Individual Characteristics as Moderators in the AI Literacy–Attitude Relationship: Preservice Math Teachers

VARIABLE	CATEGORIES	f	%
gender	male	198	23.92
	female	630	76.08
	total	828*	100.00
interest in AI applications	none	66	7.93
	some	634	76.20
	high	132	15.87
	total	832	100.00
AI course-taking status during undergraduate	not taken	377	45.31
	taken	455	54.69
	total	832	100.00
daily technology use duration	less than 30 min	26	3.13
	between 30 min and 2 hr	215	25.84
	more than 2 hr	591	71.03
	total	832	100.00

[i] *Note. total f = 832. There are 4 missing for gender data.

Table 2

Confirmatory factor analysis fit indices for the scales.

FIT INDICES	AI ATTITUDE SCALE	AI LITERACY SCALE
X2/sd	3.66	4.89
AGFI	0.91	0.92
GFI	0.93	0.95
CFI	0.90	0.86
NNFI (TLI)	0.88	0.81
RMSEA	0.06	0.07

Table 3

Results of moderating effect analysis of gender.

VARIABLES	β	se	t	p	95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
constant	40.96	5.39	7.60	<0.001	[30.38, 51.54]
AI literacy	0.67	0.12	5.50	<0.001	[0.43, 0.91]
gender	6.04	6.20	0.97	.330	[–6.13, 18.22]
literacy × gender	–0.18	0.14	–1.26	.208	[–0.45, 0.10]

Table 4

Conditional effects and group comparisons.

GENDER	IMPACT (β)	se	t	p	95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
female	0.67	0.12	5.50	<0.001	[0.43, 0.91]
male	0.49	0.07	6.98	<0.001	[0.35, 0.63]
difference between	β difference	se	t	p	95% confidence interval
female vs. male	–0.18	0.14	–1.26	.208	[–0.45,0.10]

Table 5

Moderating effect analysis results of taking courses on AI during undergraduate education.

VARIABLES	β	se	t	p	95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
constant	45.11	3.76	12.00	<0.001	[37.73, 52.49]
AI literacy	0.55	0.09	6.29	<0.001	[0.38, 0.72]
course taking	–0.13	5.36	–0.02	.981	[–10.65, 10.39]
literacy × course taking	–0.001	0.12	–0.01	.995	[–0.24, 0.24]

Table 6

Conditional effects and group comparisons.

COURSE TAKING	IMPACT (β)	se	t	p	95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
no course taken	0.55	0.09	6.29	<0.001	[0.38, 0.72]
course taken	0.54	0.09	6.32	<0.001	[0.38, 0.71]
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN	β DIFFERENCE	se	t	p	95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
not taken vs. taken	–0.001	0.12	–0.01	.995	[–0.24, 0.24]

Table 7

Moderated effect analysis results of the duration of using technological applications.

VARIABLES	β	se	t	p	95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
constant	74.32	13.45	5.53	<0.001	[47.92, 100.71]
AI literacy	–0.15	0.32	–0.46	.643	[–0.78, 0.48]
technology duration (W1)	–34.19	14.56	–2.35	.019	[–62.77, –5.60]
technology duration (W2)	–29.14	13.80	–2.11	.035	[–56.23, –2.05]
INTERACTION TERMS	β	se	t	p	95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
literacy × W1	0.79	0.34	2.29	.022	[0.11, 1.47]
literacy × W2	0.70	0.33	2.12	.034	[0.05, 1.34]

Table 8

Conditional effects and group comparisons.

DURATION OF TECHNOLOGY USE	IMPACT (β)	se	t	p	95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
less than 30 min	–0.15	0.32	–0.46	.643	[–0.78, 0.48]
30 min-2 hr	0.64	0.13	5.04	<0.001	[0.39, 0.89]
more than 2 hr	0.55	0.07	7.73	<0.001	[0.41, 0.69]
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN	β DIFFERENCE	se	t	p	95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
less than 30 min vs. 30 min- more than 2 hr	0.79	0.34	2.29	.022	[0.11, 1.47]
30 min less vs. more than 2 hr	0.70	0.33	2.12	.034	[0.05, 1.34]
30 min-2 hr vs. more than 2 hr	–0.09	0.05	–1.75	.082	[–0.19, 0.01]

Table 9

Results of moderating effect analysis of level of interest towards AI.

VARIABLES	β	se	t	p	95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
constant	70.23	8.78	8.00	<0.001	[53.00, 87.47]
AI literacy	–0.19	0.22	–0.87	.385	[–0.61, 0.24]
level of interest(W1)	–23.10	9.33	–2.48	.014	[–41.41, –4.79]
level of interest(W2)	–16.99	10.76	–1.58	.115	[–38.11, 4.13]
literacy × W1	0.68	0.23	2.98	.003	[0.23, 1.13]
literacy × W2	0.63	0.25	2.47	.014	[0.13, 1.13]

Table 10

Conditional effects and group comparisons.

LEVEL OF INTEREST	IMPACT (β)	se	t	p	95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
none	–0.19	0.22	–0.87	.385	[–0.61, 0.24]
some	0.49	0.07	6.82	<0.001	[0.35, 0.63]
high	0.44	0.14	3.28	.001	[0.18, 0.71]
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN	β DIFFERENCE	se	t	p	95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
none vs. some	0.68	0.23	2.98	.003	[0.23, 1.13]
none vs. high	0.63	0.25	2.47	.014	[0.13, 1.13]
some vs. high	–0.05	0.15	–0.31	.756	[–0.35, 0.25]

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.18.3.936 | Journal eISSN: 2304-070X

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 638 - 654

Submitted on: Jun 21, 2025

Accepted on: Dec 7, 2025

Published on: Aug 4, 2026

Published by: International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE)

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

gender,

preservice mathematics teachers,

taking course,

teacher education,

technology usage

© 2026 Nazire Cigdem Mutlu, Feride Ozyildirim Gumus, published by International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 18 (2026): Issue 3

Individual Characteristics as Moderators in the AI Literacy–Attitude Relationship: Preservice Math Teachers

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Table 2

Figure 1

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Paradigm

My account