In the era of exponential technology growth, one unexpected guest has claimed a seat in classrooms worldwide, Artificial Intelligence. Generative AI, such as ChatGPT, promises a revolution in education, yet it arrives with a double-edged sword. Its potential for personalized learning is offset by issues of cheating, inaccuracies, and educators struggling to incorporate it effectively into their lesson design. We are standing on the brink of this educational frontier, and it is clear that we need to navigate this terrain with a lot of care. This is a major challenge that could undermine the integrity and value of our educational process. So, how can we turn these challenges into opportunities? When used inappropriately, AI tools can become the perfect tool for the cut copy paste mentality, and quickly begin to corrode critical thinking, creativity, and deep understanding, the most important skills in our rapidly changing world. Teachers feel that they are not equipped to leverage this technology, widening the digital divide among educators and institutions. Addressing these concerns calls for an in depth research approach. We will employ empirical research, drawing on the Technology Acceptance Model, to assess the attitudes toward generative AI among educators and students. Understanding their perceptions, usage patterns, and hurdles is the first crucial step in creating an effective solution. The present study will be used as a process manual for future researchers to apply, running their own data, based on the steps explained here

Likert items and scales are often used in human subject studies to measure subjective responses of subjects to the treatment levels. In the field of human-robot interaction (HRI), with few widely accepted quantitative metrics, researchers often rely on Likert items and scales to evaluate their systems. However, there is a debate on what is the best statistical method to evaluate the differences between experimental treatments based on Likert item or scale responses. Likert responses are ordinal and not interval, meaning, the differences between consecutive responses to a Likert item are not equally spaced quantitatively. Hence, parametric tests like t-test, which require interval and normally distributed data, are often claimed to be statistically unsound in evaluating Likert response data. The statistical purist would use non-parametric tests, such as the Mann-Whitney U test, to evaluate the differences in ordinal datasets; however, non-parametric tests sacrifice the sensitivity in detecting differences a more conservative specificity -- or false positive rate. Finally, it is common practice in the field of HRI to sum up similar individual Likert items to form a Likert scale and use the t-test or ANOVA on the scale seeking the refuge of the central limit theorem. In this paper, we empirically evaluate the validity of the t-test vs. the Mann-Whitney U test for Likert items and scales. We conduct our investigation via Monte Carlo simulation to quantify sensitivity and specificity of the tests.