EducatorsNCT07866456
Assessing the Impact of AI Chatbots on Teaching Preparation, Content Quality
A study testing Teaching preparation in people with Educators, run by October 6 University at 1 site in Egypt.
Trial summary
The education sector is no behind as the intelligentsia of AI enthusiasts march in their fortress of innovation. Generative AI, a sort of AI, is what is called the generated personalized learning content, which movable is according to the student's needs and level. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 23 to 60 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Educators
- What is being tested?
- Teaching preparation
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 100 participants
- Where
- 1 siteEgypt
- Study dates
- 10 Jan 2026to 20 Jun 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 23 to 60 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Physical therapy academic staff ranging from demonstrators up to full professors.
- Aged between 25-60 years.
- National academic staff.
- Willing to participate voluntarily in the study, with informed consent.
Who cannot join
- Any academic staff outside the mentioned age range (25-60).
- Academic staff who has administrative roles only without involvement in teaching.
- Academic staff who did not complete the questionnaire.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Assessing the Impact of AI Chatbots on Teaching Preparation, Content Quality, and Faculty Workload in Physical Therapy Education
The education sector is no behind as the intelligentsia of AI enthusiasts march in their fortress of innovation. Generative AI, a sort of AI, is what is called the generated personalized learning content, which movable is according to the student's needs and level. Demonstration on that analyzing data of students, for instance, learning style, performance reviews and the engagement level, generative AI will be empowered to personalize learning materials in accordance with the individual student' strengths and learning habits. The offering of adaptive AI for individualized learning keeps one remarkable benefit that pupils will be able to manage and comprehend the content provided with appropriate difficulty according to the performance of learners
- Conditions
- Educators
- Being tested
- Teaching preparation
- Keywords
- Teaching preprationn, Faculty workload
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Teaching preparationOther
Teaching preparation (Time-Based Measures, Quality Process Measures, Preparedness Indicators)
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Artificial intelligence | Experimental | Professor who can use ChatGPT Receives: Other: Teaching preparation |
| Traditional use | Experimental | Professor who cannot use ChatGpt Receives: Other: Teaching preparation |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Self-reported time spent on teaching preparation, in hours per week
Participants report, on one numeric questionnaire item, the average number of hours per week they spent preparing teaching during the current academic semester. Teaching preparation is defined as planning lectures and practical sessions, developing slides and handouts, and writing assessments. Data will be reported as mean hours per week and compared between participants who use artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots for teaching preparation at least weekly and those who do not. Lower values indicate less time spent on preparation.
Measured: Day 1 (single cross-sectional survey completed at enrollment; recall period is the current academic semester)
Teaching self-efficacy as assessed by the Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) short form mean score
The Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale short form measures how capable a teacher feels in instructional strategies, student engagement and classroom management. It has 12 items (4 per subscale). Each item is rated on a 9-point scale from 1 (nothing) to 9 (a great deal). The total score is the mean of the 12 items. Possible scores range from 1 to 9, with higher scores indicating greater teaching self-efficacy (a better outcome).
Measured: Day 1 (single cross-sectional survey completed at enrollment)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted8 Oct 2026
- Study start10 Jan 2026
- Primary completion28 Apr 2026
- Study completion20 Jun 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for EducatorsStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- October 6 University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Kerolous Ishak Shehata, October 6 University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07866456
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IRB#13\7\2025-2026
- Status last verified
- Oct 2026
- First submitted
- 28 Jul 2026
- Last updated
- 8 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 8 Oct 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Assessing the Impact of AI Chatbots on Teaching Preparation, Content Quality, and Faculty Workload in Physical Therapy Education
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07866456
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IRB#13\7\2025-2026
- Conditions
- Educators
- Keywords
- Teaching preprationn, Faculty workload
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- October 6 UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 10 Jan 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 28 Apr 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 20 Jun 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 8 Oct 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The education sector is no behind as the intelligentsia of AI enthusiasts march in their fortress of innovation. Generative AI, a sort of AI, is what is called the generated personalized learning content, which movable is according to the student's needs and level. Demonstration on that analyzing data of students, for instance, learning style, performance reviews and the engagement level, generative AI will be empowered to personalize learning materials in accordance with the individual student' strengths and learning habits. The offering of adaptive AI for individualized learning keeps one remarkable benefit that pupils will be able to manage and comprehend the content provided with appropriate difficulty according to the performance of learners
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Artificial intelligence | Experimental | Other: Teaching preparationProfessor who can use ChatGPT |
| Traditional use | Experimental | Other: Teaching preparationProfessor who cannot use ChatGpt |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 23 to 60 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Physical therapy academic staff ranging from demonstrators up to full professors.
- Aged between 25-60 years.
- National academic staff.
- Willing to participate voluntarily in the study, with informed consent.
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Any academic staff outside the mentioned age range (25-60).
- Academic staff who has administrative roles only without involvement in teaching.
- Academic staff who did not complete the questionnaire.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Teaching preparationTeaching preparation (Time-Based Measures, Quality Process Measures, Preparedness Indicators) | Other | Artificial intelligence, Traditional use |
Primary outcome
Self-reported time spent on teaching preparation, in hours per week
Time frame: Day 1 (single cross-sectional survey completed at enrollment; recall period is the current academic semester)
Participants report, on one numeric questionnaire item, the average number of hours per week they spent preparing teaching during the current academic semester. Teaching preparation is defined as planning lectures and practical sessions, developing slides and handouts, and writing assessments. Data will be reported as mean hours per week and compared between participants who use artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots for teaching preparation at least weekly and those who do not. Lower values indicate less time spent on preparation.
Teaching self-efficacy as assessed by the Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) short form mean score
Time frame: Day 1 (single cross-sectional survey completed at enrollment)
The Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale short form measures how capable a teacher feels in instructional strategies, student engagement and classroom management. It has 12 items (4 per subscale). Each item is rated on a 9-point scale from 1 (nothing) to 9 (a great deal). The total score is the mean of the 12 items. Possible scores range from 1 to 9, with higher scores indicating greater teaching self-efficacy (a better outcome).
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 8 Oct 2026.
Related trials for Educators
RecruitingObservational study
A Multilevel Approach to Connecting Underrepresented Populations to Clinical Trials
Cancer
Active, not recruitingPhase 3
Clinical Application of Stem Cell Educator Therapy in Type 1 Diabetes
Type 1 Diabetes
Active, not recruiting
Parent-Educator Action Response
Attention Deficit and Disruptive Behavior Disorders
Recruiting
Scaling Effective Behavioral Interventions With MPC Avatar-Based Virtual Training
Education, Sex
Active, not recruiting
Doulas as Environmental Educators and Partners Study
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Teaching preparation in people with Educators, run by October 6 University at 1 site in Egypt.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 8 Oct 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Egypt. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Self-reported time spent on teaching preparation, in hours per week (time frame: Day 1 (single cross-sectional survey completed at enrollment; recall period is the current academic semester)). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 8 Oct 2026.