The research team, from the Faculty of Instructional Technologies at HIT Holon Institute of Technology, led by Prof. Gila Kurtz (Dean of the Faculty), Dr. Meital Amzalag, and Rina Polonsky, together with Prof. Yair Amichai-Hamburger of Reichman University and Prof. Orit Avidov-Ungar of Achva Academic College, points to an asymmetry in the nature of teachers’ concerns: while teachers are not worried about job loss (average concern score: 2.0 on a 5-point scale), they are significantly concerned about the value-based and ethical implications of using the technology.
The highest-ranked concern relates to developing deep emotional attachment to the technology (3.4), followed by concern over manipulation by generative AI tools (3.3) and the social risk stemming from the concentration of control over the technology in the hands of a few (3.1).
The study’s findings point to a real danger of deepening inequality: schools in higher socioeconomic areas are outpacing schools in lower socioeconomic areas – both in infrastructure (internet, devices, support) and, notably, in the pedagogical-organizational dimension (encouragement of lead teachers, knowledge-sharing, collaboration). Teachers in schools in lower socioeconomic areas feel pressure: they are expected to implement new technology, uphold values, and create equal opportunities – all while carrying heavy workloads, limited resources, and insufficient training. As one principal explained: “If the Ministry of Education really wants to bring this in, it needs to budget for it, build it into clear regulation, and not leave it solely in teachers’ hands. It’s too much to carry.”
The researchers conclude that the question of equity in the age of generative AI is not necessarily about who has access to the technology, but about who knows how to turn it into educational value. One such value is Epistemic Agency – shifting the learner’s role from a passive consumer of information to an active, curious creator of personal knowledge. In this model, the learner uses generative AI not as a substitute for thinking, but as a dialogic tool that invites critical thinking – enabling them to question, evaluate evidence, construct well-reasoned justifications, and ultimately turn the technology into a lever for personal and professional growth.
The emerging gap is not merely one of infrastructure, but first and foremost a gap in knowledge, training, and systemic support. Moreover, the findings place policymakers at a critical crossroads: leaving the field to market forces will translate generative AI gaps into deep educational disparities and entrench a two-tiered education system. Systemic, differential intervention -one that invests more precisely in those who start from a lower baseline – is what will determine whether the technology becomes an engine that deepens gaps or a force that equalizes opportunity.
About half of the master’s students in the Faculty of Learning Technologies are practicing teachers, and the vast majority choose to specialize in applying generative AI to organizational learning. Upon completing their studies and returning to the education field, they arrive equipped with practical experience and a deep understanding of how to integrate the technology thoughtfully, critically, and responsibly – for the benefit of learners and the education system.
