Agentic AI as a Digital Mentor for Student Teachers: A Quantitative Study on Internship Management and Teaching Readiness

Authors

  • Praveen Kumar T D Department of Education, Doctor Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar, Inida
  • Sarita Soy Faculty of Education, Waymade College of Education, Charutar Vidya Mandal (CVM) University, Anand, Gujarat, India
  • Kalyani K Department of Education, Bangalore University, Jnanabharathi Mysore Rd, Jnana Bharathi, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
  • Roopa A N Kittur Rani Chennamma Residential School, Doddaballabpur, Bengaluru, India
  • Rama Kant Department of Education, Doctor Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar, India
  • Sandeep Kumar Pathak Department of Education, Doctor Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar, MP, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63671/ijsssr.v4i2.646

Keywords:

Agentic AI, digital mentor, student teachers, internship management, teaching readiness, pedagogical competence, teacher education

Abstract

This study examined the role of agentic artificial intelligence as a digital mentoring support system for student teachers in managing academic, pedagogical, and reflective tasks related to their internships. The study was a quantitative survey of 180 B.Ed. student teachers. and the Integrated Teacher Education Programme. The study used the Agentic AI Usage Scale, Internship Management Readiness Scale, and Teaching Readiness Scale. Experts validated the tools; Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .88, .91, and .89, respectively, indicating satisfactory reliability.
The findings indicated that Agentic AI usage (M = 3.72, SD = 0.61), internship management readiness (M = 3.84, SD = 0.58), and teaching readiness (M = 3.79, SD = 0.60) among student teachers were of moderate to high levels. Pearson's correlation analysis found a significant positive correlation between Agentic AI usage and internship management readiness (r = .64, p < .001). Pearson's correlation analysis also showed a significant positive correlation between Agentic AI usage and teaching readiness (r = .68, p < .001). Internship management was also strongly correlated with teaching readiness (r = .71, p < .001). Agentic AI usage was seen to predict teaching readiness among student teachers to a moderate to high degree with F(1, 178) = 151.42, p < .001, at the rate of approximately 46%, with Agentic AI usage (R^2=.46) leading to higher teaching readiness among students on the basis of a regression analysis with (β =.68, t = 12.30, p < .001) as the coefficient of regression of this study.
The results indicated that student teachers with a high level of AI agent use reported better task planning during the internship, prepared lesson plans in advance, wrote better reflective reports, and were more confident in handling lessons than those with a low level of AI agent use. ANOVA showed that high, moderate, and low use differed, F (2, 177) = 34.86, p < .001. Post hoc comparisons showed that high-scoring students differed from moderate- and low-scoring students. The research concluded that an AI agent would support task management, reflective writing practice, and improved pedagogical practices and lesson plans, leading to better teaching practices, and could serve as a digital mentor. The study concluded that teacher education curricula should incorporate structured support for task management, reflective practice, and improved pedagogies and lesson plans through an AI-based support system to meet future challenges and strengthen practice and professional preparation

References

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285962 (Sage Journals)

Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., . . . Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 (DOI)

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.2190/0EW7-01WB-BKHL-QDYV (DOI)

Korthagen, F. A. J. (2010). Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education: Towards an integrative view of teacher behavior and teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(1), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.05.001 (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

Kuhail, M. A., Alturki, N., Alramlawi, S., & Alhejori, K. (2023). Interacting with educational chatbots: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 973–1018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11177-3 (Springer)

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x (DOI)

Okonkwo, C. W., & Ade-Ibijola, A. (2021). Chatbots applications in education: A systematic review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100033 (ScienceDirect)

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. (milwaukee.countycat.mcfls.org)

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004 (DOI)

Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009 (ScienceDirect)

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0 (DOI)

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15430421TIP4102_2 (Taylor & Francis Online)

Vol 4 No 2

Downloads

Published

2026-09-13

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 2: July-September 2026

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Science and Social Science Research

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

T D, P. K., Soy, S., K, K., A N, R., Kant, R., & Pathak, S. K. (2026). Agentic AI as a Digital Mentor for Student Teachers: A Quantitative Study on Internship Management and Teaching Readiness. International Journal of Science and Social Science Research, 4(2), 160-172. https://doi.org/10.63671/ijsssr.v4i2.646

Similar Articles

31-40 of 294

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.