Interviews with 10 virtual elementary teachers show generative AI brings efficiency and instructional gains, but requires weighing misinformation, privacy, and ethics

The study derives four themes—efficiency, preservation of the teacher role, instructional enhancement, and AI literacy—to capture virtual elementary teachers' lived experiences of integrating generative AI. Where much discussion starts from policy or technical feasibility, this study places the unit of analysis on virtual elementary teachers' own lived experience and offers a theme structure grounded in their statements. A qualitative phenomenological design with semi-structured interviews of 10 virtual teachers of kindergarten through fifth grade, analyzed systematically following Creswell and Poth's (2018) data analysis spiral to determine themes from significant participant statements.

Teachers do not simply accept or reject generative AI; they continuously balance the positive elements of efficiency and enhanced instructional quality against misinformation, privacy protection, ethical concerns, and misuse. It frames the value of generative AI in the classroom as a two-sided structure requiring balance rather than a simple adoption question. Themes emerged from significant participant statements, and the abstract summarizes this tension as teachers 'consistently balancing' these aspects, which is qualitative evidence at the level of participant experience.

Teachers view generative AI as a dynamic tool whose value depends on thoughtful, informed, and human-centered application. It shifts the discussion from the tool itself toward how it is used and the role of human judgment, offering experiential grounding for the teacher's role in an AI environment. This conclusion is synthesized from the four themes, and the abstract states explicitly that 'its value depends on thoughtful, informed, and human-centered application.'

The study focuses on virtual teachers of kindergarten through fifth grade at a large elementary virtual school, using purposive sampling because participants in that virtual school program provided relevant, experience-based insights and allowed the researcher practical, feasible access (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Its findings are therefore meant for teacher educators, school administrators, and researchers who want to understand how virtual elementary teachers perceive generative AI integration, and for designing teacher support, AI literacy training, and human-centered usage norms. The abstract also notes that future research could expand the participant population and focus on early adopters and the longitudinal implications of generative AI use.

The abstract does not present specific quotations, coding-process details, or the interview protocol, so the distribution and strength of each theme across the 10 participants cannot be judged; the concrete forms of misinformation, privacy protection, ethical concerns, and misuse in teachers' experience also remain to be described in the full text. In addition, the abstract notes that future research could expand the participant population and examine early adopters and longitudinal implications, indicating that the time span and population scope of the current findings remain open questions.