Human vs. robot

Exploring the potentials and pitfalls of AI-led mathematics instructor professional development

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32674/r3m20653

Keywords:

professional development, faculty development, chatbot, faculty improvement, reflection cycles

Abstract

Professional development (PD) is essential for the increasing number of mathematics instructors who aspire to improve their instruction. One PD format to support incremental instructional improvement is a reflection cycle. Using 31 authentic transcripts, we trained an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbot to guide instructors in reflection cycles. We tested the chatbot by prompting it with reflection cycle segments and comparing its responses to those of student researchers. Data were qualitatively analyzed to find that student researcher and chatbot responses differed in three key ways: content, length, and tone. Findings have implications for widespread access to research-backed faculty PD. Overall, we explore the potential and pitfalls of AI-led instructor PD, with implications for AI’s role in programs that support instructional improvement.

Author Biographies

  • Dr. Alison S. Marzocchi, California State University, Fullerton

    ALISON S. MARZOCCHI, PhD, is a Professor of Mathematics at California State University, Fullerton, where she leads research and faculty development initiatives focused on equity-minded and active mathematics teaching. She is deeply committed to mentoring students and faculty, particularly those from historically excluded backgrounds. Email: amarzocchi@fullerton.edu

     

     

  • Nazgol Hadaegh, California State University, Fullerton

    NAZGOL HADAEGH is a graduate student in the Department of Mathematics at California State University, Fullerton, where she studies mathematics and conducts research focused on supporting instructors in improving their teaching. Her academic interests include mathematics education, the learning and teaching of mathematics, and motivating and supporting students through effective instruction. Email: nhadaegh@csu.fullerton.edu

References

Almasri, F. (2024). Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence in teaching and learning of science: A systematic review of empirical research. Research in Science Education, 54(5), 977–997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10176-3

Bouwma-Gearhart, J. (2012). Research university STEM faculty members’ motivation to engage in teaching professional development: Building the choir through an appeal to extrinsic motivation and ego. Journal of Science Education Technology, 21, 558–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9346-8

Brownell, S. E., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of training, time, incentives, and… tensions with professional identity? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-09-0163

Bustos, F., Ceja, V., Filice, M., Luna Flores, O., Hofstetter, C., Suastegui, J., Stone-Johnstone, A., Marzocchi, A. S., Kurianski, K., & Soto, R. C. (under review). The TEAM Tool: Supporting Instructors to teach equity-minded active mathematics.

Chichekian, T., & Benteux, B. (2022). The potential of learning with (and not from) artificial intelligence in education. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2022.903051

Coen, A., & Cuddapah, J. L. (2026). Artificial intelligence in action: How preservice teachers embark on the fast-paced journey of mindful AI use. American Journal of STEM Education, 20, 211–232. https://doi.org/10.32674/keqjjt69

Cook-Sather, A., Braud, A., Kane, B., & Suresh, A. (2024). How student-faculty pedagogical partnerships counter adultism in higher education. Taboo: The Journal of Culture and Education, 23(1), 47–58. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1445394.pdf

Emre, İ. E. (2025). Integrating generative AI tools in higher education. American Journal of STEM Education: Issues and Perspectives, 11(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.32674/2gxk8g16

Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first-generation students. Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, Washington, DC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504448.pdf

Gupta, S., & Chen, Y. (2022). Supporting inclusive learning using chatbots? A chatbot-led interview study. Journal of Information Systems Education, 33(1), 98–108. https://jise.org/Volume33/n1/JISE2022v33n1pp98-108.html

Ifenthaler, D., Majumdar, R., Gorissen, P., Judge, M., Mishra, S., Raffaghelli, J., & Shimada, A. (2024). Artificial intelligence in education: Implications for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 29(4), 1693–1710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09747-0

Labrado, M. (2026). Talking to machines: How communication style shapes student engagement with AI tutors. American Journal of STEM Education, 19, 37–58. https://doi.org/10.32674/t2qnzc90

Laursen, S. (2019). Levers for change: An assessment of progress on changing STEM instruction. American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/levers-for-change-WEB100_2019.pdf

Maanu, V., Boateng, F. O., & Larbi, E. (2025). AI-assisted instructions in collaborative learning in mathematics education: A qualitative approach. American Journal of STEM Education: Issues and Perspectives, 7, 11–36. https://doi.org/10.32674/68zzkz60

Marzocchi, A. S., Stone-Johnstone, A., Kurianski, K., & Soto, R. C. (2026). Student-led reflection cycles to support faculty instructional improvement. International Journal for Students as Partners, 10(1), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v10i1.6827

Marzocchi, A. S., & Soto, R. C. (2023). From the front lines of active learning: Lessons learned from those who are trying. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 9(2), 524–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-022-00176-x

Marzocchi, A. S., Stone-Johnstone, A., Kurianski, K., & Soto, R. C. (2024). Supporting mathematics instructors’ transition to equity-minded active instruction using a community of practice framework. Education Sciences, 14(9), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14091001

Meylani, R. (2024). Artificial intelligence in mathematics teacher education: A systematic review and qualitative synthesis of contemporary research literature. International Journal of Technology in Education Science, 1(1), 63–91. https://ijoftes.net/index.php/ijoftes/article/view/258

Oliver, J., Olkin, J., & Sisneros-Thiry, S. (2024). Leveraging a community of practice model to accelerate change. PRIMUS. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2024.2354811

Rasmussen, C., & Ellis, J. (2013). Students who switch out of calculus and the reasons why they leave. In M. Martinez & A. Castro Superfine (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 457–464). https://www.pmena.org/pmenaproceedings/PMENA%2035%202013%20Proceedings.pdf

Reinholz, D. L. (2016). Developing mathematical practices through reflection cycles. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28, 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-016-0175-1

Reinholz, D. L., Stone-Johnstone, A., & Shah, N. (2020). Walking the walk: Using classroom analytics to support instructors to address implicit bias in teaching. International Journal for Academic Development, 25(3), 259–272. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/rija/2020/00000025/00000003/art00006

Riggs, V. (2025). Impact of AI literacy professional development on teaching: Evaluating changes in perceptions and classroom practices. American Journal of STEM Education, 7, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.32674/rbajg012

Ruiz, C. C., & Yambao, F. M. P. (2026). AI literacy and professional development engagement as predictors of mathematics teachers’ readiness for AI-enhanced instruction. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 25(2), 655–675. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.25.2.29

Shrestha, S., & Yi, J. (2026). TPACK-based professional development for the AI era: fostering pre-service teachers’ acceptance of generative AI in mathematics classrooms. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-026-09747-0

Slimi, Z. (2023). The impact of artificial intelligence on higher education: An empirical study. European Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(1), 17-33. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1384682.pdf

Soto, R. C. & Marzocchi, A. S. (2021). Learning about active learning while actively learning: Insights from faculty professional development. PRIMUS (Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies), 31(3-5), 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2020.1746449

Stone-Johnstone, A., Kurianski, K., Soto, R. C., & Marzocchi, A. S. (2024). Mathematics equity through teaching actively: Centering equity in our active learning pursuits. PRIMUS (Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies), 35(4-5), 479–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2024.2354813

Additional Files

Published

2026-07-05

Issue

Vol. 25 (2026): American Journal of STEM Education

Section

STEM Education (regular)

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Dr. Alison S. Marzocchi, Nazgol Hadaegh

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) [year] [author]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

How to Cite

Marzocchi, A. S., & Hadaegh, N. (2026). Human vs. robot: Exploring the potentials and pitfalls of AI-led mathematics instructor professional development. American Journal of STEM Education, 25, 20-40. https://doi.org/10.32674/r3m20653