The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Enhancing teacher AI literacy and integration through different types of cases in teacher professional development
Open accessAbstract
Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into teaching practices is increasingly vital for preparing students for a technology-centric future. This study examined the influence of a case-based AI professional development (PD) program on AI integration strategies and AI literacy among seven middle school science teachers. Employing three distinct case problems, from well-structured to ill-structured, the AI PD program aimed to stimulate teachers’ reflection on AI literacy development and encourage the construction of problem-solving and AI integration strategies within various pedagogical contexts. Analysis of video-recorded case discussions revealed that teachers primarily drew on personal experiences for collaborative problem-solving across the three cases. However, the complexity of the case problems influenced their approach to knowledge co-construction, and dealing with ill-structured problems promoted the application of new knowledge. Through analyzing the survey data, we found a marked increase in teachers’ AI literacy, particularly in the domain of knowing and understanding AI, suggesting a pivotal role for direct instruction that supports AI literacy growth. However, their application of this AI knowledge was limited during the case discussions, while other domains of teacher AI literacy were more frequently employed. The findings highlight the importance of combining direct instruction with case-based discussions in AI-related PD programs to bolster teacher AI literacy effectively. The research has implications for using a case-based learning approach during short-term PD initiatives and advocates the ongoing need for comprehensive AI literacy development to facilitate teachers’ AI integration in subject-specific teaching.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Other studies have also suggested that gen-AI can help boost self-efficacy for PSTs by providing them with tools that allow for a more tailored and responsive learning experience (Ayanwale et al., 2024; A.-C. E. Ding et al., 2024; Samarescu et al., 2024; Sanusi et al., 2024).”
From Mentorship in the Age of Generative AI: ChatGPT to Support Self-Regulated Learning of Pre-Service Teachers Before and During Placements (2025) · cites this paper as A.-C. E. Ding et al., 2024
In the citing paper
“The integration of gen-AI tools in WIL placements tangentially supports the development of SRL by enabling PSTs to independently navigate teaching challenges while also drawing on technological enhancements, in part confirming the findings of J. Ding et al. (2022) and A.-C. E. Ding et al. (2024).”
From Mentorship in the Age of Generative AI: ChatGPT to Support Self-Regulated Learning of Pre-Service Teachers Before and During Placements (2025) · cites this paper as A.-C. E. Ding et al. (2024)
Citations
Cites
Case study research: design and methods
Phelan, S. (2011) · Evaluation & Research in Education · doi:10.1080/09500790.2011.582317 · Cited by 21,904
Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic
McHugh, M. L. (2012) · Biochemia Medica · doi:10.11613/bm.2012.031 · Cited by 19,877
What is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations
Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376727 · Cited by 3,241
Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions
Savery, J. R. (2006) · Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning · doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1002 · Cited by 2,686
Teacher Technology Change: How Knowledge, Confidence, Beliefs, and Culture Intersect
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010) · Journal of Research on Technology in Education · doi:10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551 · Cited by 2,556
Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review
Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041 · Cited by 2,205
Toward a design theory of problem solving
Jonassen, D. H. (2000) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/bf02300500 · Cited by 2,114
Signature pedagogies in the professions
Shulman, L. S. (2005) · Daedalus · doi:10.1162/0011526054622015 · Cited by 2,036
Artificial intelligence in higher education: the state of the field
Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8 · Cited by 2,010
Qualitative research: deductive and inductive approaches to data analysis
Azungah, T. (2018) · Qualitative Research Journal · doi:10.1108/qrj-d-18-00035 · Cited by 1,262
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Shi, 2024, A systematic review on artificial intelligence in supporting teaching practice: application types, pedagogical roles, and technological characteristics
- Latif, E., G. Mai, M. Nyaaba, X. Wu, N. Liu, G. Lu, S. Li, T. Liu, and X. Zhai. (2023). Artificial general intelligence (AGI) for education. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12479. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–228 of 228
Sherly, E., & Gopinathan.N, R. (2026) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1016805
Dalyanci, A. A., Çelik, İ., Kontkanen, S., Laru, J., & Siklander, P. (2026) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331261479569 · Cited by 2
“Such learning activities can help pre-service teachers critically examine diverse perspectives, justify instructional decisions, and reflect on ethical responsibilities related to GenAI integration (Ding et al., 2024; Sahin, 2012).”
Artificial Intelligence as a Learning Tool and Teachers as Validators
Mustofa, M., Kartika, M., Hidayat, S. W., & Mahsar, R. (2026) · Journal of Educational Technology Innovation and Applications · doi:10.56741/iistr.jetia.002275
Yang, J., Wang, H., Chen, M., Chen, X., Wang, J., & Wang, C. (2026) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2026.2713873
Teacher Readiness‐By‐Design for AI ‐Rich Interactive Learning
Charles, T. (2026) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1002/jcal.70316
Liang, S., & Zhang, E. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2723641
Yan, J., Wei, X., & Wu, J. (2026) · Educational Policy · doi:10.1177/08959048261481543
Artificial Intelligence and the Loss of the ‘Writing Struggle’: Is Struggle Essential to Learning?
Desai, H. (2026) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-80686-243-620261003
Üztemur, S., Avcı, G., Gökalp, A., & Değirmenci, N. (2026) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440261486100
Adewale, S., Orunbon, N. O., & Adeleke, A. A. (2026) · International Journal of Educational Management · doi:10.1108/ijem-08-2025-0644
Hernandez, J. F. P., Chiappe, A., & González, E. O. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1949296
“…with an explicit ethics dimension, while studies of AI literacy and teacher professional development similarly emphasise critical evaluation, situated use, collaboration, self-reflection and practice-based preparation (Chiu et al., 2024; Ding et al., 2024; Sperling et al., 2024; Tan et al., 2025).”
Baoyi, W., & Khan, F. U. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1881032
“AI-based technologies help with practicing low-anxiety responses and becoming more fluent, but they also enable so-called conversational ventriloquism, in which students can have their answers generated by AI in real time (Ding et al., 2024).”
Abdullah, N. A. B., Mustafa, Z., Akhma, R. N., Asilin, M. F., Alam, M. N., & Samsudin, S. (2026) · Canadian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education · doi:10.1007/s42330-026-00522-0
“These technologies include artificial intelligence (Ding et al., 2024), e-tutoring systems (Gobert et al., 2015; Nakamura et al., 2016), interactive simulations and virtual laboratories (Wörner, Kuhn & Scheiter, 2022; Durkaya, 2023), machine learning for assessment (Zhai, et al., 2020), and data…”
Petjärv, B., Retšnoi, V., Uukkivi, A., Vilms, M., Tuisk, K., Safiulina, E., & Labanova, O. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-39103-2_6
Green‐Eneix, C. A., & Kohnke, L. (2026) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.70384
Hochberg, N., & Waitzman, R. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1905833
Ahmed, A., & Alreiahy, S. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1949575
AI-Assisted Instructional Design Studios for Literacy and UDL in School-University Partnerships
Cosgriff, J. C., Martin, T., & Stultz, S. L. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-9519-7.ch001
Professional Development for Artificial Intelligence Integration
Yan, Y., & Zou, Y. (2026) · Journal of Global Information Management · doi:10.4018/jgim.424023
Educación científica: Preguntar, investigar y decidir con evidencia
Castillo, V. S., & Guerrero, E. J. C. (2026) · doi:10.62486/978-9915-9928-4-6.ch01
Designing a pipeline linking professional development to AI-supported instructional practice
Kim, A. (2026) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2026.105764
Alkhateeb, N. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2740885
Meyne, L., & Peters, S. (2026) · VETNET Conference Series · doi:10.21240/vetcon/2026/ecer/66
司乃文, & (韩映雄), Y. H. (2026) · ECNU Review of Education · doi:10.1177/20965311261495142 · Cited by 1
Sánchez, D. T. P., & Uribe-Arengas, J. J. (2026) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-026-02316-w
“While AI is frequently positioned as a support for instructional practice, researchers increasingly stress the importance of teacher agency, professional judgment, pedagogical alignment, and sustained professional development [19, 31, 42].”
Abedi, F. Y., & Kuzu, A. (2026) · International Journal of Current Approaches in Language Education and Social Sciences · doi:10.35452/caless.1941359
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AWARENESS AND AI-TPACK AMONG SCIENCE TEACHERS IN TÜRKİYE
Satmaz, İ. (2026) · Journal of Baltic Science Education · doi:10.33225/jbse/26.25.884
Tavares, V. (2026) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.70393
Metadata
- Authors
- Ding, A.-C. E., Shi, L., Yang, H., & Choi, I.
- Affiliations
- University of Georgia (US)
- Emory University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ding, Ai-Chu Elisha
- Venue
- Computers and Education Open
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-06
- Volume
- 6
- Pages
- 100178
- ISSN
- 2666-5573 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4394680566
- Cited by
- 228
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 103 · 2025: 105 · 2024: 20
- FWCI
- 85.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- Locations
- Computers and Education Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Digital literacy in education
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
- Keywords
- teacher AI literacy, AI in teaching, middle school science teachers, knowledge co-construction, collaborative problem solving, direct instruction, teacher reflection, AI integration strategies
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review