Unlike businesses, which have been quick to adopt emerging technologies, such as Generative AI, to drive efficiency and innovation (McKinsey & Company, 2025), schools have taken a more cautious approach. In part, this could be attributed to curriculum constraints, concerns around academic integrity, data privacy and lack of professional development opportunities for teachers (Langreo, 2024). Unfortunately, the extent to which these factors present barriers to schools and teachers from effectively implementing Generative AI in the classroom is not well established in the research literature.

This study therefore sought to understand students’ current knowledge, skills and perceptions of Generative AI, as well as those of teachers, and the status of school policy on AI use in the classroom. Additionally, given the persistent gender disparity in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects/professions, this study also sought to investigate differences between the genders (students) in how they understood and interacted with Generative AI. Consequently, the following questions helped guide this study:

1. How do students perceive and interact with AI technologies in educational settings?
2. Are there differences between boys and girls in understanding and using Generative AI?
3. What are students’ expectations of schools and teachers in the context of Generative AI in the classroom?
4. Where are teachers and schools currently positioned with their understanding, use and in the case of schools specifically, policy documents to guide the ethical and responsible use of Generative AI in the classroom?

The first question will help address student interaction with Generative AI, namely ‘learning about AI’, ‘learning from AI’, and ‘learning with AI’ (Wang & Cheng, 2022). While boys are often more fearless and confident in experimenting with digital tools (Cerovac & Keane, 2023; Christensen, 2023), girls may demonstrate a more critical perspective, such as the nature and propagation of gender bias associated with the use of Generative AI. Consequently, the second question will aim to understand the gender differences in students’ understanding, perceptions and use of Generative AI.

The final two questions aim to understand the perceived role of teachers and schools in integrating Generative AI in the classroom, and ensuring that students learn to use Generative AI ethically and responsibly. As part of this role, there is the capacity and awareness building of teachers understanding and using Generative AI. Access to suitable professional development opportunities and formulation of school policy documents are considered pivotal for teachers successfully navigating the transformative nature of Generative AI in the school setting.

Based on grounded theory, this study used a qualitative approach to explore student and teacher understanding of Generative AI, and how they used Generative AI in the classroom or at home. The qualitative approach consisted of two parts: (1) in-person focus group discussions with students; and (2) one-on-one online semi-structured interviews with Lead Teachers / Assistant Principals. The first part involved face-to-face focus group discussions with 199 students (91 boys, 108 girls) from five schools (Prep to Grade 11 (ages 5-17)) in the Australian city of Melbourne. A total of 24 focus groups were held at the participating schools. The focus groups were arranged by grouping of year levels (i.e. Grades 1 to 4 (ages 5-9), Grades 5 and 6 (ages 10-11), Grades 7 and 8 (ages 12-13), Grades 9 and 10 (ages 14-15), and Grade 11 (age 16)). Additionally, boys and girls were separated, to ensure that the study captured the insights of both boys and girls, as research suggests that boys tend to be more outspoken when discussing (or working with) digital technologies (Aguillon et al., 2020). This approach ensured that the girls’ voices would be heard. Focus groups were selected for students as the method of data collection, as it allowed students to engage with one another, which facilitated co-construction of ideas, the significance of those ideas, and their meaning. The focus group discussions were conducted over a 3-month period in the second half of 2024, with each focus group lasting between 20 to 45 minutes. The second part involved semi-structured interviews with six teachers from four of the five participating schools. The teachers were either STEM teachers or teacher leaders (e.g. Assistant Principals), which would allow for the best insight of the use of Generative AI in schools and classrooms and the current state of policies/frameworks used by schools. The use of semi-structured interviews complemented the insights provided by the students, as well as providing the research team with an understanding of how teachers and schools were managing the use of Generative AI. By involving both students and teachers, the research team was able to better understand the gap between student knowledge and use of Generative AI, and that of their teachers.

This study highlighted the varying levels of awareness, understanding, and expectations surrounding the use of Generative AI among both students and teachers. Boys, more than girls, demonstrated a strong familiarity with the technical aspects of Generative AI. In contrast, while girls exhibited less technical confidence in using Generative AI, they provided a more nuanced understanding of its inherent gender biases, demonstrating an awareness of the social and ethical implications of AI-generated content. This contrast underscores the need for inclusive AI education that not only builds technical proficiency across all students but also fosters critical thinking about AI biases and ethical concerns. Across the student cohort, a strong desire for teacher guidance on the ethical and responsible use of Generative AI was a recurring theme. Many students expressed concerns about the inconsistent approaches taken by different teachers and called for clearer, more unified classroom policies. Without clear direction, students were unsure about when and how Generative AI could be used effectively and appropriately in their learning. Similarly, teachers also voiced a need for greater support from school leadership in developing policies and frameworks to help guide their professional practice in teaching students how to use Generative AI ethically and responsibly. The teachers requested facilitation of professional learning opportunities related to Generative AI. Professional development was still being directed to the misuse of social media (e.g. cyber bullying) with no meaningful professional development provided on navigating the effective use of Generative AI in school classrooms and at students’ homes. An outcome of this study was the design and development of a Toolkit that provides resources for teachers. The Toolkit also features resources for School Leaders, such as AI frameworks and digital literacy resources, to help schools navigate the use of Generative AI.

Aguillon, S. M., Siegmund, G. F., Petipas, R. H., Drake, A. G., Cotner, S., Ballen, C. J., & Eddy, S. L. (2020). Gender differences in student participation in an active-learning classroom. CBE Life Sciences Education, 19(2), ar12-ar12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-03-0048 Alexiadou, N., & Rambla, X. (2023). Education policy governance and the power of ideas in constructing the new European education area. European Educational Research Journal EERJ, 22(6), 852-869. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041221121388 Cerovac, M., & Keane, T. (2023). A case of girls building robots or robots building the girls. In T. Keane & A. E. Fluck (Eds.), Teaching coding in K-12 schools (pp. 343-358). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21970-2_23 Christensen, M. A. (2023). Tracing the gender confidence gap in computing: A cross-national meta-analysis of gender differences in self-assessed technological ability. Social Science Research, 111, 102853-102853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2023.102853 Dieudé, A., & Prøitz, T. S. (2024). Curriculum policy and instructional planning: Teachers’ autonomy across various school contexts. European Educational Research Journal EERJ, 23(1), 28-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041221075156 Khan, I. (2024). The quick guide to prompt engineering: Generative AI tips and tricks for ChatGPT, Bard, Dall-E, and Midjourney. (1st ed.). Langreo, L. (2024). Most teachers are not using AI: Here’s why. EducationWeek. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/technology/most-teachers-are-not-using-ai-heres-why/2024/01 McKinsey & Company. (2025). The state of AI in early 2024: Gen AI adoption spikes and starts to generate value. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai McKnight, L., & Furze, L. (2023). Australia has its first framework for AI use in schools – but we need to proceed with caution. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/australia-has-its-first-framework-for-ai-use-in-schools-but-we-need-to-proceed-with-caution-219094 Ninčević, M., & Vukelić, D. J. (2023). Social and communication competences of students: Future teachers. European Journal of Education, 6(1), 63-68. https://doi.org/10.2478/ejed-2023-0006 Quilabert, E., & Moschetti, M. C. (2024). ‘Most likely you go your way (and I’ll go mine)’: School-level enactment of an educational innovation policy in Barcelona. European Educational Research Journal EERJ, 23(1), 87-107. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041221121477 Sorensen, T. B., & Dumay, X. (2024). The European Union’s governance of teachers and the evolution of a bridging issue field since the mid-2000s. European Educational Research Journal EERJ, 23(2), 237-260. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041241234695 Wang, T., & Cheng, E. C. K. (2022). Towards a tripartite research agenda: A scoping review of artificial intelligence in education research. In Artificial Intelligence in Education: Emerging Technologies, Models and Applications (pp. 3-24). Springer Nature Singapore.