Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 72 references

"I Would Never Trust Anything Western": Kumu (Educator) Perspectives on Use of LLMs for Culturally Revitalizing CS Education in Hawaiian Schools

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Hawaiian educators in Kaiapuni programs see real time-saving potential in LLMs for culturally relevant CS lessons, but they distrust current tools because of cultural misrepresentation, unreliable ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi output, and opaque sourcing.

desk verdict A genuinely new empirical study of kumu views on LLMs in Kaiapuni schools, but the sample is too thin and under-described to support the strength of the design recommendations; still worth peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.17942 v1 pith:IDPPDLS5 submitted 2025-01-29 cs.CY cs.HC

Manas Mhasakar , Rachel Baker-Ramos , Ben Carter , Evyn-Bree Helekahi-Kaiwi , Josiah Hester This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.HC
keywords culturallyresponsivepedagogyAIineducationculturally-relevantcomputerscienceKaiapuniimmersionschoolslargelanguagemodelsHawaiianIndigenousknowledgelow-resourcelanguages
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper investigates whether large language models can help kumu (educators) in Hawaiian public schools—particularly Kaiapuni immersion programs—build computer science lessons that are culturally revitalizing. Based on surveys with 15 educators and interviews with 4, it finds that educators genuinely value the time AI could save; one teacher reported that a Hawaiian-based lesson took six weeks to produce. But it also finds serious obstacles: AI outputs misrepresent Hawaiian culture and history, translations into ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi are unreliable, and kumu do not trust where the training data comes from. The paper concludes that for AI to serve these schools, tools must be rebuilt around Hawaiian epistemologies, transparent sourcing, and place-based knowledge, and co-designed with the community.

What carries the argument

The study's instrument is a survey and semi-structured interview protocol organized around seven themes—cultural sensitivity, data sovereignty, workforce impact, usability, perceived opportunities and risks, design suggestions, and future outlook—administered to kumu from public schools with Kaiapuni programs. The load-bearing mechanism is qualitative thematic analysis: quotes from educators aligned to the seven themes carry the argument, supported by simple quantitative tallies (e.g., 75% say cultural integration is very or extremely important; 14 of 15 find finding culturally relevant materials challenging). These voices, not a formal model, are what the paper uses to ground its design recommendations.

What would settle it

A representative survey of kumu across all 22 Kaiapuni schools, combined with expert evaluation of LLM-generated Hawaiian-language CS lesson plans, would settle the claim: if a majority of kumu reported that AI tools did not save them meaningful time, and Hawaiian-language experts judged the outputs to be culturally accurate and properly sourced, then the paper's characterization of both the benefit and the barrier would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the core discovery is a two-sided perception among kumu: LLMs are a promising time-saving partner for culturally relevant CS curriculum development, but current off-the-shelf tools fail on cultural accuracy, linguistic reliability (especially for ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi as a low-resource language), and source transparency, and these failures feed a deeper distrust of AI as a Western instrument. The evidence is educators' own accounts—a teacher describing ChatGPT glorifying colonizers, another forced to prompt 'from an Indigenous Hawaiian epistemology,' and a common worry that AI could become 'some kind of authority' over Hawaiian culture. The paper reads these accounts as a specification for what trustworthy, culturally grounded AI would need to be: tools that default to Hawaiian ways of knowing, link content to place and moʻolelo, cite validated Hawaiian-owned sources, and are paired with training and safeguards against misrepresentation.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusions rest on the assumption that the 15 survey respondents and 4 interviewees, recruited without a described sampling strategy from public schools with Kaiapuni programs, give a representative picture of kumu's views across all of Hawaiʻi's immersion schools.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If current LLMs are used as-is, kumu say the outputs risk teaching a colonized version of Hawaiian history and culture, so the paper recommends against relying on them without safeguards.
  • A properly designed AI tool could cut the multi-week effort of creating Hawaiian-based lessons, giving teachers time back for other work.
  • Educators want a tool that automatically couples Hawaiian-language output with Indigenous epistemology, rather than requiring users to know how to prompt for it.
  • Trust depends on transparent sourcing from Hawaiian-owned and -validated archives; without that, kumu will stay hesitant.
  • Adoption also requires hands-on training and prompt support, since most survey respondents reported being not comfortable or only slightly comfortable with prompting.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same design requirements likely transfer to other Indigenous and low-resource language education settings, where 'culture' cannot be an add-on feature but must be the default substrate of the tool.
  • The six-week lesson-building example implies a concrete, measurable baseline; a future controlled study could time kumu building equivalent lessons with and without a culturally aligned AI to quantify the actual benefit.
  • The educators' insistence on place-specific moʻolelo points to a deeper design constraint—knowledge organized by land and community rather than by topic—that the paper only begins to sketch.
  • The distrust expressed as 'I would never trust anything Western' suggests that no amount of interface polish will win adoption unless communities control data provenance and validation, a data-sovereignty condition rather than a UX condition.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper reports an exploratory mixed-methods study of 15 survey respondents and 4 interviewees who are kumu (educators) in Hawaiian public schools with Kaiapuni programs, examining their perceptions of using large language models (LLMs) for culturally revitalizing computer science education. The authors find that educators see potential time-saving benefits from LLMs, but also report cultural misalignment, unreliable translation of ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi, concerns about source transparency and data sovereignty, and fears of digital colonization. Based on these findings, the paper offers design recommendations for future AI tools, emphasizing Hawaiian epistemologies, place-based knowledge, transparent sourcing, and educator training. The manuscript includes the survey instrument in Appendix B, a positionality statement in Appendix A, and participant quotes traceable to survey and interview responses.

Significance. This is a timely and socially important topic: it addresses an understudied intersection of LLM-based educational technology, low-resource language support, Indigenous knowledge systems, and K-12 CS education in Hawaiʻi. The paper's strengths include direct engagement with kumu, an insider co-author who reviewed the instruments for cultural sensitivity, transparent reporting of the survey questions, and concrete, context-grounded design suggestions. If the findings are reported with appropriate scope, the paper can make a useful contribution to conversations on culturally responsive AI in education and Indigenous data sovereignty. However, the current manuscript's central claims are stated more generally than the small, potentially self-selected sample can support, and key methodological details needed to assess the evidence are missing.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3 (Methodology) and Section 4.7] The recruitment strategy for the 15 survey respondents and 4 interviewees is not reported: there is no sampling frame, inclusion criteria, response rate, or description of how participants were approached. This is load-bearing because the abstract and Section 4.7 generalize from '12 of 15 participants expressed willingness' and '8 participants viewed AI's role as very positive' to broad claims about educators' perceptions. If the sample skews toward educators already connected to the authors' community-engagement networks or already interested in AI, the perceived time-saving benefits and willingness to use AI could be overstated and the trust barriers understated. The manuscript should either add a detailed recruitment and sampling description (including how many educators were invited and how many declined) or explicitly reframe the results as exploratory and non-generalizable.
  2. [Section 4.4, Section 4.5, and Abstract] The central claim that LLMs offer 'time-saving advantages' is not well supported by the reported usage data. Section 4.4 reports that only 5 respondents were occasional users of AI, 6 had limited knowledge or occasional usage, and 4 were aware but had not used AI; the survey's direct question 'Have you ever used AI tools to assist with teaching or lesson planning?' (Appendix B, Question B3) is never reported. The time-saving benefit is illustrated by P1's and P4's quotes and framed as 'potential' in Section 4.5, yet the abstract states it as an established finding. The authors should report the distribution of responses to B3 and related questions, and temper the abstract and Section 4.7 conclusions to reflect perceived potential among a mostly non- or low-user sample rather than demonstrated efficiency gains.
  3. [Section 3 and Appendix B] The qualitative analysis is underspecified: the interview protocol is not included, the seven themes are listed but no codebook or coding scheme is provided, and the statement that 'The first and second authors coded the qualitative data' does not report inter-coder reliability, disagreements, or resolution. Given that the paper's central themes — cultural misalignment, reliability concerns, source transparency, and design recommendations — are drawn directly from the qualitative analysis, the authors should include the interview guide and a more detailed description of the thematic analysis process, including whether coding was iterative, whether codes were independently derived, and whether participants were given the opportunity to member-check interpretations.
  4. [Section 5 (Discussion)] The design recommendations in Section 5 are phrased as normative imperatives ('An AI tool must...', 'should have default assumptions...') but they are derived from a small, self-selected sample without any evaluation of feasibility or trade-offs. While the recommendations are reasonable interpretations of the participants' responses, the manuscript should clearly label them as design implications for future co-design work, not as validated requirements. The paper would be stronger if Section 5 explicitly acknowledged that the recommendations are provisional and require community validation through partnership, rather than presenting them as conclusions established by this study alone.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 1, near the end] There is a typographical artifact in the sentence 'We present findings paired with design recommendations...' which appears with an extra quotation mark or spacing break; this should be corrected.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Section 4.5] Participant numbering is inconsistent: the study reports 15 survey respondents and 4 interviewees, but quotes are attributed to P19 in Sections 4.2 and 4.5, while other participants are numbered P1–P8. The authors should clarify the participant labeling scheme or renumber participants consistently.
  3. [Section 4.3] The sentence 'The survey revealed that a majority of participants (9 participants) experienced the search for culturally relevant CS materials in ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi as "extremely challenging," with a further 5 finding it "very challenging"' accounts for only 14 of 15 respondents; please report the remaining respondent's answer or clarify the denominator.
  4. [Appendix B, Question B6] The response option 'I'm concerned about AI replacing teachers' is listed twice; one duplicate should be removed or replaced with the intended option.
  5. [Section 4.6] The survey's ranking question asks educators to rank features from most useful to least useful, but the paper reports only that 'Top priorities included...' without providing the rank-order data. A table or summary of the ranking results would make this section more transparent and support the subsequent design recommendations.
  6. [Figure 1] Figure 1 shows teacher quotes from surveys and interviews, but it is not referenced or discussed in the body of the paper; please add a callout and contextualize what the figure is meant to illustrate.
  7. [References] Reference [23] is missing its title, and some URLs in the reference list are incomplete or lack access dates; the reference formatting should be checked for completeness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the findings are directly elicited participant perspectives, and the design recommendations are explicit interpretations of those responses.

full rationale

This is a qualitative survey-and-interview study with no mathematical derivation, fitted parameters, or predictive model. The central claims—time-saving benefits, cultural misalignment, reliability concerns, and the Section 5 design recommendations—are all presented as direct reports from the 15 survey respondents and 4 interviewees (e.g., Section 4.5 quotes P1 and P4 about time savings; Section 4.1 quotes P1, P3, and P4 about cultural representation). The design recommendations in Section 5 are framed as implications of those educator responses, not as outputs of an independent formalism. The only procedural involvement by an author is the statement in Section 3 that 'The fourth author reviewed the research instruments for cultural sensitivity'; this is a community-engagement practice, not a definitional loop in which the conclusion is assumed by the instrument. Self-citations to prior work by the same group (e.g., [17], [45], [60]) appear in the related-work and background discussion and are not load-bearing for the empirical findings; they are contextual citations about culturally relevant computing and LLM-based tools, not evidence that the survey results are true by construction. The study's small, possibly self-selected sample is a legitimate concern about external validity and the strength of generalization, but it is not circularity under the specified definitions. No equation is equated to another by construction, and no fitted value is renamed as a prediction. The paper is self-contained as an empirical report: the findings are exactly what participants said, and the recommendations are the authors' interpretive synthesis of those statements.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are standard for qualitative educational research: self-report accuracy, sample sufficiency, coding reliability, and cultural review adequacy.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Educators' self-reported survey and interview responses accurately reflect their actual beliefs and experiences with LLMs.
    The study relies entirely on self-report without behavioral observation or output verification; Section 3 and Results.
  • domain assumption The 15 educators surveyed and 4 interviewed constitute a sufficient sample for thematic saturation and for transferable design recommendations.
    No saturation argument, power analysis, or recruitment description is provided in Section 3.
  • domain assumption Two-author coding without inter-rater reliability or a published codebook captures the intended themes accurately.
    Section 3 states first and second authors coded data aligning quotes with seven themes, but no reliability metrics are reported.
  • domain assumption The fourth author's review ensures the instruments are culturally sensitive and free of bias.
    Section 3: 'The fourth author reviewed the research instruments for cultural sensitivity.' This is a single-person check, not a community validation process.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of "I Would Never Trust Anything Western": Kumu (Educator) Perspectives on Use of LLMs for Culturally Revitalizing CS Education in Hawaiian Schools." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IDPPDLS5

@misc{pith2026250117942,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: "I Would Never Trust Anything Western": Kumu (Educator) Perspectives on Use of LLMs for Culturally Revitalizing CS Education in Hawaiian Schools},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IDPPDLS5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.17942}
}
read the original abstract

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into educational technology, their potential to assist in developing curricula has gained interest among educators. Despite this growing attention, their applicability in culturally responsive Indigenous educational settings like Hawai`i's public schools and Kaiapuni (immersion language) programs, remains understudied. Additionally, `Olelo Hawai`i, the Hawaiian language, as a low-resource language, poses unique challenges and concerns about cultural sensitivity and the reliability of generated content. Through surveys and interviews with kumu (educators), this study explores the perceived benefits and limitations of using LLMs for culturally revitalizing computer science (CS) education in Hawaiian public schools with Kaiapuni programs. Our findings highlight AI's time-saving advantages while exposing challenges such as cultural misalignment and reliability concerns. We conclude with design recommendations for future AI tools to better align with Hawaiian cultural values and pedagogical practices, towards the broader goal of trustworthy, effective, and culturally grounded AI technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.17942 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Teacher quotes from surveys and interviews [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Leveraging Generative AI Tools for Enhanced Lesson Planning in Initial Teacher Education at Post Primary.Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning 7, 2 (Dec 2023), 172–182

    2023. Leveraging Generative AI Tools for Enhanced Lesson Planning in Initial Teacher Education at Post Primary.Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning 7, 2 (Dec 2023), 172–182. doi:10.22554/ijtel.v7i2.124

    work page doi:10.22554/ijtel.v7i2.124 2023

  2. [2]

    Rachel Adams. 2021. Can artificial intelligence be decolonized? Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 46, 1-2 (2021), 176–197. doi:10.1080/03080188.2020.1840225 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2020.1840225

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Kabir Ahuja, Harshita Diddee, Rishav Hada, Millicent Ochieng, Krithika Ramesh, Prachi Jain, Akshay Nambi, Tanuja Ganu, Sameer Segal, Maxamed Axmed, Kalika Bali, and Sunayana Sitaram. 2023. MEGA: Multilingual Evaluation of Generative AI. arXiv:2303.12528 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12528

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Selin Akgun and Christine Greenhow. 2022. Artificial intelligence in education: Addressing ethical challenges in K-12 settings.AI and Ethics 2, 3 (8 2022), 431–440. doi:10.1007/s43681-021-00096-7

    doi:10.1007/s43681-021-00096-7 2022

  5. [5]

    Roberto Aldunate and Miguel Nussbaum. 2013. Teacher adoption of technology. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 3 (May 2013), 519–524. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.017 2013

  6. [6]

    Marc Alier, María José Casañ, and Daniel Amo Filvà. 2024. Smart Learning Appli- cations: Leveraging LLMs for Contextualized and Ethical Educational Technology. In Proceedings of TEEM 2023 , José Alexandre de Carvalho Gonçalves, José Luís Sousa de Magalhães Lima, João Paulo Coelho, Francisco José García-Peñalvo, and Alicia García-Holgado (Eds.). Springer N...

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Badr AlKhamissi, Muhammad ElNokrashy, Mai AlKhamissi, and Mona Diab. 2024. Investigating Cultural Alignment of Large Language Models. arXiv:2402.13231 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.13231

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Ahmet Baytak. 2024. The Content Analysis of the Lesson Plans Created by ChatGPT and Google Gemini. Research in Social Sciences and Technology 9 (03 2024), 329–350. doi:10.46303/ressat.2024.19

    doi:10.46303/ressat.2024.19 2024

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Abeba Birhane and Olivia Guest. 2020. Towards decolonising computational sciences. CoRR abs/2009.14258 (2020). arXiv:2009.14258 https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2009.14258

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Beatriz Cabellos, Carlos de Aldama, and Juan-Ignacio Pozo. 2024. University teachers’ beliefs about the use of generative artificial intelligence for teaching and learning. Frontiers in Psychology 15 (2024). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1468900

    2024

  3. [11]

    Richard Canevez, Carleen Maitland, James Shaw, Soundous Ettayebi, and Charlene Everson. 2022. STEM Educational Outreach and Indigenous Cul- ture: (Re)Centering for Design Scholarship. International Journal of Hu- man–Computer Interaction 38, 17 (2022), 1718–1734. doi:10.1080/1...

    2022

  4. [12]

    Cardona-Rivera, J

    Rogelio E. Cardona-Rivera, J. Kaleo Alladin, Breanne K. Litts, and Melissa Tehee. 2024. Indigenous Futures in Generative Artificial Intelligence: The Paradox of Participation. https://uen.pressbooks.pub/teachingandgenerativeai/ chapter/indigenous-futures-in-generative-artifici...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Irene-Angelica Chounta, Emanuele Bardone, Aet Raudsep, and Margus Pedaste

  6. [14]

    Alex Dornburg and Kristin Davin. 2024. ChatGPT in Foreign Language Lesson Plan Creation: Trends, Variability, and Historical Biases. (Sept. 2024). https: //hal.science/hal-04558217 working paper or preprint

    2024

  7. [15]

    EdWeek Research Center. 2024. More Than Half of Teachers Still Have No Training on AI. Government Technology (October 2024). https://www.govtech. com/education/k-12/more-than-half-of-teachers-still-have-no-training-on-ai

    2024

  8. [16]

    Haoxiang Fan, Guanzheng Chen, Xingbo Wang, and Zhenhui Peng. 2024. LessonPlanner: Assisting Novice Teachers to Prepare Pedagogy-Driven Les- son Plans with Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’24...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Those don’t work for us

    William Gelder, Rachel Baker-Ramos, Ayoung Cho, Jahnavi Kolakaluri, Judith Uchidiuno, and Josiah Hester. 2024. "Those don’t work for us": An Assets-Based Approach to Incorporating Emerging Technologies in Viable Hawaiian Teacher Support Tools for Culturally Relevant CS Educati...

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Google. 2025. Gemini. https://gemini.google.com/ Accessed on January 14, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Kwon, Ahmed Hosny Saleh Metwally, Ahmed Tlili, Simone Bassanelli, Antonio Bucchiarone, Sujit Gujar, Lennart E

    Reza Hadi Mogavi, Chao Deng, Justin Juho Kim, Pengyuan Zhou, Young D. Kwon, Ahmed Hosny Saleh Metwally, Ahmed Tlili, Simone Bassanelli, Antonio Bucchiarone, Sujit Gujar, Lennart E. Nacke, and Pan Hui. 2024. ChatGPT in education: A blessing or a curse? A qualitative study explo...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Violet Harada. 2016. The Power of Place-Based Learning: Caring for Our Island Earth. https://www2.hawaii.edu/~vharada/PDF/works/2016-PlaceBased.pdf Accessed: January 14, 2025

    2016

  13. [21]

    Arid Hasan, Prerona Tarannum, Krishno Dey, Imran Razzak, and Usman Naseem

    Md. Arid Hasan, Prerona Tarannum, Krishno Dey, Imran Razzak, and Usman Naseem. 2024. Do Large Language Models Speak All Languages Equally? A Comparative Study in Low-Resource Settings. arXiv:2408.02237 [cs.CL] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2408.02237

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hawaii Department of Education. 2025. Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://www.ocid-ddt.k12.hi.us/programs/technology-integration/ai Accessed on January 22, 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    Hawai‘i State Department of Education. [n. d.]. . https://www. hawaiipublicschools.org/TeachingAndLearning/StudentLearning/ HawaiianEducation/Pages/Hawaiian-language-immersion-schools.aspx Accessed: 2025-01-09

    2025

  16. [24]

    Daniel Hoffman, Seungoh Paek, Peter Leong, and Rochelle Pi‘ilani Ka‘aloa. 2023. Advancing Culturally-Relevant Computing through a Researcher-Practitioner Kumu Perspectives on LLMs for Culturally Revitalizing CS Education in Hawaiian Schools , , Partnership. In EdMedia + Innova...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Pi-Sui Hsu. 2016. Examining Current Beliefs, Practices and Barriers About Technology Integration: A Case Study. TechTrends 60, 1 (2016), 30–40. doi:10. 1007/s11528-015-0014-3

    2016

  18. [26]

    Bihao Hu, Longwei Zheng, Jiayi Zhu, Lishan Ding, Yilei Wang, and Xiaoqing Gu. 2024. Teaching Plan Generation and Evaluation With GPT-4: Unleashing the Potential of LLM in Instructional Design. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 17 (2024), 1445–1459. doi:10.1109/TLT.202...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Lilly Irani, Janet Vertesi, Paul Dourish, Kavita Philip, and Rebecca E. Grinter. 2010. Postcolonial computing: a lens on design and development. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (CHI ’10) . Association for Co...

    2010

  20. [28]

    Kana’iaupuni, B

    S. Kana’iaupuni, B. Ledward, and U. Jensen. 2010.Culture-Based Education and Its Relationship to Student Outcomes . Kamehameha Schools, Research & Evaluation, Honolulu

    2010

  21. [29]

    Kaplan-Rakowski, K

    R. Kaplan-Rakowski, K. Grotewold, P. Hartwick, and K. Papin. 2023. Generative AI and Teachers’ Perspectives on Its Implementation in Education. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 34, 2 (2023), 313–338. https://www.learntechlib. org/primary/p/222363/ Retrieved January 9, 2025

    2023

  22. [30]

    Ali Karakaş and Yusuf Yesilyurt. 2023. The Use of ChatGPT for Lesson Planning . 111–130

    2023

  23. [31]

    M. R. Karaman and I. Goksu. 2024. Are lesson plans created by ChatGPT more effective? An experimental study.International Journal of Technology in Education (IJTE) 7, 1 (2024), 107–127. doi:10.46328/ijte.607

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    Enkelejda Kasneci, Kathrin Sessler, Stefan Küchemann, Maria Bannert, Daryna Dementieva, Frank Fischer, Urs Gasser, Georg Groh, Stephan Günnemann, Eyke Hüllermeier, Stephan Krusche, Gitta Kutyniok, Tilman Michaeli, Claudia Nerdel, Jürgen Pfeffer, Oleksandra Poquet, Michael Sail...

    2023

  25. [33]

    Theodore J. Kopcha. 2012. Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional develop- ment. Computers & Education 59, 4 (2012), 1109–1121. doi:10.1016/j.compedu. 2012.05.014

    2012 doi

  26. [34]

    Jennifer L. H. Kuwahara. 2013. Impacts of a Place-Based Science Curriculum on Student Place Attachment in Hawaiian and Western Cultural Institutions at an Urban High School in Hawai‘i. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 11, 1 (2013), 191–212. doi:10.100...

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    Michael Kwet. 2019. Digital colonialism: US empire and the new imperialism in the Global South. Race & Class 60, 4 (2019), 3–26. doi:10.1177/0306396818823172 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/0306396818823172

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    Brandon Ledward, Brennan Takayama, and III Walter Kahumoku. 2008. Hawaiian Cultural Influences in Education (HCIE): ‘Ohana and Community Integration in Culture-Based Education. https://www.ksbe.edu/assets/research/collection/08_ 0128_ledward.pdf Accessed on January 21, 2025

    2008

  29. [37]

    Jason Edward Lewis, H¯emi Whaanga, and Ceyda Yolgörmez. 2024. Abundant in- telligences: placing AI within Indigenous knowledge frameworks. AI & SOCIETY (19 10 2024). doi:10.1007/s00146-024-02099-4

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Ming Li, Ariunaa Enkhtur, Beverley Anne Yamamoto, Fei Cheng, and Lilan Chen

  31. [39]

    Zhaoming Liu. 2024. Cultural Bias in Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Analysis and Mitigation Strategies. Journal of Transcultural Communication (2024). doi:doi:10.1515/jtc-2023-0019

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    2024.Investigating the Use of ChatGPT by EFL Teachers in Lesson Planning

    Nesrine Mahtoum and Amira Medjdoub. 2024.Investigating the Use of ChatGPT by EFL Teachers in Lesson Planning. Master’s thesis. May 8, 1945 University, Guelma, Guelma, Algeria. http://dspace.univ-guelma.dz/jspui/handle/123456789/16773

    2024

  33. [41]

    Dan Meyer. 2024. Education Week: Teacher AI Use Hasn’t Budged in a Year. Mathworlds (November 2024). https://danmeyer.substack.com/p/education- week-teacher-ai-use-hasnt

    2024

  34. [42]

    Sukanya Kannan Moudgalya and Sai Swaminathan. 2024. Toward Data Sovereignty: Justice-oriented and Community-based AI Education. In Proceed- ings of the 2024 on RESPECT Annual Conference (Atlanta, GA, USA) (RESPECT 2024). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, ...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Carvalho

    Adelina Moura and Ana Amélia A. Carvalho. 2024. Teachers’ perceptions of the use of artificial intelligence in the classroom. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Lifelong Education and Leadership for All (ICLEL 2023) . Atlantis Press, 140–150. doi:10.2991/978-94-...

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Ryan, Alan Ritter, and Wei Xu

    Tarek Naous, Michael J. Ryan, Alan Ritter, and Wei Xu. 2024. Having Beer after Prayer? Measuring Cultural Bias in Large Language Models. arXiv:2305.14456 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14456

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Amanda Nelson, Amy Guo, Marcelo Worsley, Derek Esibill, and Josiah Hester

  38. [46]

    Jackie Ng-Osorio. 2023. Learning from the Past to Grow the Future: Of ‘ ¯Aina- Based Education. https://www.hauolimauloa.org/images/%CA%BBAina-Lit- Review_FINAL_05-03-23.pdf Accessed on January 21, 2025

    2023

  39. [47]

    T. T. T. Nguyen and M. Mordecai. 2020. Catching up to move forward: A computer science education landscape report of Hawai‘i public schools, 2017–2020. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/ da0b8094-e486-429c-ac2b-c4f00f77823e/content Accessed: 2025-01-09

    2020

  40. [48]

    Office of Hawaiian Education (OHE). 2015. Plan for Office of Hawaiian Educa- tion Priorities. https://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/DOE%20Forms/Hawaiian/ OHE_DeliveryPlan.pdf

    2015

  41. [49]

    The Senate of the States of Hawai‘i. 2018. Act 51 Hawai‘i Revised Statute [§302A- 323] Computer science. curricula plan. public schools. https://www.capitol. hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/GM1151_.pdf

    2018

  42. [50]

    The Senate of the States of Hawai‘i. 2021. Act 158. https://www.capitol.hawaii. gov/sessions/session2021/bills/GM1260_.PDF

    2021

  43. [51]

    Christina Ioanna Pappa, Despoina Georgiou, and Daniel Pittich. 2024. Technol- ogy education in primary schools: addressing teachers’ perceptions, perceived barriers, and needs. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 34, 2 (2024), 485–503. doi:10.1007/s10798-0...

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    Claudio Pinhanez, Paulo Cavalin, Luciana Storto, Thomas Finbow, Alexan- der Cobbinah, Julio Nogima, Marisa Vasconcelos, Pedro Domingues, Priscila de Souza Mizukami, Nicole Grell, Majoí Gongora, and Isabel Gonçalves. 2024. Harnessing the Power of Artificial Intelligence to Vita...

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Pinhanez, Paulo Cavalin, Marisa Vasconcelos, and Julio Nogima

    Claudio S. Pinhanez, Paulo Cavalin, Marisa Vasconcelos, and Julio Nogima. 2023. Balancing Social Impact, Opportunities, and Ethical Constraints of Using AI in the Documentation and Vitalization of Indigenous Languages. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Co...

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    Sara Polak, Gianluca Schiavo, and Massimo Zancanaro. 2022. Teachers’ Per- spective on Artificial Intelligence Education: an Initial Investigation. In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI EA ’22) . Assoc...

    2022

  47. [55]

    Porter and Nik Cristobal

    Maureen K. Porter and Nik Cristobal. 2018. Cultivating Aloha ‘ ¯Aina Through Critical Indigenous Pedagogies of Place. Journal of Folklore and Education (2018). https://jfepublications.org/article/cultivating-aloha-aina/ Accessed on January 21, 2025

    2018

  48. [56]

    Jennifer Roberts. 2017. Impact of a Place-Based Education Curriculum on In- digenous Teacher and Students. Journal of Teacher Education (2017). https: //eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1165222 Accessed: January 14, 2025

    2017

  49. [57]

    Ahmad, Abhijit Mishra, and Pushpak Bhattacharyya

    Nihar Ranjan Sahoo, Ashita Saxena, Kishan Maharaj, Arif A. Ahmad, Abhijit Mishra, and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2024. Addressing Bias and Hallucina- tion in Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Res...

    2024

  50. [58]

    Nina Sangma. 2024. Artificial Intelligence and Indigenous Peoples’ Realities. Cultural Survival Quarterly 48, 1 (March 2024). https: //www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/artificial- intelligence-and-indigenous-peoples-realities Indigenizing Emerg...

    2024

  51. [59]

    Sarah Schwartz. 2024. ’We’re at a Disadvantage, ’ and Other Teacher Sentiments on AI. Education Week (October 2024). https://www.edweek.org/technology/were- at-a-disadvantage-and-other-teacher-sentiments-on-ai/2024/10

    2024

  52. [60]

    Shikhar Sharma, Manas Mhasakar, Apurv Mehra, Utkarsh Venaik, Ujjwal Singhal, Dhruv Kumar, and Kashish Mittal. 2024. Comuniqa: Exploring Large Language Models For Improving English Speaking Skills. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCAS/SIGCHI Conference on Computing and Sustaina...

    2024

  53. [61]

    Jill Staake. 2023. 20 Ways Teachers Can Use ChatGPT To Make Their Lives Easier. (2023). https://www.weareteachers.com/chatgpt-for-teachers/ Accessed on January 14, 2025

    2023

  54. [62]

    Taylor Stevens, Olga Gkountouna, and Myeong Lee. 2022. Exploring Secondary Teachers’ Needs and Values in Culturally Responsive Teaching. InCompanion Publication of the 2022 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (Virtual Event, Taiwan) (CSCW’22 ...

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    B. W. Taira and S. P. Maunakea. 2023. Ma ka hana ka ’ike: Implementing Culturally Responsive Educational Practices. Behavior and Social Issues (2023), 1–15. doi:10. 1007/s42822-023-00127-4 Advance online publication

    2023

  56. [64]

    Yan Tao, Olga Viberg, Ryan S Baker, and René F Kizilcec

  57. [65]

    Derya Uygun. 2024. Teachers’ perspectives on artificial intelligence in education. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research 4 (03 2024), 931–939. doi:10. 25082/AMLER.2024.01.005

    2024

  58. [66]

    Steven Weiner. 2024. New Survey Says U.S. Teachers Colleges Lag on AI Training. Here are 4 Takeaways. The 74 (October 2024). https://www.the74million.org/article/new-survey-says-u-s-teachers-colleges- lag-on-ai-training-here-are-4-takeaways/

    2024

  59. [67]

    Jason C. Young. 2019. The new knowledge politics of digital colonialism. Environment and Planning A 51, 7 (October 2019), 1424–1441. doi:10.1177/ 0308518X19858998

    2019

  60. [68]

    PNAS Nexus 3, 9 (09 2024), pgae346

    Cultural bias and cultural alignment of large language models. PNAS Nexus 3, 9 (09 2024), pgae346. doi:10.1093/ pnasnexus/pgae346 arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article- pdf/3/9/pgae346/59151559/pgae346.pdf

    2024

  61. [72]

    Tianyang Zhong, Zhenyuan Yang, Zhengliang Liu, Ruidong Zhang, Yiheng Liu, Haiyang Sun, Yi Pan, Yiwei Li, Yifan Zhou, Hanqi Jiang, Junhao Chen, and Tianming Liu. 2024. Opportunities and Challenges of Large Language Models for Low-Resource Languages in Humanities Research. arXiv...

    2024 arXiv

  62. [2022]

    International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 32, 3 (Sept

    Exploring Teachers’ Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence as a Tool to Support their Practice in Estonian K-12 Education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 32, 3 (Sept. 2022), 725–755. doi:10.1007/s40593- 021-00243-5

    2022 doi

  63. [2023]

    In2023 Conference on Research in Equitable and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT)

    M ¯alama ‘ ¯Aina through Micro:bits in K¯ane‘ohe: A Place-Based Approach to Teaching CS in a Kaiapuni (Hawaiian Immersion) Bilingual School Setting . In2023 Conference on Research in Equitable and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT). IEE...

  64. [2024]

    arXiv:2311.14381 [cs.CY] https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.14381

    Potential Societal Biases of ChatGPT in Higher Education: A Scoping Review. arXiv:2311.14381 [cs.CY] https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.14381

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.