Intro music:

Leesa Love: Welcome to Open Invitation, a podcast in which we invite students and faculty from across the University of Idaho to discuss all things open access. I'm Leesa Love, the Open Publishing Librarian here at U of I.

In this inaugural season, I and some of my fellow librarians will be talking with three recent award recipients of the University's Open Access Publishing Fund or OAPF. For those who are unaware, this limited fund is run by the Library and Issues awards to eligible faculty, staff, and students for articles published in fully open access journals. For more information on the fund, including eligibility requirements, you can visit lib.uidaho.edu/open/oapf.

Joining me as co-host on this episode is my colleague, Marco Seiferle-Valencia, Open Education Librarian and Associate Professor here at U of I Library. Marco is also manager of the Gary Strong Curriculum Center and liaison to the College of Education, Health, and Human Sciences.

Together we'll be talking with Dr. Yin Hong Cheah about her first OAPF awarded article. It's titled, "Integrating Generative Artificial Intelligence in K-12 Education, Examining Teachers Preparedness, Practices, and Barriers”, and was published in the June 2025 issue of Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence.

Dr. Yin Hong Cheah is an assistant professor of instructional technology in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Idaho. She holds a PhD in Learning Technologies from the University of Texas at Austin. Cheah's research focuses on investigating and developing K-12 teachers' technology practices to empower students as digital learners.

To bridge the research practice gap, she translates her findings into actionable strategies by supporting teachers in lesson design, implementation, and reflection when using technology to teach. Since generative AI, especially ChatGPT entered the public sphere in late 2022, Cheah has developed a focused research interest in this area. She is currently studying how teachers in Idaho are using AI in educational settings and is offering courses to promote AI literacy at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.

For context, the following interview was recorded in summer of 2025.

Transition music:

Leesa: All right, well, thank you for coming in. Welcome to our studio.

Dr. Cheah: Yeah, I'm super honored. Thank you, Leesa and Marco for inviting me.

Leesa: Yeah, of course. So today we're here to talk about a recent article that you had published with funding from our Open Access Publishing Fund, but before we get into that, I wonder if you could tell us a little about your background and what led you to this field?

Dr. Cheah: Sure. It's definitely been a winding path, I would say. I actually graduated with a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering. But not long after that, I realized I was more drawn to developing humans than improving machine efficiency. That led me to become a middle school math and science teacher. That experience really opened my eyes to both the challenges and joys of working with students and also got me thinking about how teachers are supported in their work.

Over time, I transitioned into a teacher-developer role, and that's when I started to appreciate the importance of research informed practice and how those classroom experiences can, in turn, like, refine theory. It made me realize just how powerful the connections between theory and classroom practice can be and that really shaped my interest in bridging both roles.

So, with that intention, I became a research associate at the National Institute of Education in Singapore, where one of the projects I worked on involved supporting teachers in using technology to promote inquiry-based learning, and that was actually a turning point for me. Before that, I had thought of technology as something pretty binary. You either use it or you don't. But working closely with teachers helped me to see things differently.

I began thinking more deeply about how pedagogical approaches and the nature of the subject matter really influenced how technology should be used. For instance, we can design activities where students sit in front of a computer for drill and practice, or we can schedule richer learning experiences, like having them explore scientific phenomena through simulations and guide the questioning.

That research involvement sparked my interest in instructional technology and eventually led me to pursue a PhD in the field and become an assistant professor, which is what I'm doing now. While my journey may seem a bit all over the place, I really appreciate how it has given me an interdisciplinary perspective and helped me stand grounded on both research and practice.

Leesa: Awesome. It's interesting to see, like, you say “all over the place,” but I feel like that sometimes makes the best type of career because you have all of these different things that connect in really interesting ways. So, I find that really relatable, personally.

Dr. Cheah: Thank you for saying that.

Leesa: Yeah. Can you talk more about what inspired your focus on generative AI specifically for the K-12 classroom?

Dr. Cheah: That's an interesting question. I started focusing more specifically on generative AI when it really entered in the public spotlight, especially with the launch of ChatGPT in late 2022. So well, I had already been working on instructional technology, but this felt like a significant shift. What really caught my attention is how different generative AI is from other tech or educational technology tools or even earlier AI models we've seen.

First, it’s generative. Of course, that might sound, like, self-explanatory, but what that really means is that it can produce unique responses in real time every time you prompt it. Even if you use the same prompt twice, you'll likely get somehow different answers. That's fundamentally different from tools that just deliver pre-programmed outputs.

And second, I think this was a big one for me, is that it's more than just a medium for communication. For example, right now we are using Zoom to connect with Marco, but Zoom itself isn't joining our conversation, right? But with generative AI like ChatGPT or Google Gemini, it's not just the platform, it participates. So, it responds to you like you are texting or talking with somebody even though we know the responses are produced by machine algorithms. And because you can interact with it using natural human language without needing to learn coding or special software, it feels much more accessible and even human-like in some ways. This attribute actually lowers both the technical and financial barrier to use, open up opportunities for much wider range of learners and educators to engage with AI for both professional and learning purposes.

So, with all that in mind, and given how rapidly it is evolving, I became really curious about how generative AI might shape the way we think, learn and teach. Not just as a tool, but as something that could influence how students process information, express themselves and even understand the world, that curiosity is what sparked and continues to drive my research in this area.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia: So, one of the questions that I had reading through your piece is, I think it's really fascinating, you caught some research right at the time that ChatGPT was just emerging and sort of coming out as a tool, and I'm just kind of wondering like, what are your thoughts about like if you were to run this study today, were there are things that you would do differently or would you ask questions differently just based on it being a little bit more advanced or adopted?

I'm partly thinking of students a couple years ago and them saying, oh, we're not worried about ChatGPT because it can't do math yet. And so I'm just, you know, to your point about it being such an evolving technology, I'm just sort of curious, what are your thoughts on that?

Dr. Cheah: Yeah, that's a really good question. Maybe let me just give a little bit background on my study. So, last year, I designed and co-conducted a survey to better understand how K-12 teachers here in Idaho are engaging with generative AI. So, things like their preparedness, current usage and what barriers they are facing. So, I see this as a kind of baseline study to help inform what kind of professional development or support that would actually be useful for teachers in our local context.

So, I'm not sure, like right now, the landscape has changed because like, there's new innovation that was coming out recently and more capable AI has been invented. So, I would say that probably that will spark different findings in a way that how teachers thought about it. But if they don't exposure and they just heard about it and have their own perception about it and not really interact or work with it, probably how they understand this will impact more or less. I think that will make a difference.

So, that could be a situation if I can get to really work with teachers and see if their perceptions have changed and how they really use AI in education even more. Compared to my study, the findings that I have, less than half of the participants really use it in the educational setting. So, I think for how you say like, if I want to frame it differently, I would definitely, like, because that's the baseline study, and right now, I probably will go into and work with them and to figure out more about the actual situation, they are facing or they are currently experiencing right now.

Marco: Excellent, yeah that makes perfect sense to me. And baseline study is the exact right phrase. I think this is just so important for capturing this really unique moment in time where it was just emerging. And yeah, it's going to be really fascinating to compare the future research off of this and to have it as a sort of, as you said, a baseline, a placeholder.

Leesa: For sure. It's interesting, I've only recently been exposed to AI as well in an educational setting. Like I've had professors who have encouraged us to interrogate it, but it's a whole other ballgame to think about how you would have someone in elementary school interact with it and what you would expect. I feel like you have such wide opinions right now about how people feel about it, including educators.

One particular thing I found interesting is this idea of student overreliance. I feel like people talk about that a lot and how it's like one of the major concerns for some people. What are your thoughts on recent headlines, both students and teachers overusing AI and the negative impacts of that?

Dr. Cheah: Yeah. That's a great point and I totally get where you are coming from. So, maybe let me compare this with the findings. Just now I like, kind of share a little bit, but I would say that in terms of the fighting that I've conducted right last year with those K-12 teachers in Idaho context, actually, I would say that is kind of opposite of what you just described.

So, instead of overreliance, we found that less than half of the participating teachers are currently using generative AI in educational settings. And of those who are about 90% are using it mainly behind the scenes. And for things like lesson planning, grading, assessment, or administrative tasks, only a small number is actually using it in the classroom or putting it directly in the hands of students, and I think the reason why is pretty telling.

A lot of teachers express concerns about the limitations of these tools. Things like, what about the risk of data breaches and broader security concerns when using generative AI platforms, or can AI really identify and respond to nuance, student needs? There's also this big concern about AI potentially reducing the human element in pitching, which is so important, especially for younger learners or subjects that really rely on emotional or social development.

So, while the headlines often focus on overuse or misuse, and I certainly understand these concerns and potential negative impacts, what we are observing on the ground, at least in this study in Idaho, is more of a cautious, thoughtful approach. And I think that's important to highlight, but I would also want to say that because this study has been conducted last year, so I also wonder would there be changes if similar study has, or will be replicated this year, right? With the advances right now.

Leesa: Yeah, for sure. And it would be interesting as well, like you pointed out, finding out if it's different from state to state, how people feel about it, right?

Marco: Yeah, I had that same kind of question about, and I know this is just sort of speculation and hypothesizing, but what do you make of Idaho in particular? You know, I think a lot of people outside of Idaho at a distance might think of it as a sort of low technology literacy state. It's not a place that people necessarily know a lot about right off the top of their head. So, when you think about some of the specifics for Idaho teachers, how do you think that this might compare to other places, just sort of speculating and imagining?

Dr. Cheah: So, I didn't really do a comparison study, so I cannot say that precisely, but I think the, first of all is the geographical landscape here. So, it kind of seems like more rural areas and in conversation with some teachers. They've been talking about that actually technology is not something that they think is very essential in classroom settings because for the approach, we have a lot of nature's resources around that we can leverage in order to support students’ authentic learning.

So, in that way, I think probably because of the geographical landscape as well as how this has shaped our way of thinking about education. So, probably comparing to those more urbanized states, that would be a different in terms of how a teacher used and think about technology and especially about AI.

Leesa: So, in general, what was most surprising to you about your findings?

Dr. Cheah: As I said just now, that's nothing super shocking, I'm sorry to disappoint you. So yeah, it's, like, kind of like opposite from what you talk about the teachers or students overuse or they are kind of like overreliant to it, but it seems like those teachers, they kind of more of a distancing themselves from there and they still can do a lot of meaningful educational activities with the students even without being overwhelmingly influenced by these advances in AI or technology.

So, this is also the conversation with one of the school leaders here in Idaho. So, we've been talking about like, do they have concerns about students being like overreliant on AI and what they have found, I mean, at least for their context across the semester, only one student has been so called “caught” using AI to submit their assignments. So, I think it's also like students because the way how they frame the curriculum and how they conduct the activity, so probably it's also not really a very, how should I say, even the student have like access to this type of technology in order to complete their assignments.

So yeah, there's something very unique that I found here, but I definitely, this is just some conversation that I have, unofficial, but I would definitely need to find out more about what actually is behind this kind of phenomena.

Leesa: So, your research touches on this tension between the desire to be involved so we can shape the development and use slash regulation of generative AI and resistance to using this technology in its current state due to some of the ethical and environmental issues tied to it. How do you navigate this in your own teaching?

Dr. Cheah: I really like how you framed the question, and it really circles back to the question about reliance on AI, I would say. Though challenging, I actually see it as an opportunity to think about what we are aiming for in the education. Instead of focusing on knowledge reproduction, can we decide learning activities that push students to wrestle with complex open ended problems? The areas where generative AI often fall short of. And can we support them in using AI meaningfully while still questioning what is doing and what it might miss?

So, with these questions in mind, I redesign my undergraduate instructional technology course for spring 2025 to integrate AI literacy elements. Overall, the course is actually aimed to equip pre-service teachers with essential digital skills and decision making competencies for K12 technology. So, in terms of AI, I go beyond just teaching what it is and how it works. We explore both its potentials and limitations, including ethical concerns. I also introduce prompt engineering skills and have students use generative AI to support their weekly learning tasks, evaluating what it creates and justify when and why they choose to use or not to use it.

Of course, I'm lucky that teaching instructional technology gives me a bit more flexibility to integrate these topics directly. But at the same time, I really believe these goals beyond just tech courses. I mean, the ultimate goal of education, at least for me, isn't just about helping students memorize facts or exams. It's about empowering them to apply knowledge in real-world contexts and reflect critically on their decisions. And that's especially important now when AI is quickly becoming a big part of our society, both in the workplace and in everyday life.

So, the tension you mentioned between wanting to engage with AI and also being a bit wary of it is something I think about a lot. For me, I try to navigate it by helping my students develop a reflective and critical approach to use these tools. It's definitely not about my adoption or banning AI entirely. It's more about supporting them, building the ability to make informed decisions like knowing when it makes sense to use AI tools, understanding its strengths and limitations and being able to critically evaluate what these tools are doing.

So, that's kind of what I've been approaching in my teaching. I'll say it's still early days and there's definitely a lot more to learn and figure out. But I do think this direction could empower students to become thoughtful and responsible users of these tools and not just taking AI outputs as they are.

Leesa: Yeah, definitely. That made me think of this idea of AI in a way challenging some problems that we've kind of already had in education a little bit, this idea of memorizing things to pass a test or learning how to do something and not really knowing why you're doing it.

Dr. Cheah: Exactly.

Leesa: Other than for a grade, like giving someone more of a critical thinking perspective on education at all levels, really.

Marco: Yeah, that is so interesting. Thank you for sharing that. One of the thoughts I have is I feel like you're perfectly positioned because of being an expert in instructional technology design. What you described there with your course and what you did for students, like that's so smart. I feel like that's exactly what all the disciplines need to be doing.

Dr. Cheah: Thank you for saying that.

Marco: Sort of building, what would people and truly, I really mean it. It's such a great description of helping people build literacy with a new technology. I guess I'm wondering, how do you advise colleagues who aren't instructional technology design experts? Maybe someone who's just in a discipline that hasn't had as much pedagogical instruction. Where should folks go to develop some of the skills or some of the thinking that you outlined there that you used in designing your course to make it more responsive for your students in the age of AI?

Dr. Cheah: Yeah, that's a difficult question. So, because I think understanding the nature of the subject matter it is really, really important because you're not going to use the same or apply the same strategies for different subjects. So, I think of course the course professors or instructors, they are really expert in their subject content knowledge. So, I think that would be super powerful for them to see, like, what's the connection between your own subject with AI?

For example, is it some underlying principles that share among, like, for example, math and AI? Right? So, and how can they, like, kind of design the course in order to integrate these two concepts together while having students learn math as well as the AI concepts at the same time? That's one example. And the others probably that will be, not like, very super clear, like, working principles that going on for some subjects, but probably they can try to apply some AI applications in supporting their students learning, right?

For example, in language learning, probably AI can be used and introduced at certain stages after students, like, kind of familiarize or have fundamental skills to understand what they should have the knowledge within that specific subject discipline and having AI to come in and probably to ask AI about creating a some kind of a short paragraph or an argument or an essay about certain topic and see comparing between, like, what the students they have come out earlier with what AI have produced with and they, this could, like, kind of facilitate a classroom discourse where teachers can use this opportunity to engage students with more deeper learning while at the same time also learn about what actually AI can do and their limitations?

Leesa: Yeah, that's actually exactly the type of assignment that I had while getting my Masters in Information. One of my professors said, "You have this assignment and you can either write the essay as you normally would or you can give the prompt to AI, but then I want you to interrogate every single thing that it gave you, the sources, et cetera." And honestly, I found it a really interesting and fun activity because I got started to figure out that, like, "Oh, it would use this name of this real author, but the actual paper that they're citing does not exist."

Dr. Cheah: Exactly.

Leesa: But it's similar to something that that author would have written, so it gets really close, but it did make me really think about, like, "Okay, is this argument that it's making really making sense and is it really supported by these sources that it supposedly pulled them from?" So, yeah, I did find that to be one of my favorite assignments that I had in school, so.

Dr. Cheah: And also, I just want to bring up a point as well in my technology courses. Actually, I have the students use conversation with ChatGPT in order to support their learning tasks, right? So, in that way, I also asked them, "What support did they, like, really get from the generative AI or ChatGPT?" So, I request them to submit the chat history. So, in that way, I can understand, like, "Okay, what actually support that they have been included in order to use in their weekly assignment?" And then, why they make this decision? And sometimes, they just rationalize, like, "Okay, I don't need this for my assignment," and they justify why. So, in that way, they also can see actually what ChatGPT can be an assistant in some areas, but not in others.

Marco: This is also innovative. I really love and respect what you're putting out here because I just think these are such innovative pedagogical techniques, right? Like, that example you gave about stats is, like, "Yes, you can use the tool just directly, but you can also use the tool to understand the content that's being taught." So, I just think it's such a great model and a great practice for people to be able to adopt. So, thank you for indulging in the brainstorming about that. I found that really, really interesting.

Dr. Cheah: Thank you for saying that. I mean, actually, I also learned a lot from different people and, like, learn from research, learn from some other people so that they really inspire me, yeah.

Leesa: So, what questions are you seeing from students when you present them with these assignments or when you're talking about them using AI in their teaching?

Dr. Cheah: So, since I redesigned my course to include AI literacy elements, I actually frame it as a research study, too. So, we collected data to explore how the course influences student thinking and the use of AI.

For example, we interviewed them about how they make decisions when using AI in professional contexts. Many of them are unsure about the boundaries. Like, what's considered plagiarism when AI is involved? But, at the same time, what really stood out to me and make me so proud was how some students talk about wanting to keep a strong sense of ownership and identity in their work. They don't want AI to change their voice or style, especially for things that felt personal or creative.

Another thing I noticed was around their prompt strategies. We did introduce some basic principles and skills and when we look at our students' chat histories, they were definitely starting to give more explicit instructions like referencing materials or tell the AI exactly what they wanted in the response. That was great to see. But, at the same time, there’s still room to grow.

Apparently, more support are needed in refining those prompts to get better or more relevant results. That's been really helpful feedback for me as I think how to improve that part of the course moving forward. And then, one really interesting insight came from both the surveys and interviews where students felt like they are gaining knowledge and confidence when using AI, which is a good thing. But they are also aware that, like, one student said, "Just because I know how to use it doesn't mean I know how to teach it."

As future educators, they want to feel equipped not only to use AI themselves, but also to help students use it ethically in ways that enhance learning rather than replace it. So that's something I need to build into the curriculum without losing focus on other important technical topics.

Marco: I really love this idea that you have or this practice that you have of having students submit their chat histories or the chat conversation. That is something I had never thought of and seems like a really fascinating opportunity for educators to actually see their thought process and what working with it has been like. Have you had any students object to that out of like privacy concerns or has anything like that come up with that?

Dr. Cheah: Yeah, I think how we communicate to them at the first place. I think that's very important. So, at the beginning of the semester, I talked to them about the change in this course and the rationale behind that and then also talk about, like, what they are going to provide because, as I say, I frame it as research and I also applied for IRB, and in that way, I also, kind of, invited them to participate[K.

Of course, not all of them because it's a voluntary action. So, some of them did and some of them don't. For those that don't, then we are not using those data from them for analysis. So, I think that will give an option for students to feel more comfortable in a way that is not like a mandatory approach, but is the way that I try to let them know why I want to conduct this kind of change in the course and how they can be helpful and also more importantly, how this can benefit their future like teaching in hiring them for that.

Leesa: There's been a lot of discussion lately about how AI use can negatively impact critical thinking. However, in your piece, you note that it might be used to promote students' higher order thinking. Can you speak more on that?

Dr. Cheah: That's a good question. I mean, yes, there's definitely concerns out there that AI might weaken students' critical thinking like if it's going to do all the works for them or are they really thinking deeply anymore, but I really actually push back a little bit and say it depends on how we are using it.

To continue on what I was saying earlier, about students' prompting strategies, what we found was that students were actually getting pretty good at making their prompts more explicit. Like, they were providing contexts telling the AI what kinds of output they wanted when it got a little bit more challenging source to evaluate the AI's response. That part requires them to really think about the quality of the output. Like, is it accurate? Is it relevant or does it actually make sense for the task?

And that's where I think the real learning happens. It's not just about typing in a question and hoping for a decent answer. It's about thinking critically, how you ask, what you are asking and what you do with the response. That kind of thinking taps into so many important skills. For example, like literacy, method connection, reflexivity, so on and so forth. All the things we want students to build.

So, if you are intentional about how we support students to use AI in the classroom, it can absolutely become a tool to support critical thinking and not replace it. And I think this also ties into how we think about technology more broadly. Sometimes we fall into this trap of seeing tech, including AI as this magical solution. Like, just plug in and boom, better learning, right?

But really, the impact of any technology comes from how it's integrated into the learning environment. It's not just a tool. It's about the pedagogy, the context, the way people interact with it. For example, if we just throw AI at students and say, hey, use this to write an essay. Yeah, maybe it could lead to overreliance. But if we design activities that prepare them with the right foundational literacy skills first and then have them critique AI outputs, reflect on their own ideas or explore alternative perspective, we are actually encouraging higher order thinking.

So, for me, the key is really about designing learning tasks that go beyond simple knowledge reproduction and instead using AI as a scaffold for deeper thinking.

Marco: Yeah, thank you for sharing that. I think that is really relevant and really inspiring for educators, but also for librarians. It's sort of a depressing moment right now in terms of information literacy. There's been so much change and so much skepticism for some about information authority and information sources, and so, it's really inspiring to hear your ideas and your praxis and to think about how this is an opportunity to go deeper into improving students information literacy and not a time to sort of throw out the baby with the sink.

You know, and say, oh, everything's changed too much and it's too late and they're just all going to use ChatGPT to actually say, like, yeah, let's assume they're going to use ChatGPT and let's encourage that deeper critical thinking.

Also, just what you said too about seeing their prompts and proofs makes me think in the parlance of librarianship, like the reference interview. So much of that is learning how to ask the right questions of folks so that they can actually get to their information query and get the information that they need. And that's really also what a similar skill set to what people who are using AI need to learn too. So, I think what you've said here is just super inspiring for me as an education librarian and I think very relevant for librarians as a whole. So, thank you for sharing that's very inspiring.

Leesa: So, your article outlines the need for research practice partnerships to co-create and textually relevant AI supported instruction and resources. Do you see any opportunities for the University of Idaho to facilitate such partnerships or develop open educational resources to support this type of work?

Dr. Cheah: Definitely. So, one of the big takeaways from my study was just how important it is to work with teachers, not just to design tools or resources for them. That's where the idea of research practice partnerships really comes in for creating things that actually make sense for their specific classrooms and communities. So, at the U of I, I do think there's a lot of potential to build those kind of partnerships. We are a land grant university and that mission of serving our state, especially rural and underserved communities, really fits with this kind of work.

For example, our College of Education, Health and Human Sciences recently received like $35,000 from the Idaho School Board of Education, the Launch AI Educator Preparation Initiative. We also did a leverage that initiative as a starting point in fostering college-wide collaboration and it really shows what's possible when we come together around a shared goal.

So, building on that momentum, I look forward to seeing more collaboration between faculty, K-12 educators and even local communities, especially around creating open educational resources that support meaningful and responsible AI integration. I think we can play a really active role in that space, not just producing research but also translating it into usable context-specific tools for practice.

Marco: Yeah, I was just going to say it'd be so cool to see a pressbook for educators, “How to Use AI in the Classroom: K-12.” So, just brainstorming about cool ideas of the things that we could create because I definitely think you're on to something here and have so many good ideas.

Leesa: Yeah, I don't know if you've ever seen our Pressbooks instance but it's essentially just like an e-book that's in like a website format so it lends itself very well to creating tools like that, especially ones that you want to use and spread out to other universities or other schools or really anywhere. So, keep us in mind if you have anything.

Dr. Cheah: Oh sure, I think that's a good start too. Yeah, let's talk about it later.

Leesa: Okay, so now we'll move into some questions on your open access publishing experience. Why did you choose to publish via open access?

Dr. Cheah: Honestly, it kind of happened by accident. I wasn't specifically aiming for open access at first but as a tenure-track faculty, there's definitely pressure to publish in strong journals and meet annual evaluation expectations. I still remember we had just wrapped up our manuscript around July 2024 and we are looking for educational technology journals that struck a good balance between quality and a reasonable review timeline hoping to get accepted by the end of the year.

That's when I came across Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence journals. It was a great fit for our topic but I realized it was an open access journal which means that there was a publishing fee involved. At first, that gave me a bit of pause but then one of my colleagues told me about U of I’s open access publishing fund. So, I reached out to Leesa to learn more about it and once our manuscript was accepted, I went ahead and applied for it.

We were lucky enough to get the funding approved. Since it's awarded on a first come first serve basis during the fall and spring funding periods which make it possible for us to move forward with publishing open access. So yeah, it wasn't a super deliberate choice at first but I'm really glad it worked out that way.

Leesa: Yeah, we found a little bit of that tension on campus in certain departments where it's like, well, our top journals aren't open access so those aren't really the ones that we're choosing. So, it makes perfect sense that it wouldn't be necessarily a deliberate decision but sort of more just happenstance because your journal, your top journals happen to be open access.

Marco: Yeah, I'll just say, you know, in the research we often see that one of the benefits of open access publishing is more citations and since I'm on Zoom and joining virtually, I take the liberty of pulling up your Google Scholar profile and this article already has 14 citations and it was just published this year.

So, it's I think it's such a lucky sort of happenstance that this particular article that's so on topic and so relevant to things happening is in the open access journal and that means more people get to see it faster and you know, you've got this incredible number of citations for something that was literally just published a few months ago. So, I'm really seeing some of the benefits of open access and lucky that it worked out that way for this one, I think.

Dr. Cheah: Yeah, that's my experience too.

Leesa: Yeah, and it would be really great to grow the fund, of course, like it's unfortunate that it is so limited and we can't fund more articles that we want, like, you know, funding is always an issue. So, and, and APCs of course are a very hot topic in open access in general right now. So hopefully we can find some kind of a solution to that other than, you know, just funds like this.

Marco: Maybe the Open Invitation podcast will help departments set aside some extra funding for their scholars to have more article processing charges covered. That could be a good outcome for us.

Dr. Cheah: That's a good idea, yeah.

Leesa: Yeah. So, I guess this question kind of gets into what you already answered, but just in case you had any additional things to say on your experience open access versus traditional publishing, did you find any other differences other than obviously the APC?

Dr. Cheah: I would say overall my experience going the open access route was actually pretty positive, but it definitely felt a bit different from the traditional publishing process. For one thing, with open access journals like Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence in our case, there was more transparency and efficiency around the review timeline, which I really appreciated. We were hoping to get something accepted within the year or at least the latest early next year, which is 2025. So, that kind of clarity was really important to us.

The biggest difference of course is the publishing fee. That's not something you usually deal with in traditional journals. So, the open access publishing fund at U of I really helped make it possible. And we are super grateful for that support. And I have to say, one of the best part of publishing open access was knowing that our work would be immediately and freely accessible to educators, researchers and even practitioners around the world, no paywalls.

That felt really meaningful, especially for the kind of work we are doing in education, where promoting knowledge sharing and broader societal engagement with the topic is a big deal. There are probably other factors too, but from my limited experience, I noticed that open access really helped with visibility and citations.

For example, I had two AI related articles, one published in an open access journal and the other in a traditional one. They got accepted around the same time. But the open access article has about three times or more citations so far. So yeah, overall, it was a bit of learning experience for me, but I would definitely consider going the open access route again, especially if there's support to help with the publishing fees.

Leesa: You couldn't pay for a better advertisement of open access when you have that kind of a comparison. That's pretty amazing. Given that, what would you say to other scholars who are weighing whether or not to publish open access given that they have to deal with these APCs and applying for extra funding and stuff?

Dr. Cheah: So, I would say if you are hoping to get your work out to a broader audience, especially educators, practitioners or scholars who may not have access to paywall journals, then open access can be a great option. I've heard from people who came across our paper because it was freely available, and that kind of visibility is hard to get. Indirectly, this will also help to promote the visibility of the U of I's research, innovations, scholarship and creative works.

Of course, there's the publishing fee to think about, which can definitely be a barrier. But with support from the U of I's open access publishing fund, I would say, don't rule out open access just because of the cost. Think about who you want your research to reach. If accessibility and broad impact are important to you, then open access is definitely worth considering.

Leesa: Awesome. Well, thank you again for being here and entertaining our little experiment that we've got going on here.

Dr. Cheah: You're most welcome. I mean, some questions that I never really think through before that, but when you all kind of prompt to me or ask it, it really makes me try to go through what actually that means about AI and education. So, thank you all for the questions.

Marco: This is so great. Thank you so much. I had such a good time doing this, and it was a treat reading your article, and I feel like I learned even more chatting through with you now. So, thank you for meeting with us, and please keep up the great work.

Dr. Cheah: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

Outro music:

Leesa: Thanks for tuning in to our first season of Open Invitation. Please check out the show notes for links to the articles we discussed, as well as the Open Access Publishing Fund. If you'd like to know more about U of I Library's Publishing Support or have a question about open access you'd like us to answer on future episodes, fill out the contact form on our website.

Open Invitation is produced and edited by me, Leesa Love. Music is by YellowTree and Skibka Music. This work was made possible by the University of Idaho Library, and was recorded in the U of I Library Studio. Book the studio for your own audio project by visiting lib.uidaho.edu/studio. See you at the library!

Outro music: