458X.2010345
Hopfenbeck, T. N., Zhang, Z., Sun, S. Z., Robertson, P. & McGrane, J. A. (2023). Challenges and opportunities for classroom-based formative assessment and AI: a perspective arti-cle. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1270700
Hung, J. & Chen, J. (2023). The benefits, risks and regulation of using ChatGPT in chinese academia: A content analysis. Social Sciences, 12(7), 380. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12070380
Jeon, J. (2023). Chatbot-assisted dynamic assessment (CA-DA) for L2 vocabulary learning and diagnosis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(7), 1338–1364. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1987272
Jeon, J. & Lee, S. (2024). Can learners benefit from chatbots instead of humans? A systema-tic review of human-chatbot comparison research in language education. Educaion and Information Technologies, 29, 23329–23360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12725-9
Krumsvik, R. J. (2023). Digital kompetanse i KI-samfunnet. Et blikk på hvordan kunstig intel-ligens preger livene våre. Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Kvalsund, R. & Allgood, E. (2010). Kommunikasjon som subjektivitet i en skoleorganisasjon. I A. A. Thorsen & E. Allgood (Red.) Q-metodologi. En velegnet måte å utforske subjek-tivitet (s. 47–82). Tapir Akademisk Forlag.
Kvalsund, R. & Fikse, C. (2024). Q-metode – teori, metode og fortolkning av subjektivitet I L. Lorås & O. Ness (Red.) Håndbok i kvalitativ forskning: For psykologi, helsefag og so-sialfag (s. 407–425). Fagbokforlaget.
Leonardsen, J. K. (2021). One size fits nobody: En casestudie av yrkesfaglæreres deltakelse i kompetanse-utviklingsarbeid i videregående skole. Nordic Journal of Vocational Educa-tion and Training, 11(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3384/njvet.2242-458X.211121
Lim, T., Gottipati S. & Cheong, M. L. F. (2023). Ethical considerations for artificial intelli-gence in educational assessments. I J. Keengwe (Red.) Creative AI tools and ethical im-plications in teaching and learning (s. 32–79). IGI Global.
Lutfallah, S. & Buchanan, L. (2019). Quantifying subjective data using online Q-methodology software. The Mental Lexicon, 14(3), 415–423. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.20002.lut
Marchant, G. J. (2004). What is at stake with high stakes testing? A discussion of issues and research. Ohio Journal of Science, 104(2), 2–7.
McKeown, B. & Thomas, D. (2013). Q Methodology (2. utg.). Sage Publications.
Mustafa, M.Y., Tlili, A., Lampropoulos, G., Huang, R., Jandric, P., Zhao, J., Salha, S., Xu, L., Panda, S., Kinshuk, D., López-Pernas, S. & Saqr, M. (2024). A systematic review of litera-ture reviews on artificial intelligence in education (AIED): a roadmap to a future rese-arch agenda. Smart Learning Enviorment 11(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00350-5
NOU 2024: 20. (2024). Det digitale (i) livet. Balansert oppvekst i skjermenes tid. Departe-mentenes sikkerhets- og serviceorganisasjon Teknisk redaksjon. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2024-20/id3073644/?ch=16
Pokrivcakova, S. (2023). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards artificial intelligence and its integration into EFL teaching and learning. Journal of Language and Cultural Educa-tion, 11(3), 100–114. https://doi.org/10.2478/jolace-2023-0031
Polak, S., Schiavo, G. & Zancanaro, M. (2022). Teachers’ perspective on artificial intelligence education: An initial investigation. CHI conference on human factors in computing sys-tems extended abstracts (s. 1–7). https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519866
Popham, W. J. (2009). Assessment literacy for teachers: faddish or fundamental? Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577536
Rosyadi I.M., Kustiawan, I., Tetehfio, O. E. & Joshua, Q. (2023). The role of AI in vocational education: A systematic literature review. Journal of Vocational Education Studies, 6(2), 244–263. https://doi.org/10.12928/joves.v6i2.9032
Rudolph, J., Tan, S. & Tan, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional as-sessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 342–363. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9
Sandal, A. K. (2021). Vocational teachers` professional development in assessment for lear-ning. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 75(4), 654–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2021.1934721
Schriven, M. (1967). The metohodologyof evaluation. I R. W. Tyler, R. Gangè & M. Schriven (Red.). Perspetctives of curriculum evaluation. Rand McNally.
Selwyn, N. (2024). On the Limits of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education. Nordisk tidsskrift for pedagogikk og kritikk, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.23865/ntpk.v10.6062
Seufert, S., Guggemos, J. & Sailer, M. (2020). Technology-related knowledge, skills, and atti-tudes of pre-and in-service teachers: The current situation and emerging trends. Com-puters in Human Behavior, 115, 106552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106552
Stephenson, W. (1935). Correlating persons instead of tests. Character & Personality; A Quarterly for Psychodiagnostic & Allied Studies, 4, 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1935.tb02022.x
Sullivan, M., Kelly, A. & McLaughlan, P. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and student learning. Journal of applied learning and teaching, 6(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17.
Thorsen, A. A. & Allgood, E. (2010). Q-metodologi. En velegnet måte å utforske subjektivitet. Tapir Akademisk Forlag.
Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2024a). Læreplanen og KI. https://www.udir.no/kvalitet-og-kompetanse/digitalisering-skole/kunstig-intelligens-ki-i-skolen/ki-i-lareplanen/
Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2024b). KI i opplæring og vurdering. https://www.udir.no/kvalitet-og-kompetanse/digitalisering-skole/kunstig-intelligens-ki-i-skolen/ki-vurdering/
Wang, S., Wang, F., Zhu, Z., Wang, J. Tran, T. & Du, Z. (2024). Artificial intelligence in educa-tion: A systematic literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 252, 124167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124167
Watts, S. & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research. Theory, method and in-terepretation. STAGE.
Wayne, A. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07306523
Wolf. A. (2010). Subjektivitet i Q- metodologi. I A. A. Thorsen & E. Allgood (Red.). Q-metodologi. En velegnet måte å utforske subjektivitet (s. 23–37). Tapir Akademisk For-lag.
Xue, Y. & Wang, Y. (2022). Artificial intelligence for education and teaching. Wireless Com-munications and Mobile Computing, 6, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4750018
Zhou, X., Li, Y., Chai, C. S. & Chiu, T. K. F. (2025). Defining, enhancing, and assessing artificial intelligence literacy and competency in K-12 education from a systematic review. In-teractive Learning Environments, 33(10), 5766–5788. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2025.2487538
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Grete Hanssen, Julie Leonardsen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in SJVD accept the following terms:
- The author(s) retain copyright and gives the journal the right to the first publication of the work licensed simultaneously under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work when authorship and first release in the SJVD are recognised.
- The author(s) may enter separate, extra-contractual arrangements for non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (for example, send it to an institutional archive or publish it in a book) referring to the first release in SJVD.
- The author(s) are allowed and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional archives and on their website) before and during the filing process, as it may lead to useful exchanges of views, as well as faster and increased citation the published work.